King Coal is Dead! Long Live the King!

Since the middle of the last century clean coal has been the Holy Grail of the power industry: highly desired but unachievable. That is not stopping greedy business and politicians from looking for money to proceed with the Great Coal Rush.

36 states are racing to build at least 94 (possibly 150) new coal-fired electric power plants with the capacity to power at least 62 million American homes. This race dubbed America's new coal rush, has utilities hell-bent on get their plants built before inevitable new federal and state regulations are passed that restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Some 62 gigawatts of new production potential are being proposed. Illinois is neck and neck with Texas for having the most proposals. Illinois might build 8 or more gigawatts of new capacity with 10+ coal plants. Add to that list one more plant that SIU President Glen Poshard now says he wants built - a new $200 million coal-fired SIU power plant to replace its existing fluidized bed boiler system on the SIU campus.

You can’t be a politician from southern Illinois without exclaiming the virtues of coal as a cure for the unemployment, better schools and roads, tourism, and a litany of other civic goals. Every downstate politician loves to promote clean coal even though it is an impossible dream. (Call me a cynic, but the best use for coal is as a transitional feedstock for creating liquid fuels before be finally switch-over to a renewables-based transportation system.)

Yes, we’ve all been told repeatedly that the total known world reserves of coal might be sufficient for 200-300 years' of humanity’s needs at current consumption levels – never mind the environmental consequences. As evident in this map, the United States is the ‘Saudi Arabia of coal.’ Despite that analogy, I say King Coal’s future is limited!

How dare I speak such heresy? I say what I say about coal because:

» The burning of coal already produces more airborne mercury and greenhouse gases than any other single source. The Illinois Department of Health has already issued fish consumption advisories for every waterway in the state due to dangerous levels of mercury. Don’t eat the fish! Texas already ranks first in the U.S. in carbon emissions.
» The soot from coal plants is a leading cause of asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks, and even premature death in the region. Asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness (about 10 million lost school days each year). In St. Louis, estimates are that approximately 15% of children under age 18 suffer from asthma. This is more than double the national average of 6.3%.
» Coal mines will continue to kill miners. Illinois has lost 21 miners since 1996. The nation lost 819 in that same period. Think that is bad? Eighty percent of all mining deaths now occur in China even though it has only 35% of the world’s coal. While their death rate is starting to decline, in 2006 China lost 4,746 coal miners! In 1942, China lost 1,549 miners in one day due to a coal-dust explosion.
» Midwest wind energy alone could meet 25% of America’s electricity needs and create thousands of additional jobs in manufacturing, installation and maintenance of clean energy systems.
» Solar power in all its many forms has too much potential to be ignored any longer.

The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.

Even the conservative Business Week Magazine hints that the era of coal may be ending. It will surely be a slow death for coal as we transition through technologies being touted again such as coal gasification, methanation and liquification for creating liquid motor fuels.

The extensive research into clean coal technology has resulted in the general conclusion that these conversions will create vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – “far more than is released in the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel production from petroleum.” That isn’t exactly a popular conclusion for a region like southern Illinois that is suffering from perpetually high unemployment.

Eventually the research (Follow the money!) led to proposals to artificially sequester the vast amounts of carbon dioxide into artificial trees, the deep ocean or into underground geologic repositories. (Out of sight – Out of mind). The federal government has plans to aggressively research sequestration options. Those plans bring us to Illinois’ quest to be the lottery prize recipient of FutureGen – a $1 billion, 275 MW coal power plant that would sequester carbon dioxide emissions at a rate of about one million metric tons per year. After initial proposal rejections from several states, the two Illinois cities of Mattoon and Tuscola are in very intense competition with Odessa and Jewett, TX for the FutureGen prize.

FutureGen for Illinois touts the alleged benefits to the state:

» FutureGen will create an estimated 1,300 direct jobs during construction.
» FutureGen will create an estimated 3,250 indirect jobs during construction.
» FutureGen will create 150 permanent jobs.
» FutureGen will create 375 spin-off jobs in related investments.

