tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17351408273608874402024-02-21T02:06:15.268-05:00ECO-PRAGMATISMWorking Together is the Only Way Forward!Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-28189747033837117452009-03-02T07:54:00.005-05:002009-03-02T12:03:28.882-05:00The Environmental Divide<div>When times are tough, as they are now, there often emerges an even sharper contrast of visions. In some ways, the extremists for any cause thrive in the crisis times when they can use the "urgency" of the underlying crisis as reason to stop compromising and give in to the feel-good approach of self-righteous ideological grandstanding. The justification becomes that "times are too urgent" for half measures. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let's think about this. If times are so bad, doesn't it make more sense to work <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">WITH </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;">other people? Don't we need pragmatism now more than ever? When you consider that extreme positions rarely if ever accomplish anything (other than fundraising and self-aggrandizement), you realize that when times are tough economically, that's when you need swift action . . . forward progress! America's government is not designed for this - it is designed to require compromise and steady, thought-through action that has the agreement of a wide cross section of our very diverse country. So in the end, it is pragmatism, bridge-building and finally, shared understanding that moves large issues forward in a sustainable way.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Keep all of this in mind as you read the article below from the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13109915">Economist.</a></span></div><div>There is an interesting divide emerging within environmentalists with some using the urgent needs of the planet as an excuse to be as uncompromising and ideological as they want. I feel the need to keep asking these folks: "What actual good has your position brought?" If you oppose new transition lines being built for a project that will increase renewable energy . . . how are you <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">helping</span> the overall environment? </div><div><br /></div><div>I've long been frustrated that there seems to be <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">NO </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">ability or willingness in the majority of the environmental community to prioritize!! There are ALWAYS trade-offs -- and there are even for "good" energy projects. The path of opposing everything leads us to actually support the dirtiest options -- SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ALREADY EXIST! Enviros are forever engaging in intellectual puzzles that try to assess all the impacts of any action. There is certainly a place for understanding impacts to the best of our ability -- but there is also a place for recognizing that if you wait until the "perfect" energy source is ready to be commercialized, you are in fact prolonging the life of the dirtier option because you are unwilling to take a more modest step forward.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">I hope that the public and those that fund environmental organizations begin to see the real trade-offs from extremist rhetoric on both sides. </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">I know I'm often hard on the environmentalists for their refusal to be pragmatic -- but let us also recognize that these groups would have far less power in our society if there had been more good-faith efforts from industry to address environmental problems head on. So - there is plenty of blame to go around.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">Economist </span></div><div>Feb 12, 2009</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" font-weight: bold;font-family:verdana;font-size:18px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Optima;"><span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, arial, sans serif;font-size:+1;"><b>Tree-huggers v nerds</b><br /></span><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-2;color:#999999;"><div>Feb 12th 2009 | LOS ANGELES <br />From The Economist print edition</div></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;"><b>As the planet heats up, so do disputes between environmentalists</b></span><br /><table border="0" align="right" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="4" width="264" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); width: 100%; font-size:100%;"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:93%;"><table cellspacing="2" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="right" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); width: 100%; font-size:100%;"><tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:93%;"><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:-2;color:#999999;"></span></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 93%; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: middle; "><img border="0" src="http://www.economist.com/images/20090214/CUS990.gif" alt="" height="264" width="256" style="border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; " /></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0.4em; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:93%;"><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:-1;"><b></b></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;">LAST December California approved a power line between San Diego and the Imperial Valley—a spot blessed with sun, wind and geothermal energy resources. The Sunrise Powerlink would twist around a state park, an Indian reservation and much of a forest (see map). Its builders would be banned from harming burrowing owls or rattlesnakes. It is just the sort of green infrastructure project that might be expected to delight environmentalists. Their response? An appeal and a petition to the state Supreme Court.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;">“Environmentalists have never been a well-mannered lot”, says Terry Tamminen, who has advised Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate change. But they seem to be becoming more ornery. A growing fear that the environment is on the brink of collapse is making many greens less willing to compromise, even with each other. And George Bush’s departure from the White House has removed a common adversary.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">The fiercest disputes are over electricity transmission. Many environmentalists, including Mr Schwarzenegger, argue that more power lines must be built to connect cities with potential sources of renewable energy.</span> The governor strongly supports the Sunrise Powerlink project. The Sierra Club opposes it, along with another line that would run east from Los Angeles. Together with the Centre for Biological Diversity, the organisation is holding out for a guarantee that the line will be used to transmit electricity solely from renewable sources. Environmental groups in Nevada and the Midwest have issued similar ultimatums.</span></p><cf_floatingcontent></cf_floatingcontent><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;">To an extent this is a dispute between pragmatism and idealism. Politicians like Mr Schwarzenegger tend to believe that energy projects should be judged on whether they improve on current practice. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Activists, by contrast, prefer to measure them against an environmental ideal. “A little bit better than the status quo isn’t good enough,” explains Bill Magavern, the Sierra Club’s California director. He wants power to be generated close to those who will use it, and envisages a rash of solar roofs in San Diego.</span></span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;">A more profound difference has to do with how the problem is diagnosed. Although no big environmental group is unconcerned with global warming, they view the threat in different ways. The big divide is between those who fret about measurable changes in greenhouse-gas emissions and those who worry more about harm to natural habitats, whether caused by global warming or anything else. The first group—call them the environmental nerds—includes people like Al Gore and Mr Schwarzenegger. The second group—call them the tree-huggers—includes the Sierra Club, the Centre for Biological Diversity and other established conservation groups.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif;font-size:-1;">The dispute is likely to intensify in the next few months as Washington weighs in. This week Congress reached a deal on a stimulus plan that encourages the construction of yet more power lines. Barack Obama wants to create green jobs, but he needs to create jobs above all, and quickly. Environmentalists, who know how to hold up big projects better than anybody, will not be bounced so easily. A shame: after all, the greens are winning.</span></p></span></div><div><br /></div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-64765041718120796422009-01-17T09:37:00.005-05:002009-01-17T10:19:52.929-05:00Germans Exporting Energy Efficiency - We Should Too!Awhile back I participated in a farmer-to-farmer exchange between the U.S. and Germany looking at renewable energy and climate-friendly agricultural practices that might count as offsets to a mandatory climate cap-trade system some day.