All eyes will be on Japan this summer to see how they make it work nuke power-free, the first time in more than 40 years! If all goes well, could it prove just the beacon of hope we need to model the same?

In an inspiring move that could help change the game of nuclear power, Japan has shut down its last nuclear power plant. Though not considered any official declaration that nuclear power is a done deal in Japan, opponents of the move are concerned it could prove what many of us already know – we simply don’t need it.

The last Japanese nuclear power plant to shut down is one of 54 throughout the country – a domino-effect of shutdowns in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year. The earthquake and tsunami to follow compromised three of four reactors at the Fukushima plant, resulting in the largest nuclear radiation disaster since Chernobyl.

The government shut-downs are in reaction to a Japanese public understandably concerned about the safety of nuclear power. With 104 of our own nuclear power plants in the U.S., millions of Americans certainly share their concerns.

As I blogged last year in the wake of the crisis:

I choose to live in Los Angeles despite the earthquake danger and despite the probability of a tsunami to follow. But now I need to factor in a third concession that was previously off my radar – living in L.A.despite the potential for radiation poisoning from nuclear power plants compromised in my earthquake- and tsunami-prone state.

I look at the level of concern we’re feeling for radiation from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan being carried via the jet stream to the West Coast. That radiation has the entire Pacific Ocean to cross! What of the radiation danger if and when “the big one” hits California with a tsunami to follow?

Prior to the shutdowns, Japan depended on nuclear power for more than 30 percent of its electricity. On the flip side, they rely on renewable energy for 10 percent of their electricity.

All eyes will be on Japan this summer to see how they make it work nuke power-free, the first time in more than 40 years! If all goes well, could it prove just the beacon of hope we need to model the same?

This week for free, or any other week for a nominal fee, get out there and enjoy American beauty at its best.

Sunday not only marked this year’s eco-conscious Earth Day celebration, but it also kicked off the start of National Park Week. What better way to appreciate the planet than free admission to the national park nearest you – or furthest, if you’re feeling particularly adventurous.

April 21-29, 2012, is National Park Week, which calls attention to land conservation of 84 million acres protected in our 397 national parks. It’s free admission all week long, though it’s also a good time to remind you, admission is nominal all year long. Entrance to Grand Canyon National Park, for example, is just $12 per person…unless there’s a carload of you, in which case everyone gets in for just twenty-five bucks.

We officially have Woodrow Wilson to thank for our National Park Service, which he established in 1916. However, it is the artist George Catlin who is credited with the idea, as he noted that the lands he was traveling – for his painting of Native Americans – should be preserved “by some great protecting policy of government … in a magnificent park … A nation’s park, containing man and beast in all the wild and freshness of their nature’s beauty!”

From painting pictures, to hiking mountains, to rafting rolling rivers, the possibilities are numerous for enjoying the beauty of nature in our national parks. This week for free, or any other week for a nominal fee, get out there and enjoy American beauty at its best.

To find a park near you (or clear across the country!) go to NPS.gov.

In January, the San Onofre nuclear power plant was shut down due to the leaking of radioactive gas related to the "vibrating" and "rubbing" together of the tubes within the reactors' steam generators. The bigger problem is, no one seems to know why.

Last time I blogged about the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California, it was over concern that its operation raises a red flag in my earthquake- and tsunami-prone state. That was more than a year ago, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan. But since then, San Onofre has been shut down – a temporary fix for evidently inexplicable wear-and-tear of parts in both on-site reactors.

In January, it was discovered that tubes within the reactors’ steam generators were wearing out prematurely. In recent days, investigators into the matter received reports that this premature wear is due to the “vibrating” and “rubbing” together of the tubes against one another. The bigger problem is, no one seems to know why.

Less than two years old, said tubes should by no means have reached their breaking point. But in one reactor unit, the wear was so bad that radioactive gas was released.

Since the cause of the wear-and-tear has yet to be determined, there is no plan to re-open the plant. Though this is news I’d love to celebrate, it’s a double-edged sword for a couple of reasons.

First of all, we could be looking at rolling blackouts this summer if we do not get San Onofre back up, as it powers 1.4 million homes. Secondly, it’s frightening to consider how little the people running our nuclear power plants actually understand about how they work. I wonder if this is the same team of experts tasked with developing the new generation of nuclear reactors.

EPA's New Source rule states that all new power plants must limit carbon emissions to no more than 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. This essentially renders any new coal-fueled power plants out of the question, as they emit an average of 1,800 mwh.

As I blogged a few days ago, it’s been two steps forward, one step back when it comes to dirty coal in recent months. But last week’s announcement from the EPA makes up for all that. Though some say it goes too far, and others not far enough, the EPA’s “New Source” rule seems to me a big deal indeed.