So, why pick Illinois? As seen in the map above, Mattoon and Tuscola both sit above vast coal reserves. Those reserves contain more energy than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined.

A long list of Illinois notables supports the project. Curiously, the group’s website makes zero mention of any negative consequences. Therefore, there must be no risk right?

“When something is too good to be true, then it isn't”

Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney described the FutureGen situation another way:

“If Johnny jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should jump off a cliff?” If Texas is foolish enough to offer a taxpayer bailout for an unknown quantum of liability arising from a potential disaster of unknown proportions, does that mean Illinois should follow suit? I don’t think so. I’m not going to stick Illinois taxpayers with a commitment of unknown proportions.”

What risk is that? He’s was talking about the monumental FutureGen risks that private insurance companies won’t insure. He’s talking about the financial risk that must be so eliminated that both Illinois and Texas are falling all over themselves to legislate away any financial risk to the plant operators if their construction plans go awry and emission sequestration doesn’t work. You know simple risks like:

» An earthquake releasing to the local atmosphere the estimated fifty million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would be stored underground compressed at over a thousand pounds/inch of pressure.
» The risk of rupturing the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pipeline that Governor Blagojevich wants to construct stretching from the coal gasification plants planned to Illinois Basin oil fields in southeastern Illinois.
» The risk that that all hydrocarbon reservoirs are likely to leak over (geologic) time?
» The risk that carbon dioxide might start filling the basements of nearby homes.
» The risk that displacement of brine (salt water) into drinking water well aquifers.
» The risk of induced earthquakes or surface land deformation. (source)

Isn’t it time to just stop the madness?

Isn’t it time to end our addiction to coal?

The pursuit of clean coal distracts us from proven solutions for energy security. We should be telling all levels of government to stop coal subsidies and support programs for efficiency and clean energy. The sooner we abandon clean coal as the Holy Grail, the faster our nation can develop a sane energy policy that makes for a sustainable environment.

Moonshine Madness

Political expediency in Illinois says you support farmers by supporting corn-to-ethanol proposals wherever they crop-up. Advocates argue that growing corn for ethanol production creates jobs in Illinois, brings higher farm income, liquid fuel energy independence, and cleaner air. According to the President Bush, ethanol is the magical elixir that will potentially solve every economic, environmental and foreign policy problem we have.

Just north of my home is the southern border of the Great Corn Desert. Within it sits the chemical giant, Archer Daniel Midlands, one of the largest agricultural processors in the world. It has offices and facilities on six continents and in 60 countries and supplies a large proportion of the ethanol used as additives for America’sgasoline stocks.

The company’s ethanol competition is increasing. There are currently 109 ethanol refineries operating in the United States, with capacity to produce over 5.2 billion gallons per year. Seven other plants are expanding and 70 new refineries are being constructed to produce over 5.8 billion gallons a year – all with financial subsidies from government. New ethanol plants are being proposed all over the state and you can be sure legislators will line up to pledge their support, however misguided.

Like it or not, there are actually certain limits to growth. US farmers are now using about 8.6 million acres of farmland to grow corn for ethanol. The percentage devoted to ethanol has already grown from 3% five years ago to 20% today. President Bush, always the math wiz and strategic planner, has set a target of 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. To achieve that with corn would require the entire U.S. corn harvest, unless yields miraculously increased and space aliens added more sustainable farm land to North America.

Say good bye to corn flakes, tortillas, and mama’s corn bread!
In the not too distant future, will you even be able to afford a corn dog at the DuQuoin State Fair? What will happen to food prices? In Mexico, the price of corn tortillas - the nutrition foundation of its poorest citizens - has recently risen about 30%, leading to consumer protests and government price controls. America’s cattle, poultry and hog farmers are already struggling to adjust to higher feed corn prices. What will happen when more corn is diverted to fuel production? At the grocery check-out counter, consumers can expect to be paying more for all corn and corn-fed meat products.