<div><br /></div><div>While in Germany, I was extremely impressed with the amount of bio-gas production they had going on. The government guaranteed a 22 cent/kilowatt price for bio-gas created energy (over double the usual price for electricity) and as a result, almost every farm of any size has added a bio-gas production facility. </div><div><br /></div><div>So - from time to time, I check in on what's going on in the German renewable energy sector -- as they seem to be very innovative and focused on solving the problems of promoting more low-carbon energy -- German engineering indeed!</div><div><br /></div><div>Today I saw a press release from the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. Their latest offering is a database that allows buyers to find energy-efficient technology made in Germany. This resource says so many things - not only is Germany largely engaged in low-carbon energy technology, but they are major exporters of this technology -- and they are promoting it in a very good way. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now imagine how much the U.S. could do on this front - with all its resources . . . and what that new economic activity could do for our struggling economy. Yes, I realize that America has far more fossil resources to use, and thus, it makes sense that the U.S. would develop that resource. But, its often said these days that "We just don't make anything here anymore." Well, think of energy efficiency and low carbon/renewable energy as "a whole lot of stuff" we could make very well -- and that much of the world increasingly wants to buy! </div><div><br /></div><div>Even more important from my perspective -- is how much MORE is actually done to solve energy problems through engineering and science than through rhetoric and partisanship. </div><div><br /></div><div>Below is the press release so you can read all about it. And, you can check out the database by <a href="http://www.efficiency-from-germany.info/EIE/Navigation/EN/root.html">clicking here</a>.<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" text-transform: uppercase; font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;"></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" text-transform: uppercase;font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" text-transform: uppercase; font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" text-transform: uppercase; font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;">PRESS RELEASE</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;"><div class="date" style="display: block; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-weight: bold; ">2008-10-8</div><h1 style="display: block; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 1.25em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 2px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-bottom: 0.2em; ">Database of German providers of energy-efficient products and services now online free of charge: The Energy Efficiency Export Initiative launches its international debut</h1><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Starting today, potential business partners from around the world can search online for German providers of energy-efficient products and services, thanks to the English-language website of the Energy Efficiency Export Initiative (<a class="linkExtern" href="http://www.efficiency-from-germany.info/EIE/Navigation/EN/root.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">www.efficiency-from-germany.info/en</a>). In order to be included in the database, German companies can register themselves free of charge at <a class="linkExtern" href="http://www.efficiency-from-germany.info/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">www.efficiency-from-germany.info</a>. The process takes just a few minutes. After registering, German companies can then create a company profile which enables them to be identified in online searches by interested users from around the globe. In the few weeks since the German-language version of the website went into operation, more than 350 companies have registered with the Initiative. And the numbers keep going up.</p><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">The database covers a comprehensive spectrum of products and services that range from "architects" to "ventilation systems". This makes it possible for entrepreneurs, policymakers and other interested parties from around the world to gain quick access to potential business partners in Germany, who are grouped together under a single international label: "Energy Efficiency - Made in Germany". The database also provides information on a dynamic network of partners in specific target countries. All of these features make the website a one-stop-shop and central point of contact for anyone who is looking for German suppliers and business partners in the field of energy efficiency. And German companies benefit as well: the website gives them a direct platform for making their products and services known to potential international customers, providing them with a "gateway to the world" that enables them to build contacts to new export markets both quickly and easily.</p><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">The newly launched English-language website is targeted toward companies and opinion leaders in export markets that are of key importance for Germany's energy efficiency industry. It is a crucial addition to the extensive German-language website of the Energy Efficiency Export Initiative, which provides numerous services to support the export activities of German companies.</p><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Federal Minister of Economics and Technology Michael Glos stated: "This new online database covers the entire spectrum of energy efficiency and will help match international stakeholders with the right contact persons at qualified and knowledgeable German companies that provide technology and services. At the same time, we are providing the German energy efficiency industry with a web-based platform for expanding their export business. We want the label 'Energy Efficiency - Made in Germany' to become internationally recognised as a mark of first-rate quality."</p><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Since the 2007, the Energy Efficiency Export Initiative - which is run by the Federal Government under the lead responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology - has been supporting the export activities of German firms in the field of energy efficiency. The Initiative provides support above all to small and medium-sized enterprises that offer energy-efficient products and services.</p><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">For further information, please contact the Energy Efficiency Export Initiative (full contact information is available at <a class="linkExtern" href="http://www.efficiency-from-germany.info/EIE/Navigation/EN/root.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">www.efficiency-from-germany.info/en</a>).</p></span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;"><p style="line-height: 130%; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; padding-top: 1px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 15px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "></p></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-41661553234898028752009-01-16T10:04:00.005-05:002009-01-16T10:24:39.773-05:00Congress' Climate Plan: Partisan or Passable?<div><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>A new Congress has been seated in the U.S. and soon, a new President will be sworn in. Now is the time when legislative plans are being made for the year and the new President's priorities either clash or harmonize with the Congress.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I have discussed here before, there is a real danger that the new leaders of the climate issue in the Congress will move to the left on the climate issue (less flexibility in allowing regulated entities to meet their cap and a very limited or no offsets option). Currently, most Republicans remain absent from the climate debate - and the few that are engaged are trying to stand in front of a political train that will merely run them down. Therefore, it will fall to a select group of conservative or "blue dog" Democrats and some moderate Republicans to ensure that the climate legislation that moves forward is workable and, dare I say it, SUSTAINABLE in this difficult economy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Below is a good overview article laying out the Congressional agendas for the climate issue. </div><div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>Climate Change - Environment and Energy Daily</div><div>Jan. 16, 2009<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 48px; font-weight: bold; "></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Waxman begins four-month march to move emissions bill</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; "></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; ">Darren Samuelsohn, E&E senior reporter<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; "></span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; ">Let the vote-counting begin.</span><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Minutes into his first hearing yesterday as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) boldly pledged to move a comprehensive climate change bill through the panel by Memorial Day. But the road to the House floor isn't that simple.