The New Source rule is one that regulates new power plants. Specifically, it states that all new power plants must limit carbon emissions to no more than 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. This essentially renders any new coal-fueled power plants out of the question, as they emit an average of 1,800 mwh. Though processes do exist for “scrubbing” or “sequestering” emissions so as to ensure coal-powered plants stay within the limit, equipping plants with this technology is an expensive endeavor not likely to be pursued.

Granted, this does not mean that power plants fueled by alternative fuels will be all the rage. Natural gas is all the rage, as its price has fallen dramatically in recent months. However, as pointed out by Grist‘s David Roberts:

Some day the natural gas bubble will pop and prices will return to earth. When that happens, it will be extremely helpful to have this rule in place, since its means industry won’t be able to go backward to coal. It will have to move forward into renewable energy.

What of existing power plants, you wonder? Look for those plans post-election season, when the Obama administration need not worry about the reaction of voters whose states are dependent on the coal industry (i.e., fearful of coal plants being shut down to meet new regulations).

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the EPA actually overstepped its authority in revoking Arch Coal's permit to operate one of the larges mountaintop removal operations in the country.

When it comes to coal in recent months, it’s two steps forward, one step back.

First came news in January that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked a permit that would have allowed the second-largest coal production company to operate one of the largest mountain-top removal companies in the country.

Then, just a couple of weeks ago came news that in November/December of 2011, power generated by coal decreased to 40 percent – it’s lowest in more than 30 years!

Now for the step back.

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the EPA actually overstepped its authority in revoking Arch Coal’s permit (referenced above) – a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It’s unclear what the next step may be in the further blocking of this new mountaintop removal operation.

Delayed since 2007, clearly there are a whole host of things that can (and should) keep this project from moving forward, especially considering that our reliance on coal is diminishing. Granted, it’s the increased competitiveness of natural gas to which this may be partially attributed. But as reported by the Environmental News Network: “There is another contributing factor: over a hundred, 106 to be exact, coal plants closed between January 2010 and February 2012. The latest coal plants to close are in Chicago, the Fisk Plant and the Crawford Plant. The number of coal plants closed represents 162 million tons of carbon a year (nine percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet).”

Bottom line: In the slow build to increased development of renewable energy sources, we are better served relying on natural gas – a cleaner alternative to dirty coal.

In 2011, solar installations on homes rose by 11 percent over the previous year, and non-residential by more than 28 percent.

Considering that the sun provides enough solar energy in a single day to power the energy needs of the entire planet for a full year, aggressive investments in solar seem a no-brainer. However, like all other renewable energy options, our investments in solar power pale in comparison to that of fossil fuels. But as reported by Treehugger, the solar market is picking up.

According to a report released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Initiatives Association, solar installations rose significantly in 2011. Solar installations on homes rose by 11 percent over the previous year, and non-residential by more than 28 percent. In megawatts, that’s 1,855 installed solar power compared to 887 megawatts in 2010.

Add to that the projection that installations are expected to rise 35-50 percent in 2012 and it’s clear: solar is gaining momentum.

If you are considering a solar installation – for your home or non-residential building – we have a number of resources that can help you decide on the route that’s right for you.

As you probably know, installing solar panels can be an expensive endeavor, so it is imperative that you do your homework.

In today’s market, a five kilowatt system would cost around $35-45,000, if a homeowner were to pay for everything out-of-pocket. Fortunately, many utilities offer generous incentives to homeowners who want to install solar arrays, not to mention the federal tax credit program that can offset up 30% the total costs. Solar panel leasing is also an option.

Are you in the market for solar panels? Why or why not?

Whether it's before you start chugging on the green beer, or part of the party-time festivities, turn this St. Patrick's Day into a day of awareness for green living all year long.

If you really want to get into the green spirit of things this St. Patrick’s Day, take the time to make sure you’re living green-as-can-be every other day of the year. Here at AltFuelsNow.com, we’ve assembled a rather comprehensive green living checklist that covers every aspect of your life – from home, to school, to work.

1) Home Improvements. Major upgrades to your house will do little to increase its resale value in today’s housing market. However, there are a number of ways to make small home improvements here and there that will prove immediately invaluable investments for your family and the environment:

• Eco-Friendly Appliances
• Eco-Friendly Bed and Bath
• Eco-Friendly Kitchen
• Formaldehyde-Free Cabinets
• Recycled Kitchen Countertops
• Energy Efficient Lighting Solutions
• Organic, Natural and Dye-Free Fabrics
• Sustainable and Recycled Flooring Products
• Eco-Friendly Paint
• Environmentally Friendly Wallpaper
• Reclaimed Wood Furniture

2) Everyday Items. Whether you buy ready-made products or the materials to do-it-yourself, explore all the ways you can green your everyday shopping habits:

• Organic Food
• Green Beauty Products
• Eco-Friendly Clothing
• Green Baby
• Green Pets
• Eco-Friendly Landscaping
• Non-Toxic Cleaning Products
• Green Office and School Supplies

3) Vacation. How you travel, what you bring, and what you do when you get there are all worthy of your eco-conscious consideration:

• Green Travel, From Airlines to Cruise Ships
• Green Camping

The WMO's new weather data system will not only collect data on weather, climate and water, but also interpret this data for the optimization of agricultural practices (i.e., helping to improve food security worldwide).