Some ethanol proponents say switching to ethanol should at least reduce our dependence on unstable foreign oil supplies, right? Hardly. If all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production, U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by only 12 percent.

Is it worth all this trauma to forego development of more efficient automobiles or curtailment of Saturday teen night cruising around the town square? An article in the January 2007 issue of Scientific American concludes that

"Relying on ethanol from corn is an unsustainable strategy: agriculture will never be able to supply nearly enough crop, converting it does not combat global warming, and socially it can be seen as taking food off people's plates.”

I can only conclude that finding a replacement liquid fuel for transportation use without implementing significant energy conservation measures in both the production and demand side of energy use is not possible. Are we waiting for a miracle or has moonshine madness overtaken our elected officials?

Elected officials that succumb to the political expediency of further subsidizing corn-to-ethanol ventures are delaying other smart investments in energy conservation and renewable energy production that can form the basis of a stable and sustainable future for Illinois citizens.

State and Municipalities Reaping Windfall from Rate Hike

Everyone is screaming mad about the energy bill increases they are receiving as a result of our Illinois senators' failure to act on Ameren/CIPS outrageous rate hike. Ameren rates have soared 40 to 55 percent. The hike will cost the average Ameren customer $270 to $340 more a year.

Municipalities may not be complaining about the hike as loud as they could because, of course, they get a tasty slice of the hike pie -- all without having to lift a finger. Many municipalities levy a “municipal charge” or franchise tax on gas and electric customers' utility bills. When your utility bill rises, so does the amount of tax revenue received by the taxing authority. The state also imposes its own Gas Revenue Tax and Electricity Excise Tax. Could this revenue windfall help explain why the IL Senate failed to stop the rate increase?

Do the math with me. Examine Carbondale as an example of city benefiting from the rate increase. (Yes, I know the city is also paying the increase for their own power usage.)

Carbondale has 10, 968 housing units. If each household was hit with a $50/month gas and electric bill increase, Carbondale would pocket an extra $150,000 a year from taxes. Then add in the energy bills of all the businesses in Carbondale and I suspect the fugure will soar above $200,000. What is perhaps most disturbing about the tax increase is losing over $4,000,000 from circulating in the local economy of Carbondale. Replicate these calculations for every county in the state and total up the impacts. Then try to tell me that energy management isn't an economic development opportunity!

Imagine what could be done with those funds. 1) Find cheaper suppliers of energy, 2) Build a power infrastructure that replaces old polluting coal fired plants, 3) Implement a wide variety of programs to reduce demand through job-creating conservation programs, or 4) Rebate the funds to consumers.

Sometimes the answers are right in front of you.

It Takes the Whole Village to Sustain Itself

All levels of government in Illinois have a responsibility to save its taxpayers money through wise energy use and production. The federal government cannot be looked to for local leadership in community sustainability. Everyone has a role.

Practical solutions to high energy costs exist for libraries, park districts, K-12 schools and universities, and child care facilities. Since these entities are typically exempt from state and federal taxes they cannot take advantage of tax incentive programs that exist for for-profit business and home owners. They can, however, apply for targeted grants and loans that further improve the financial merit of energy-related investments.

The Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation offers innovation grants to organization. For example, K-12 schools, child care centers, public libraries and park districts are eligible for grants to pay for energy-saving upgrades to the lamps, ballasts, fixtures and/or controls in existing indoor lighting systems. This is the last year for some of these programs and organizations need to apply before April 30, 2007.

Municipalities can benefit from the foundations efforts now, but must apply for funds immediately. The Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation provides grants to support the replacement of incandescent traffic signal bulbs with energy efficient light emitting diodes (LEDs). They use solid state electronics to produce colored light. Manufacturers package clusters of individual LEDs into traffic signal units, which produce highly visible light and can be easily installed into existing traffic signal heads.