</span></span></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Arial;"><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Democrats hold a 36-23 edge on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That is a big margin for Waxman to work with as he takes the lead in writing a cap-and-trade climate bill over the next four months. But lawmakers from both parties warn that there are no guarantees Waxman will be able to satisfy any Republicans, let alone some of his own Democrats who represent districts with heavy industrial bases.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"That's the question: Are you going to insert the word 'Ohio?' Are you going to insert the word 'Pennsylvania?'" asked Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the GOP's former top House vote counter. "What are you going to put in this that allows people in states that are particularly dependent on coal, either as a producer or user of coal, to move forward?"</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Waxman, an 18-term congressman, did not give specifics on the climate bill he has in mind during yesterday's hearing on global warming, the first since he took over late last year as the new chairman.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">But Waxman did explain that he has a wider range of recommendations available to pull from, including previous versions of cap-and-trade legislation introduced by other Democrats and the U.S. Climate Action Partnership </span><a href="http://www.us-cap.org/pdf/USCAP_Blueprint.pdf" style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">blueprint</span></b></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">released yesterday that calls for a reduction of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2050.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"A consensus is developing that our nation needs climate legislation," Waxman said. "Our job is to transform this consensus into effective legislation. The legislation must be based on the science and meet the very serious threats we face."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">As he moves forward, Waxman can claim support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In a prepared statement, Pelosi called Waxman's Memorial Day schedule an "aggressive timetable for action to reduce global warming and our dependence on foreign oil. I share his sense of urgency and his belief that we cannot afford another year of delay."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Across Capitol Hill, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued her own statement saying she was "very pleased" with Waxman's plans. She pointed out that while she pushed a cap-and-trade bill through her committee in December 2007, the House took no action on global warming legislation over the last two years.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Looking ahead, Boxer promised to release "a set of principles for my new legislation in the coming weeks." And she said that Waxman's schedule, coupled with the U.S. CAP announcement, suggest "the writing is on the wall that legislation to combat global warming is coming soon."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">House and Senate Democratic leaders say they will be consulting closely with the Obama administration on its preferences for global warming legislation, a strategy repeated during confirmation hearings this week by EPA Administrator designee Lisa Jackson.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The Obama administration will likely release a series of legislative principles out of the Obama White House, as opposed to a detailed bill, according to an aide to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of the newly created House Energy and Environment Subcommittee with primary jurisdiction on a global warming bill.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"Frankly, I think what we're going to get from this administration is what we got from the tail end of the Clinton administration and not the start of the Clinton administration," the Markey staffer said. "One of the great mistakes of the health care debate is they tried to write a 300-page bill. Congress doesn't take dictation very well."</span></p><h3 style="margin-bottom: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">'The fossil fuel Democrats'</span></h3><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Given the size of the Democratic majorities, Blunt predicted cap-and-trade advocates would find success when it comes to moving climate legislation, though it may mean making some concessions.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"If Barack Obama is pushing for it, and Nancy Pelosi is pushing for it, and Barbara Boxer is pushing for it and Henry Waxman is pushing for it, it probably happens," Blunt said. "But that doesn't mean it happens in the right way, or the right time frame."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Blunt also would not rule out Republicans voting in support of a Waxman-led climate bill. "It's too early to tell," he said.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Several Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee said they had already made up their mind they would be opposed to a cap-and-trade bill, including Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Shimkus, a seven-term congressman from southern Illinois' coal country, sounded off during yesterday's hearing against the economic implications of a new carbon cap in the United States. And he predicted political fallout for Democrats from similar industry-heavy districts if they back Waxman's legislation.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"I'm going to hold the fossil fuel Democrats accountable," Shimkus said. "You better be prepared to defend your vote as global climate change legislation will destroy the fossil fuel industry."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said he did not buy the argument offered by U.S. CAP members that it would cost more to stave off the effects of climate change in future years if lawmakers do not move now to curb emissions with a cap-and-trade bill.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"You hear that in a lot of issues: A stitch in time saves nine," Gingrey said. "But right now, I don't believe we have a stitch left when we get through trying to save the economy and restore some of these 2.5 million jobs lost last year."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Warnings from Shimkus and Gingrey underscore the work Waxman has to do to win over Republicans. Meantime, some of the so-called fossil fuel Democrats who serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee said they planned to be active participants in the drafting of climate legislation.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"I want to be able to support a bill," said Rep. Baron Hill, a five-term lawmaker from southeastern Indiana. "But if coal is not addressed, then I cannot support a bill. It's just as plain and simple as that."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Rep. Charles Melancon (D-La.) said Waxman's Memorial Day target would require giving lawmakers like him time to study the climate bill. "Mr. Waxman is a very experienced legislator, and I think he realizes he can't just dump this on us one day and move it forward," said Melancon, a three-term congressman representing the state's southeastern swampland.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Asked if the committee's Democrats would be a "rubber stamp" on whatever legislation Waxman produces, Melancon replied, "That'd be a firm no. But I have committed to be open minded and try to resolve issues rather than just take an opposing position."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"I think the work starts today," added Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.)</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">DeGette, the Democrats' chief House deputy whip, also predicted GOP support for the legislation, though she would not name any names. "I'd have to take a survey," she said.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Off Capitol Hill, environmental groups and companies involved in U.S. CAP welcomed Waxman's decision to spell out a four-month game plan.</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">"There's a lot of work to be done," said Francis Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But you'll never know how long it takes if you don't get started."</span></p><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Jeff Sterba, president and CEO of PNM Resources Inc., a New Mexico-based electric utility company, said he wanted to see Congress write and vote on climate legislation this year. "They can move quickly if they want to," he said.</span></p></span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Arial;"><p style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><blockquote></blockquote></span></p></span></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-83623239704308424652008-12-17T12:24:00.003-05:002008-12-17T12:47:13.042-05:00Climate Crash?Going into 2009, there will be many changes in U.S. climate policy. That is welcome news. What is NOT welcome news is that so far, many of these changes seem to be driving the issue right off another ideological cliff - only this time, a liberal one.