Though climate talk seems reserved for the back burner these days (no pun intended), there is some promising behind-the-scenes action. Most recently, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced its development of a new weather data system aimed at collecting the kind of data we need to navigate a warming world.

The WMO is an arm of the United Nations, meaning this new weather data system will have global reach.  As reported by the Environmental News Network, this system will not only collect data on weather, climate and water, but also interpret this data for the optimization of agricultural practices (i.e., helping to improve food security worldwide).

This latest development is a nice supplement to news at the end of last year that the U.N. reached an agreement on how to handle the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol at the end of 2012.

As I blogged in December:

The Kyoto Protocol has now been extended to 2017. Dovetailing this development is news that the same countries have agreed to draft and sign a new agreement by 2015, intended to replace Kyoto and go into effect in 2020. It’s unclear what framework will apply between 2017 and 2020, but it’s probably safe to assume Kyoto would be extended the additional three years until the new agreement goes into effect.

In a nutshell, the Kyoto Protocol sets limits on the greenhouse gases participating nations are allowed to emit. Unfortunately, two of the world’s biggest emitters are not participants – the United States and China – which is the very reason for Canada’s dramatic announcement yesterday.

It will be interesting to see how data from the WMO’s new weather system may inform the new climate agreement.

What do you think? Is nuclear power a safe energy source or should it be avoided at all cost?

Nuclear reactors more than 30 years old probably make many of us nervous, especially since that describes most of the 104 nuke facilities used to provide a fifth of U.S. electricity today. Where some of us may be split on the issue, though, is exactly what should be done about it.

Possibility number one is the direction we appear to be headed – building new nuclear power reactors.

Just this month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the first new nuke power reactors since 1978 – two of them, in fact, at Georgia’s Plant Voglte. It’s a $14 billion project backed by a federal loan guarantee.

Possibility number two (and certainly own personal preference) – phase out the use of nuclear power altogether.

Though I already objected to the threat of nuclear radiation prior to the Fukushima disaster in 2011, as a California resident, it sealed the deal in my book. As I blogged last year:

I look at the level of concern we’re feeling for radiation from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan being carried via the jet stream to the West Coast. That radiation has the entire Pacific Ocean to cross! What of the radiation danger if and when “the big one” hits California with a tsunami to follow?

Of course, my personal opinion matters not at all to the powers that be. Thanks to a 4-1 approval by the NRC, Westinghouse Electricity Co., is building two twin 1,100 megawatt reactors – also knows as AP1000s – for Southern Co., the company that will owns and operates the Georgia plant.

Westinghouse says these two new reactors will utilize a new design aimed at preventing a Fukushima-like disaster. Let’s hope they’re right, as the company says it has 20 other new nuclear power projects in the works, 14 of which will (if approved) utilize the same new reactor design.

What do you think? Is nuclear power a safe energy source or should it be avoided at all cost?

From your sweetheart, to your mom, to your best friend, just about anyone in your life is bound to love Valentine's Day gifts from your green heart to theirs.

Whether you keep it simple with one or two of these ideas, or you go for the whole shebang, here’s a plan for turning Valentine’s Day into a daylong affair for the green-at-heart sweetheart in your life.

Start with an oldie but a goodie – breakfast in bed. Mix it up, though, with a homemade meal made from all organic, fair-trade ingredients. Serve it on a tray with fresh flowers or foliage cut from your own backyard garden, along with a Valentine’s Day card, either homemade or one made from recycled paper and non-toxic ink.

For mid-day, arrange for a delivery of an organic, fair-trade bouquet of flowers or potted plant. Steer clear of roses, as 80 percent of roses in the U.S. market are grown in and shipped from South America. Your safest best is to go through your local florist, requesting an organic, locally-grown, in-season arrangement.

For dinner, go out for a nice meal at the closest organic restaurant you can find. If it proves too far, make dinner at home. Be sure to serve with it an organic fair-trade wine for a meal-at-home (by vegetable-wax candlelight, of course). Oh, and don’t the dessert of fair-trade organic chocolate, either as an ingredient in a delectable dish, or on its own.

During or after dinner, present your Valentine with the gift-wrapped goods – organic, fair-trade perfume or cologne; sustainable, fair-trade jewelry; and/or sexy undergarments made from natural, organic fabrics.

Of course, a number of these ideas work wonders for all the Valentine’s in your life. From your sweetheart, to your  mom, to your best friend, just about anyone in your life is bound to love Valentine’s Day gifts from your green heart to theirs.