LED traffic signal upgrades offer many benefits:

• LEDs use up to 85% less energy, leading to less pollution
• LEDs last longer, reducing operating and maintenance expenses
• LEDs enhance safety through better light quality and visibility
• LEDs improve reliability, including the ability to run on batteries during utility power outages

Organizations without assigned staff to both monitor energy use and identify grant opportunities lose out on money saving opportunities. Smart leaders will assign energy issues a high priority in their organization if the planet is going to successfully address climate change.

They Can’t Do That…

It was a cold and beautiful day in Minnesota in the winter of ‘73 when I clipped on my cross-country skis to explore the northern woods with some friends.

We set out upon an abandoned logging trail that few creatures regularly saw, except for the plentiful deer and other woodland critters. The leader sliced a clean set of tracks in the freshly fallen powder as we glided behind with little effort. After our initial chatting back and forth about the joy of just being outdoors, we settled into silence disturbed only by the rhythmic swoosh of skis on snow.

After a while, we started to hear a low buzzing sound. Assured that it wasn’t the Minnesota state bird, culex pipiens, we grew disturbed as the sound gradually grew louder and louder until it was an incessant, ear splitting, and grinding roar thousands of times (How loud is loud?) louder than the long absent mosquitoes.

As we approached a fork in the path, coming down one of the trails sped a roaring and hissing machine that glided to a stop before us. The jovial young man got up off his snowmobile, cut the engine and struck up a conversation. “Say, what are you doing out here so far from civilization?” he said. “Trying to find some tranquility away from civilization,” we replied. The conversation went downhill from there.

He was a local boy, of course, but so were many of us. We chatted about some things in common and then the conversation shifted to talking about his snowmobile, its decibel level, and gasoline and, of course, the 1973 Energy Crisis that was affecting us all.

“Aren’t you a little concerned about riding that “gas hog” right now given the fuel shortage and lines at the gas pump? Don’t you think that someday we’ll run out of gas or it will be so expensive that you won’t be able to ride these machines simply for recreation?” Without a moment’s hesitation, the man declared with certitude “Nope. They can’t do that…there’s just too much demand!”

Each of us, not wanting to become entrapped in a long and futile economics debate, quickly ended the conversation and we parted our ways. He went down one path. We took the one less traveled. “I doubt if I should ever come back.”

20 Simple Steps to Reduce Global Warming

It is easy for the average person to say that they can’t do much about global climate change. Everybody can have an small impact and when multiplied by millions of individual actions, big change occurs. Whenever you save energy – or use it more efficiently – you reduce the demand for gasoline, oil, coal, and natural gas. Less burning of these fossil fuels means lower emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor to global warming. Every U.S. citizens releases on average about 40,000 pounds of CO2 per person each year. If we can reduce energy use enough to lower greenhouse gas emissions by about 2% a year, in ten years we will "lose" about 7,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per person.

Here are 20 simple steps that can help cut an individual’s annual emissions of CO2 by thousands of pounds. The CO2 reduction shown for each action is an average saving.

HOME APPLIANCES

• Run your dishwasher only with a full load. Use the energy-saving setting to dry the dishes. Don't use heat when drying. CO2 reduction: 200 pounds a year.


• Wash clothes in warm or cold water, not hot. CO2 reduction: (for two loads a week): up to 500 pounds a year.


• Turn down your water heater thermostat; 120 degrees is usually hot enough. CO2 reduction: (for each 10- degree adjustment): 500 pounds a year.

HOME HEATING AND COOLING

• Don't overheat or overcool rooms. Adjust your thermostat (lower in winter, higher in summer). CO2 reduction: (for each 2-degree adjustment): about 500 pounds a year.


• Clean or replace air filters as recommended. Cleaning a dirty air conditioner filter can save 5% of the energy used. CO2 reduction: About 175 pounds a year.