<div><br /></div><div>I'm the first to admit that Republicans, by and large, have mishandled the climate issue in particular and the issue of the environment in general. But just because one party is behaving badly does not by ANY means indicate that the other party is "good" on the issue. </div><div><br /></div><div>I had hoped that the Obama message of "change" would mean a break in the partisan way of doing business, but it is shaping up to look like that, unfortunately, will not be the case with climate change. </div><div><br /></div><div>Looking at the new leadership in the influential House Commerce & Energy Committee as well as the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, we can get a glimpse of the new desired approach - one that caters almost exclusively to the most strident environmental groups desire to "punish industry". It remains to be seen whether the Obama environment/climate appointments will also follow in this path -- one that will guarantee no bill passes through a still mostly divided Congress (on this issue at least), or whether they chart a brave direction toward bi-partisanship and compromise -- the ONLY way anything EVER passes through the U.S. legislative process.</div><div><br /></div><div>I hope for the best, but would alert people following this issue to the need to impress on the new leaders the dangers -- TO THE ENVIRONMENT of giving in to the feel good approach of partisan idealism. We are rapidly running out of time to get started on a climate regime that will allow us to reduce emissions by the needed levels to avoid irreversible affects on our planet. We can not afford to waste another 2 years - this time by sounding good and getting nothing done.</div><div><br /></div><div>I would also alert those who have been less engaged than they should have been on this issue for many years -- WAKE UP! The window is rapidly closing on the ability to get sound policy that is sustainable for both the economy and the environment. </div><div><br /></div><div>The only test for the next Congress on this issue -- is what they get DONE - NOT what is proposed and how much grandstanding occurs. In the end, that's just more hot air emissions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Below is a story from the Wall Street Journal discussing some of the inside baseball changes happening -- and proof of what I'm referring to.</div><div><br /></div><div>At the end of the day, members who represent coal states and oil states and car states -- will need to see a climate plan that is a pragmatic, steady transition toward a carbon constrained economy -- regardless of whether there is a D or an R behind their name. The sooner we all realize this reality and work with it, the faster we can get started saving the planet . . . and ourselves.</div><div>------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; line-height: 10px; "><div class="col10wide wrap" style="font-size: 1em; float: left; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: 959px; "><div class="articleHeadlineBox headlineType-newswire" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; "><ul class="cMetadata metadataType-articleStamp" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><li class="articleSection first" style="letter-spacing: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 0.9em; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><br /></li><li class="articleSection first" style="letter-spacing: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 0.9em; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">OPINION: POLITICAL DIARY</li><li class="dateStamp" style="letter-spacing: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); line-height: 0.9em; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 1.5em; "><small style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.9em; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1em; ">NOVEMBER 22, 2008, 10:22 P.M. ET</small></li></ul><h1 style="font-weight: normal; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Century Schoolbook', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 2.8em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.1075em; padding-left: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: auto; "><br /></h1><h1 style="font-weight: normal; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Century Schoolbook', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 2.8em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.1075em; padding-left: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: auto; "><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122739705428650923.html">The Climate Purge</a></h1><h2 class="subhead" style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; margin-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; font: italic normal normal 1.6em/1.1 Georgia, 'Century Schoolbook', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; text-transform: none; width: 668px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 6px; padding-left: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Coup d'etat at the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.</h2></div></div><div class="art_tabbed_nav" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; "><ul id="articleTabs" class="tab" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; list-style-position: initial; list-style-image: initial; list-style-type: none; position: relative; z-index: 10; top: 10px; float: left; "><li id="articleTabs_tab_article" class="selected" style="float: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: 114px; position: relative; font-weight: bold; top: -6px; padding-top: 1px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.3em; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-top-width: 2px; border-right-width: 2px; border-bottom-width: 2px; border-left-width: 2px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-right-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); background-position: initial initial; "><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122739705428650923.html#articleTabs=article" class="article" onclick="" name="article" style="text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; text-align: center; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; background-image: url(http://s.wsj.net/img/NAV_tabBG.gif); display: block; padding-top: 20px; padding-bottom: 8px; background-color: transparent; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); background-position: 100% 100%; ">Article<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 10px; font-weight: normal; text-transform: uppercase; "> »</span></a></li></ul></div><div id="articleTabs_panel_article" class="mastertextCenter" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; height: 1%; padding-top: 15px; "><div id="article_story" class="col6wide colOverflowTruncated" style="font-size: 1em; float: left; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; width: 571px; "><div id="article_pagination_top" class="articlePagination" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1.2em; text-align: right; float: none; width: auto; clear: left; "></div><div id="article_story_body" class="article story" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; padding-top: 11px; "><div class="articlePage" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; "><h3 class="byline" style="font-weight: normal; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; font-family: helvetica; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); line-height: 1.3em; margin-bottom: 0.583em; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 1.2em; ">By <a href="http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=JOSEPH+RAGO&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND" style="text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 1px; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); ">JOSEPH RAGO</a></h3><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; display: block; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Henry Waxman moved to consolidate his coup d'etat at the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee just hours after he was installed as the new chairman this week. It appears that the California liberal, with his customary subtlety, is plotting a night of the climate-change long knives.</p><div class="insetContent embedType-image imageFormat-arbitrary" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 1em; float: left; padding-right: 8px; clear: left; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 19px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><div class="insetTree" style="width: 136px; font-size: 1em; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; float: left; position: relative; "><div class="insettipUnit" style="width: 136px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; float: left; top: 0px; font-size: 1em; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-top: 6px; "><img src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GL541_Stupak_20080511094053.gif" vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" alt="[Bart Stupak]" height="221" width="136" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; float: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; " /></div></div></div><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; display: block; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Democrats dumped the current Chairman John Dingell because he does not favor global-warming action aggressive enough to suit the party's green wing. Now his lieutenants, who've been known to share his views, are targets too. Gene Green, an oil-patch Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on environmental issues, sent out a panicked Dear Colleague letter that called for "healing" and volunteered that he has enjoyed working "with Chairman Waxman on a number of other issues and I would hope to continue it."</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; display: block; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">Then Bart Stupak -- Mr. Dingell's chief deputy, head of the investigations subcommittee and resident FDA demagogue -- chimed in that he, too, looks forward to carrying on "the important work Chairman Dingell and I began."</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; display: block; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">But the Dingell ally who should be looking over his shoulder most nervously is Rick Boucher, chairman of the energy subcommittee. Mr. Boucher has been a friend to the coal industry and hardly finds himself in a comfortable position now when his incoming boss supports a moratorium on coal-fired power. Mr. Boucher's likely replacement is Ed Markey, Nancy Pelosi's climate-change point man, now head of the telecom subcommittee. In a fit of anti-Dingell pique, Speaker Pelosi last year stripped Mr. Dingell of jurisdiction over climate change, giving the portfolio to a special panel run by Mr. Markey. Never mind that the new panel, under House rules, lacks the power to mark up legislation. Mr. Dingell called the committee "as useless as feathers on a fish" and "an embarrassment to everybody."</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; display: block; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-left: 8px; margin-right: 8px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); ">No doubt Mr. Dingell's comments were among the many sins he's now paying for. Soon taxpayers will be paying a stiff price too if Mr. Waxman and company succeed in their plans to use federal money to subsidize all kinds of "green" energy interest groups.</p></div></div></div></div></span></div><div><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-2671258523077360592008-10-10T17:51:00.007-04:002008-10-10T18:17:41.688-04:00The Green Bubble<div>Well, as I was just saying . . . the economy is going to force the "green" movement to either become practical and intertwined with energy policy in a constructive way, or it will become last year's "fad" that fades away as just another part of the excesses of the 90s and the oughts. Unless environmental groups want to be remembered by history as a "luxury issue"-- fun to indulge in when money was easy, but not considered essential, then they had better start re-defining what it is they are "for" and "against" away from the environmental, anti-human activity, anti-industry rants of the past and toward the pragmatic problem-solving entities needed for our new energy future.</div><div><br /></div><div>If what is happening to our economy right now is not a huge wake-up call for environmentalists of all stripes, then there is no hope for them.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I think there IS hope for some. And crisis does offer opportunity for great advancement, if taken. If the technical knowledge and passion that exists in many environmental organizations can be tapped in the larger service of securing our energy future -- recognizing the need to reign in costs and go step-by-step, then amazing things can happen. </div><div>-------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>L.A. Times</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(84, 84, 84); font-family:'Helvetica Neue';font-size:12px;"><div class="storydeckhead" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 10px/normal Arial, sans-serif !important; text-transform: uppercase !important; ">OPINION</div><div class="orgurl" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; "><h1 style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: 200%; cursor: text; text-decoration: none; font: normal normal normal 30px/normal Arial !important; color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; ">The green bubble bursts</h1></div><div class="storysubhead" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51) !important; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal bold 12px/normal arial, verdana, sans-serif !important; "><br /></div><div class="storysubhead" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51) !important; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal bold 12px/normal arial, verdana, sans-serif !important; ">Amid the energy crisis, Democrats are losing the high ground on the environment to a GOP that is pushing oil drilling.</div><div class="storybyline" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal arial, sans-serif !important; color: rgb(102, 102, 102) !important; margin-top: 5px !important; ">By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger <br />September 30, 2008</div><div id="article_body" class="storybody" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, sans-serif !important; "><div class="storybody" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, sans-serif !important; ">As the election enters its endgame, Democrats and their environmental allies face a political challenge they could hardly have imagined just a few months ago. America's growing dependence on fossil fuels, once viewed as a Democratic trump card held alongside the Iraq war and the deflating economy, has become a lodestone instead. Republicans stole the energy issue from Democrats by proposing expanded drilling -- particularly lifting bans on offshore oil drilling -- to bring down gasoline prices. Whereas Barack Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires, Republicans at their convention gleefully chanted "Drill, baby, drill!" Obama's point on conservation and efficiency was lost on an electorate eager for a solution to what they perceive as a supply crisis.<br /><br />Democrats and greens ended up in this predicament because they believed their own press clippings -- or, perhaps more accurately, Al Gore's. After the release of the documentary film and book "An Inconvenient Truth," greens convinced themselves that U.S. public opinion on climate change had shifted dramatically, despite having no empirical evidence that was the case. In fact, public concern about global warming was about the same before the movie -- 65% told a Gallup poll in 2007 that global warming was a somewhat or very important concern in comparison to 63% in 1989. Global warming remains a low-priority issue, hovering near the bottom of the Pew Center for People and the Press' top 20 priorities. <br /><br /></div></div><div class="storybody" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, sans-serif !important; ">By contrast, public concern about gasoline and energy prices has shifted dramatically. While liberals and environmentalists <b></b>were congratulating themselves on the triumph of climate science over fossil-fuel-funded ignorance, planning inauguration parties and writing legislation for the next Democratic president and Congress, gas prices became the second-highest concern after the economy, according to Gallup.<br /><br />This summer, elite <b></b>opinion ran headlong into American popular opinion. The train wreck happened in the Senate and went by the name of the Climate Security Act. That bill to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would have, by all accounts (even the authors'), increased gasoline and energy prices. Despite clear evidence that energy-price anxiety was rising, Democrats brought the bill to the Senate floor in June when gas prices were well over $4 a gallon in most of the country. Republicans were all too happy to join that fight.<br /><br />Indeed, they so relished the opportunity to accuse Democrats of raising gasoline prices in the midst of an energy crisis, they insisted that the 500-page bill be read into the Senate record in its entirety in order to prolong the debate. Within days, Senate Democrats started jumping ship. Democratic leaders finally killed the debate to avert an embarrassing defeat, but by then they had handed Republicans a powerful political club. <br /><br /></div><div class="storybody" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; font: normal normal normal 13px/normal Arial, sans-serif !important; ">Republicans have been bludgeoning Democrats with it ever since. They held dramatic "hearings," unauthorized by the Democratic leadership, on the need for expanded oil drilling to lower gas prices. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich quickly announced a book, "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," a movie and a petition drive. And Republican presidential candidate John McCain stopped making speeches about his support for bipartisan climate action, which is how he had started his campaign, and attacked Obama and congressional Democrats for opposing drilling instead. <br /><br />On June 9, three days after the emissions cap-and-trade bill <em style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; "></em>died in the Senate, Obama led McCain by eight points, according to Gallup. By June 24, the race was in a dead heat, a shift owed in no small part to Republicans battering Democrats on energy. Seeing the writing on the wall, Obama reversed his opposition to drilling in August, and congressional Democrats quickly followed suit. <br /><br />But the damage has largely been done. In following greens, Democrats allowed McCain and Republicans to cast them as the party out of touch with the pocketbook concerns of middle-class Americans and captive to special interests that prioritize remote wilderness over economic prosperity. <br /><br />In a tacit acknowledgment of their defeat, some green leaders, such as the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, have endorsed the Democrats' pro-drilling strategy. But few of them seem to realize the political implications. The most influential environmental groups in Washington -- the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund -- are continuing to bet the farm on a strategy that relies on emissions limits and other regulations aimed at making fossil fuels more expensive in order to encourage conservation, efficiency and renewable energy. But with an economic recession likely, and energy prices sure to remain high for years to come thanks to expanding demand in China and other developing countries, any strategy predicated centrally on making fossil fuels more expensive is doomed to failure.