SMALL INVESTMENTS THAT PAY OFF

• Buy energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs for your most-used lights. CO2 reduction (by replacing one frequently used bulb): about 500 pounds a year.


• Wrap your water heater in an insulating jacket (but only if the water heater is over 5 years old and has no internal insulation). CO2 reduction: Up to 1000 pounds a year.
  
• Install low-flow shower heads to use less hot water. CO2 reduction: Up to 300 pounds a year.


• Caulk and weatherstrip around doors and windows to plug air leaks. CO2 reduction: Up to 1,000 pounds a year.


• Ask your utility company for a home energy audit to find out where your home is poorly insulated or energy-inefficient. CO2 reduction: Potentially, thousands of pounds a year.

GETTING AROUND

• Whenever possible, walk, bike, carpool or use mass transit. CO2 reduction (for every gallon of gasoline you save): 20 pounds.


• When you buy a car, choose one that gets good gas mileage. CO2 reduction (if your new car gets 10 mpg more than your old one): about 2,500 pounds a year.

REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE

• Reduce waste: Buy minimally packaged goods; choose reusable products over disposable ones; recycle. CO2 reduction (if you cut down your garbage by 25%): 1,000 pounds a year.


• If your car has an air conditioner, make sure its coolant is recycled whenever you have it serviced. Equivalent CO2 reduction: Thousands of pounds.

HOME IMPROVEMENTS

• Insulate your walls and ceilings; this can save about 25% of home heating bills. CO2 reduction: Up to 2000 pounds a year.


• If you need to replace your windows, install the best energy-saving models. CO2 reduction: Up to 10,000 pounds a year.


• Plant trees next to your home and paint your home a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color in a cold climate. CO2 reduction: About 5000 pounds a year.


• As you replace home appliances, select the most energy-efficient models. CO2 reduction (if you replace your old refrigerator with an efficient model): 3000 pounds a year.

SCHOOLS, BUSINESS, AND COMMUNITIES

• Reduce waste and promote energy-efficient measures at your school or workplace. Work in your community to set up recycling programs. CO2 reduction (for every pound of office paper recycled): 4 pounds.


• Be informed about environmental issues. Keep track of candidates' voting records and write or call to express concerns. CO2 reduction (if we vote to raise U.S. auto fuel efficiency): Billions of pounds!

Adapted from the Global and Regional Air and Energy Program, Environmental Defense Source

The night the lights went out in ...

...the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Colosseum in Rome and the Greek parliament in Athens.

No, it's not a bad remake of the 1973 song sung by Vicki Lawrence. It was local governments of these European communities voluntarily turned the lights out to express their concern for climate change across the European continent. The events were scheduled to coincide with the release of a major climate change report that says humans are "very likely" responsible for global warming.

Other European cities took similar publicity oriented actions. Meanwhile, in the USA they didn't go out in Georgia, Carbondale, or anywhere else on the North American continent. More likely, we turned-up our thermostats to counter the increasingly cold winter weather.

Sometimes leaders lead by example. Admitedly the lights-out acts were just token gestures, but they serve as a reminder of what the future could portend and how dependent society has become on centralized power distribution services such as electricity.

The City of Carbondale once taught energy conservation by example. It funded a demonstration house on the SIU campus that showed how either passive or active solar energy systems andcost-effective energy conservation measures could significantly reduce energy consumption and high utility bills. The house was part of a larger municipal program called "The Other Utility" -- a pointed reminder of the difference between supply-side energy solutions like building more polluting coal and nuclear power plants and demand side energy solutions that reduce climate degrading greenhouse gas emissions, rising sea levels, killer heat waves, worsening droughts and stronger hurricanes. The city did a lot of other things about energy back in the 1980s. They don't do it any more since apparently "the energy crisis went away."