<br /><br />A better approach is to make clean energy cheap through technology innovation funded directly by the federal government. In contrast to raising energy prices, investing somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion annually in technology R&D, infrastructure and transmission lines to bring power from windy and sunny places to cities is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Instead of embracing this big investment, greens and Democrats push instead for tiny tax credits for renewable energy -- nothing approaching the national commitment that's needed.<br /><br />With just six weeks before the election, the bursting of the green bubble is a wake-up call for Democrats. Environmental groups, perpetually certain that a new ecological age is about to dawn in America, have serially overestimated their strength and misread public opinion. Democrats must break once and for all from green orthodoxy that focuses primarily on making dirty energy more expensive and instead embrace a strategy to make clean energy cheap. <br /><br />By continuing to hew to the green agenda, Democrats have not only put in jeopardy their chance of taking back the White House and growing their majority in Congress, they also have set back the prospects of establishing policies that might effectively address the climate and energy crises.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are authors of "Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility" and co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute.</div></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-69818419005282304712008-09-15T18:06:00.004-04:002008-09-15T18:48:22.256-04:00Why the Greens Need Pragmatism<div>One of my favorite books on environmental policy is <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/breakthroughbook.shtml">Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. </a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">Although I don't agree with all of their policy solutions, that's the beauty of being a pragmatist - take the good, leave the rest. What I think they do an <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">amazing</span> job of is laying out the problem with the modern environmentalist movement today -- and its focus on limiting people rather than empowering them as a means to deal with pollution. </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">This book also gives a great explanation for how funders - with the best intentions, often end up creating a market force FOR conflict and high rhetoric, rather than a reward for pragmatic bridge-building. </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>I checked back in on the BreakThrough website and saw a number of articles worth looking at. </div><div>Click the following link to check out the latest at <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/index.shtml">The BreakThrough Institute</a>. </span>In particular, there was an article about the rapid change in politics on the oil drilling/climate issue that made me think. The point of that article was to chronicle how fast the politics changed this past summer. It quotes Democratic leaders as confident about passing comprehensive climate legislation, only to end the summer by looking for ways to expand drilling opportunities as a means to appease the public on high gas prices.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are several interesting points of discussion in this article. But the one that really struck me was how this recent history should be a big piece of proof to green groups everywhere that you <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">MUST</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"> adopt a more pragmatic, solution-based focus if you want the environmental issue to survive high energy prices and an economy in turmoil.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>It may be that the green groups were able to get away with partisan Bush-bashing (I'm not saying I'm a fan of Bush's environmental policies here - I'm definitely not!) and the rhetoric of the pure while times were good and people had disposable income to spend on organic, everything-free products that are sustainably made and only grown by farmers dedicated to not making a profit. But times have changed - and we are likely to be dealing with a bad economy and high energy prices for some time now. If enviros want their issue to have staying power beyond being the latest yuppie fad, they have to be willing to <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; ">Gasp, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; ">compromise and work with people that don't already agree with them. </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Now I know many of the green groups claim to have this as a goal. But preaching to people who don't agree with you doesn't count. And for groups that are really trying to reach out, it must be recognized that you need to be willing to speak the other side's language -- to recognize their concerns from time to time (i.e. the concern about the cost to the economy of a climate change plan). Green groups need to understand that they are largely comprised of people who have nothing in common with those who don't agree with them -- and certainly the language they use on this issue is far from objective and carries baggage that many well-meaning enviros don't even realize they are inflicting. </div><div><br /></div><div>The point is, recognize this weakness and recruit guides to help make the transition. Reach out to people that walk in both worlds (trust me, they DO exist) and ask them to help you formulate messaging that will not get the figurative door closed on your group before you even get through the first meeting. </div><div><br /></div><div>I know this is a long shot -- because by and large, people LIKE to feel superior far more than they like getting things done. It seems to be a sad bi-partisan truth about us humans. </div><div><br /></div><div>But just maybe if we recognize the problem, we can begin to fix it.</div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-36696099928758327402008-09-12T19:08:00.004-04:002008-09-12T19:44:26.231-04:00Finding Green BalanceA good friend sent me a link to an interesting article I recommend to you. The article is titled <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://culture11.com/node/32068?page_art=1">It's Not Crazy Being Green"</a> </span>and you can read it by clicking on the title. The article talks about the needless differentiation between "the environment" and "the people" and how the modern environmentalist movement has become a partisan battle over purity rather than what it always should have been: an understanding that the environment and the people are irrevocably linked. <div><br /></div><div>The health of a people IS in large part due to the health of the environment in which they live. If you have any doubt about this -- take a look at developing country that has not yet dealt with environmental pollution to any real degree. Would you want to live there?</div><div><br /></div><div>So how do you go from a relatively non-controversial point -- like saying we all live in our environment, so of course we care about its pollution, into the partisan divide we see before us today where nearly every environmentalist group is a liberal one and conservative groups take turns highlighting the latest infringement of freedom that the environmentalists are proposing? </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't have all the answers -- but it seems to me that part of the problem is that we allow issues to be too easily defined by others with agendas that have little to do with the named issue. The problem is fed by the human tendency to gather in groups that are alike. My rule of thumb these days in evaluating an advocacy organization -- is this: How much are they really trying to reach out to those who don't agree with them? For many groups working on the environment, the answer is, they aren't! </div><div><br /></div><div>One way to begin to change this dynamic is through the "marketplace" if you will for non-profits that work on environmental issues. In your personal giving, make it clear that you are giving to organizations that are working to bridge the divide. And on the larger front, write to foundations that give large amounts of money to environmental groups encouraging them to fund cooperative, educational, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">bridge-building</span> work rather than partisan, feel-good attack dogs.</div><div><br /></div><div>One thing is for sure, if funders demand results rather than rhetoric, they will start getting it. And then the environment would truly be better off.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-37301489999171661312008-08-28T16:53:00.002-04:002008-08-28T17:01:05.530-04:00Power to the People<span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">Below is a good article from <span style="font-style: italic;">Greenwire</span> about promising developments in the "smart grid" -- or the ability to make the electrical grid that controls access to power more efficient and flexible. When we provide more information to consumers and tie that information with market incentives for using power more efficiently, we can begin to build an electrical system that meets our needs while avoiding waste. Even more important, we can begin to build up an electrical power system that is capable of taking on renewable energy from disbursed sites and use electric power to fuel our transportation system (think plug-in hybrids or electric cars).<br /><br />Its good to see a utility moving forward on this. And again, it just points to the fact that solutions only come from working WITH the folks in the industry of making the power -- not just suing them and protesting against their pollution!<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br /><h2 style="margin-top: 2em;"><span>UTILITIES:</span> Xcel starts turning Boulder, Colo., into a 'smart grid' Skinner Box <span class="origin">(08/22/2008)</span></h2>Jenny Mandel, <em>Greenwire</em> reporter <p><i>Part three of a series.</i></p> <p>If you can think of electricity as a chain that connects the power plant to your portable music player, you can grasp the notion of "smart grid."</p> <p>Broadly, smart grid means applying modern, digital technology to the analog world of electricity infrastructure. But what makes a grid smart is anybody's guess right now.</p> <p>Xcel Energy, a utility serving eight states -- Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin -- aims to firm up the definition. With a pilot program called Smart Grid City, the company is installing a network of technologies it says will serve as a "living laboratory" to test smart-grid components.</p> <p>Some of those components will be put into the hands of the company's customers. Xcel plans to install 15,000 so-called smart meters at homes and businesses in Boulder, Colo., by the end of the year.</p> <p>Roy Palmer, Xcel's managing director of government and regulatory affairs, said the first group of meters will be relatively simple, though more sophisticated than the familiar counting machines with the row of clock faces. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The new digital meters will provide second-to-second data on power use, a vast improvement over the static, cumulative meters they will replace.</span></p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">And unlike traditional meters, the new ones can be read by machines via built-in communications technology. Xcel is installing an arterial system of Internet technologies, including fiber optics and broadband over power line, that will reach across the entire grid and into individual meters and give engineers unprecedented insight into what is happening on the grid in real time.</p> <p>"Today, we have a first look into customer meters that we've never had at Xcel Energy," Palmer said.</p> <p>What advanced meters will not do is offer customers control over how individual appliances or outlets draw power, although models being tested by other utilities have that capability.</p> <p>For the first stage of Xcel's test, the utility has installed just one bells-and-whistles system. At the University of Colorado chancellor's residence, a mansion that offers abundant opportunity for energy efficiency, Palmer said, Xcel will install an advanced metering system manufactured by GridPoint, a Virginia-based technology company.</p> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6" width="325"> <tbody><tr><td align="center"> <img src="http://www.eenews.net/features/photos/2008/08/22/photo_gw_01.jpg" alt="Energy Meter" border="1" height="243" width="325" /> </td></tr> <tr><td align="left"> <span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">A computer-based "dashboard" lets users of GridPoint's system monitor and control electricity use in the home. Photo courtesy of GridPoint.</span> </td></tr> </tbody></table> <p>The GridPoint setup includes a command center, installed by the main circuit breaker, that takes over operation of key loads. Karl Lewis, GridPoint's executive vice president and chief operating officer, said that in a typical installation the command center would control a home's hot water heater, air conditioning, refrigerator and other energy hogs.</p> <p>A consumer dashboard is designed to receive signals from the utility about the cost of energy throughout the day.</p> <h3>Energy dashboard</h3> <p>Many grid experts see a switch to time-of-use pricing as an important way to rationalize energy use, allowing utilities to pass along the higher cost of running an extra generation plant to handle peak afternoon load, for example.</p> <p>Through GridPoint's energy dashboard, a homeowner can assign set-it-and-forget-it settings to reflect how his or her house should perform throughout the day -- maybe adjusting the thermostat a few degrees if the cost of power rises or charging battery-based appliances if it falls.</p> <p>At the University of Colorado's site, the setup will also include GridPoint's system to support distributed power generation. A large battery will store electricity generated by in-home solar panels, allowing the house to draw on homemade power even when the sun doesn't shine.</p> <p>The system will also include support for a plug-in electric vehicle, a technology that GridPoint sees as potentially transforming the electric industry.</p> <p>"We're pretty excited about the car," GridPoint's Lewis said. He noted that General Motors Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. have each expressed intentions to put at least 100,000 plug-in cars on the road by the end of 2011.</p> <p>Charging those vehicles would represent a significant new market for utilities. Those that are prepared could see 15 percent to 30 percent revenue increases, Lewis estimated, while those unprepared could find themselves in a bind as their legal obligation to supply customers with power bumps up against capacity constraints.</p> <p>"The utilities are scared to death [of the prospect of pluggable cars]," Lewis said. "We like that."</p> <p>GridPoint sees technologies like its own, which give both the customer and the utility greater control over when cars might charge, as crucial to managing such a transition.</p> <p>In Boulder, the control system will let the chancellor fuel his plug-in electric car overnight, when electric demand is low, rather than starting to draw power the second a driver arrives at the house and plugs it in.</p> <h3>Telegraph technology in a broadband world</h3> <p>While the university serves as a test bed for the high end of consumer systems, the part of Boulder wired with digital meters will provide valuable data to feed into the wider grid network, Palmer said.</p> <p>That larger system includes a huge number of sensors and communication nodes that most people might assume already exist.</p> <p>Today's electric grid is, in many respects, hardly changed from the system that first grew up in the 1920s, according to Phillip Schewe, author of "The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World."</p> <p>The original electric system first entered homes in significant numbers in the early 1900s and by the end of the 1950s reached into virtually every corner of the country, Schewe said.</p> <p>Most early electricity was powered by coal, Schewe said, and the country saw steady efficiency gains in the amount of power generated per ton of coal between 1900 and 1960, with accompanying cost decreases.</p> <p>Similarly, utilities learned to increase the voltage of the transmission lines carrying electrons from power plants to city streets, allowing more electricity to be moved more efficiently. Starting at a few hundred volts, companies gradually increased that into the thousands, and today some lines carry power at 500,000 volts or more.</p> <p>But Schewe describes the 1970s as a "depressing decade" for the grid. Advances stagnated, the first rumblings of deregulation surfaced with new companies that generated power but owned no transmission lines, and a long period of an uncertain investment climate began.</p> <p>Today, confusion continues to reign over long-distance transmission authority and investments (<i><a href="http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2008/08/14/archive/4">Greenwire</a></i>, Aug. 14), and the technologies that undergird the grid remain largely unchanged.</p> <p>"A lot of companies live or die on their research. But the power company is one that, strangely ... largely does not rely on new technology," Schewe said. "That's partly because the nature of electricity hasn't much changed."</p> <p>But data collection has changed.</p> <p>Today, utilities largely rely on customers to call when the power is out and devices fail without warning. But part of the Smart Grid City project, and the larger conception of a comprehensive smart grid, is to bring new communication and data handling technologies into play to give utilities better insight into what is happening on their networks.</p> <p>In Boulder, Excel will install sensors and automation on the city's five electric substations. By this time next year, the substations will communicate among themselves about power flows, and engineers at an operations center will be able to see what is happening at each. They will also have data on, for example, the current temperature of various devices, which can serve as a warning of imminent failure and allow them to take proactive steps to avoid it.</p> <p>"We believe the distribution system digitalization will pay for itself," Palmer said. "But because these assets generally aren't linked in a smart grid-enabled fashion, the benefits of horizontal integration across the whole system, from generation to consumption, are best guesses."</p> <p>Beyond the substations, the company will add similar sensors and Internet-enabled devices at other points in the network. "Everything that can have a sensor, whether switches or transformers or other [equipment], will be monitored and recorded," Palmer said.