Could southern Illinois communities do more by example to affect the environment. Of course, the answer is yes! Two solutions have been proposed downstate. Simply buying into some new brokered power purchase plan, as is being explored by state Senator John Bradley, is setting the wrong example. Sure, its a quick political fix to counter citizen complaints about rising utility bills due to the failure of the state legislature to do anything creative or effective about rising Ameren electric and gas rates. Neither does Carbondale Mayor Brad Cole's proposal to use eminent domain to acquire Ameren's utility assets within the city. Both non-solutions do nothing to reduce our region's dependence upon imported energy or the far larger problem of global climate disruption.

Once again, it all comes down to leadership or the lack of it.

Think Globally, Act Locally

How does a city impact global warming? It could just proceed with the status quo and witness the sustainability of the local economy decline, the environment become degraded, and its citizens become impoverished. Alternatively, the community leaders could bravely embrace the challenge to “think globally, act locally.”

As a splendid example of local government initiative, one need only look to Springfield, Illinois for a daring plan to create smart energy solutions.

When you drive into Springfield, one can’t help but notice the two giant smokestacks owned by the municipal utility, City Water Light and Power, belching soot, smog, and mercury pollution into the city and surround region.

As a part of an agreement that the Sierra Club brokered with the EPA, Illinois Governor’s office and the City, the utility will close its oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plant and replace it with a new coal plant subject to the most stringent soot, smog, and mercury pollution limits in the nation. The new plant will emit 99 percent less sulfur dioxide than the existing power plant.

The new plant coupled with investments in wind power and an ambitious energy efficiency program constitutes the first enforceable agreement in the nation by any city or utility to significantly reduce its global warming pollution. The part of the agreement that is most likely to turn heads around the country, however, are the measures addressing global warming - the most ambitious in the nation for a utility.

The plan calls for the City to cut its global warming pollution by 25 percent below its 2005 levels by 2012, the equivalent of removing 103,000 automobiles off of our highways. Towards that end, Springfield plans tap into wind power and providing investments in new infrastructure that will double the wind energy capacity of Illinois. "This deal is a huge step forward for smart energy solutions and a first in the effort to curb global warming," said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "Not only do Springfield residents benefit from cleaner air and water and new ways to save money on their energy bills, but other communities can use this agreement as a model for their own energy and global warming strategies," added Pope.“

As part of the plan, Springfield will also conduct a comprehensive energy efficiency audit and invest $4 million over the next decade - a tenfold increase - in efficiency programs and incentives for ratepayers. The agreement also formalizes a role for local citizens to help the City direct investments in additional conservation and energy efficiency measures, including a special program targeted to help low-income and elderly residents. Overall, the landmark energy agreement would do the following:

* Replace the City’s Lakeside coal plant, one of the dirtiest coal plants in the nation, with the cleanest coal-fired power plant in the nation.

* Cut mercury emissions from its existing and new coal plants by 90 percent by 2009 (the most stringent requirement in the nation).

* Cut overall sulfur dioxide emissions from its existing and new coal plants by 75 percent by 2012 (the lowest SO2 pollution limit in the Midwest).

* Meet the goals of the Kyoto Protocol by cutting the City’s global warming pollution by 25 percent (600,000 tons annually) below its 2005 levels by 2012, the most stringent global warming reduction commitment by any utility in the U.S. It's the equivalent of removing 103,000 automobiles off of our highways.

* Double Illinois’ installed wind capacity by adding a record 120 megawatt of new wind turbines. This includes 60 MW to power the State’s Springfield office buildings, including the State Capitol -- this represents one of the largest investments by any state in clean energy.

* Boost the City’s investment in energy efficiency funding ten-fold to a record $4 million over the next decade.

* Establish an internship program for college students to work on clean energy projects.

What did it take to accomplish this turn about in Springfield’s future? Local leadership.

Where will that leadership come from in southern Illinois?

A free railroad pass changed the planet

Around 1854 accounts tell of an unemployed railroad conductor and express agent named Edwin Drake who happened to be staying at the same hotel in Connecticut as an attorney looking to make a buck off so called “Seneca Oil”, a crude oil-based patent medicine being sold by hawkers since as early as 1792. The Seneca's are native americans that have occupied Pennsylvania since long before european settler occupation.

The attorney hired Drake in 1857 to visit Titusville, PA, a town on Oil Creek where people collected free flowing crude oil by damming the local creek. Apparently, Drake’s only qualification for this assignment was a free railroad pass remaining from his previous job.

When he got there his oil company boss gave him the phony title of Colonel despite having never being in the military so as to lend him more prestige in their nascent marketing efforts at selling the distilled oil. Apparently this trick works.

When Drake got frustrated with the inefficiency of being only able to skim about six gallons of oil a day off the dammed creek, he hired a salt well driller to help locate pockets of trapped oil. At a depth of 69½ feet they found their first black gold.

The rest is history. In 1859, Drake struck the first commercially productive oil well in the USA. It wasn’t a gusher, but it began the first great oil boom.

I suspect the residents of Titusville, thought they had found The Ultimate Answer to their dreams. Their answer was a non-renewable natural resource that took many millions of years to form that will be totally depleted in a geological blink of an eye.

The Seneca's had offerred a different answer to The Ultimate Question. The Senecas were perhaps the most sophisticated in all of the North-American Native cultures. With the exception of one tribe, they had adopted a democratic form of government after years of questionable leadership by Chiefs who had come into their positions out of lineage rather than virtue. "The Seneca women were in charge of elections, and decided who was to become tribal leader, Leaders usually held their posts for life, but could be removed if they became corrupt or proved to be incompetent; the Seneca political system also included a constitution, which is believed to have been the model for the American constitution." More.

Wadda Ya Mean, Ya Sez Ya Can’t Sell Me $1.00 of Gasoline!

Ever tried to buy only ONE dollar of gasoline? You can’t do it! You can buy 99.9 cents worth, but never an even dollar's worth, or $2.00, or $3.00 for that matter.

Why is that? Several reasons. Foremost, we are quite befuddled by fractional math. Sure, 4 divided by 2 = 2, but exactly how many gallons of gasoline can you buy for $10 at $2.04 and 9/10ths a gallon? The addition of 9/10 cent to the price of a gallon of gasoline makes impossible the purchase of one gallon of gasoline at the advertised price. And it makes our mathematically challenged brains crash into a state of befuddlement. For some reason, consumers have just accepted the fact of fractional gas pricing. Imagine if all groceries, postage stamps and tuition were sold like that?

So why do you think we do it with gasoline? Well, some research says that a difference of two-tenths of a cent (about 30¢ for an average fill-up) may be enough to sway consumers' buying decisions. “Because of this, service stations quickly react to the price posted on the street corner by their competition and adjust their price accordingly. If not, they risk the possibility of losing their customers.”

Don’t lose a lot of sleep over this issue. What you ought to be worried about is why paying for a gallon of gas will likely always result in getting more or less than what you should. Did you know that gasoline volume changes approximately 0.058% for every 1ºF change in temperature. Hey, its just Boyles Law at work. “The energy content of a gallon of gasoline purchased by a motorist in Nome, Alaska in January could, theoretically, be as much as 8-10% greater that that of a gallon of gasoline purchased by a motorist in Marion, IL (center of the universe, I’m told) in July.” So 10 gallons in Alaska might be 11 gallons Illinois. But, they still have the identical energy content. You pay for 11, but really only get the value of 10.

Robbery you say? Fraud and conspiracy? Maybe. As this website describes, only a few places have adopted the readily available technology that automatically adjusts the price of gasoline as it exits the fuel pump nozzle: Canada and Hawaii. Iowa had the technology in place "from 1985 to 1989 before special interests reinstated the deceptive pricing practice. "

Is temperature compensated gasoline sales the ultimate answer to high prices. Of course not, but wouldn't be nice to end a system that is inherently confusing and misleading? Even most local communities could require the changes if the people wanted it.