</p> <p>The massive new flows of data will require new software and data analysis, of course, making full implementation of the system a challenge much bigger than just plugging it all in.</p> <h3>Closer bond with customers</h3> <p>Xcel's goal in all of this: a combination of financial and environmental benefits.</p> <p>"If we can presume that our system is much more reliable and has distributed generation backup -- say that we had 10,000 [plug-in cars] plugged in at any one time -- then if we had a power event, if we had a smart grid, then we would instantly be able to access the power from those 10,000 batteries," Palmer said.</p> <p>A half-hour of backup storage would cut down on inefficient "spinning reserves" that utilities run in case of need and could prevent the need to run an expensive plant, or even build a new one.</p> <p>In addition to reliability and efficiency savings, though, Palmer sees potential benefits on the environmental side. If customers have real-time data on the balance of "green" and conventional power on the grid, they can make decisions to use more energy when the wind is blowing or the sun is generating juice.</p> <p>The utility also aims to ensure that any customer who wants to take advantage of a solar subsidy can. Today the city has a program to foster home solar energy systems, but the number of people who use it is small, from a grid reliability standpoint. Palmer wants to know that as more people sign up, problems will not be triggered when a cloud passes over the city and all those power inputs suddenly go dark.</p> <p>The program focuses on testing many different technologies and working with multiple partners.</p> <p>"We don't know how good this is," Palmer said, echoing a utility refrain that they understand some elements of the project will fail to perform. "Part of what we want to demonstrate here, and measure, and tinker with a little bit, [is] to see how many megawatts we would save."</p> <p>In two or three years, Palmer said, the company will have enough data from its living laboratory to know what works and what misses the mark.</p> <h3>'Creative power menu'</h3> <p>The utility has an unusual degree of flexibility in its program, in part because it relies on partners to cost-share their contributions and in part because Xcel has not sought a rate hike to pay for it. Officials hope that as data arrive, they can use Smart Grid City to make arguments with regulators and lawmakers on how such innovation should be paid for down the road.</p> <p>The company estimates that the whole program will cost a bit more than $100 million, of which Xcel will contribute about $15 million. The list of partners currently includes Accenture, Current Group, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, GridPoint and Ventyx.</p> <p>Schere, the grid historian, believes the time has not yet come for smart grid. Most utilities are too risk-averse, he said, and the federal government has not pushed the issue.</p> <p>But American consumers have seen the provision of some services -- especially telecommunications -- evolve from a minimal fee-for-service relationship to one in which users can select from a menu of options and pricing plans to suit their individual needs.</p> <p>Such a "creative power menu" could be on the horizon for electrons, too, Schere said, with choices to make about when and how power is delivered, and with varied pay rates. The whole thing could start with smart metering, he believes, because "the average consumer can wrap his or her mind around it."</p> <p>If so, the power industry could show some of the "Prius effect" -- named for Toyota's popular hybrid vehicle -- whereby consumers are pushed by mileage feedback from the fuel-efficient cars to drive even more conservatively.</p> <p>If that virtuous cycle shows itself in the tests, Xcel's gamble will look like a very smart one.</p>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-25957774837276286212008-08-27T12:12:00.005-04:002008-08-27T12:22:40.066-04:00Running on Scum!<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">I just love stories about emerging feedstocks for biofuels and new technology making renewable power production less expensive and more efficient. The story below discusses the promise of scum -- and for once, not the political kind :)<br /><br />Imagine - being able to take something that can cause so many problems (think algae blooms that upset the balance of a pond/waterbody) and turn it into a feedstock for energy production?! These and many more amazing opportunities await us all -- if we can focus on them and send the right market signals.<br /><br />The research grant given here is very important -- and we need more of this type of targeted research investment. But after that, there is often a temptation to simply subsidize promising technology -- thinking it will then magically make the transition into the marketplace. History shows us time and again that this is not what happens. We don't need a subsidy for algae -- WE NEED A MARKET FOR IT!! A GHG cap-trade system would reward this type of fuel precisely because of its low pollution properties. If we want energy security and environmental protection, we MUST make sure our market asks for these attributes and rewards them!<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br /><br /><div class="viewStoryDate"> August 27, 2008 </div> <!-- News Headline --> <h1 class="newsStoryHeadline"> Algae: Biofuel of the Future? </h1> <!-- News Sub-Headline --> <!-- Company or Author name --> <div class="viewStoryAuthor"> by Brevy Cannon, University of Virginia </div> <!-- Story dateline --> <div class="viewStoryDateLine"> Virginia, United States [<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53413">RenewableEnergyWorld.com</a>] </div> <!-- Story intro --> <p class="viewStoryIntro"> In the world of alternative fuels, there may be nothing greener than pond scum. Algae are tiny biological factories that use photosynthesis to transform carbon dioxide and sunlight into energy so efficiently that they can double their weight several times a day. </p> <!-- Quote --> <p class="viewStoryQuote"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> "The main principle of industrial ecology is to try and use our waste products to produce something of value." </span>-- Lisa Colosi, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, U.Va.<br /></p> <div id="newsStoryBody"> <p align="left">As part of the photosynthesis process algae produce oil and can generate 15 times more oil per acre than other plants used for biofuels, such as corn and switchgrass. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Algae can grow in salt water, freshwater or even contaminated water, at sea or in ponds, and on land not suitable for food production.</span></p><p align="left"><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-weight: bold;">On top of those advantages, algae — at least in theory — should grow even better when fed extra carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) and organic material like sewage. If so, algae could produce biofuel while cleaning up other problems. </span><br /><br />"We have to prove these two things to show that we really are getting a free lunch," said Lisa Colosi, a professor of civil and environmental engineering who is part of an interdisciplinary University of Virginia research team, recently funded by a new U.Va. <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=5946" target="_blank">Collaborative Sustainable Energy Seed Grant</a><strong><u> </u></strong>worth about US $30,000. </p><p align="left">With the grant, the team will try to determine exactly how promising algae biofuel production can be by tweaking the inputs of carbon dioxide and organic matter to increase algae oil yields. </p><p align="left">Scientific interest in producing fuel from algae has been around since the 1950s, Colosi said. The U.S. Department of Energy did <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Species_Program" target="_blank">pioneering research</a> on it from 1978 to 1996. Most previous and current research on algae biofuel, she said, has used the algae in a manner similar to its natural state — essentially letting it grow in water with just the naturally occurring inputs of atmospheric carbon dioxide and sunlight. This approach results in a rather low yield of oil — about 1 percent by weight of the algae. </p><p align="left">The U.Va. team hypothesizes that feeding the algae more carbon dioxide and organic material could boost the oil yield to as much as 40 percent by weight, Colosi said. </p><p align="left">Proving that the algae can thrive with increased inputs of either carbon dioxide or untreated sewage solids will confirm its industrial ecology possibilities — to help with wastewater treatment, where dealing with solids is one of the most expensive challenges, or to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, such as coal power-plant flue gas, which contains about 10 to 30 times as much carbon dioxide as normal air. </p><p align="left">"The main principle of industrial ecology is to try and use our waste products to produce something of value," Colosi said.<br /><br />Research partner Mark White, a professor at the <a href="http://www.commerce.virginia.edu/index_flash.html" target="_blank">McIntire School of Commerce</a>, will help the team quantify the big-picture environmental and economic benefits of algae biofuel compared to soy-based biodiesel, under three different sets of assumptions.<br /><br />White will examine the economic benefits of algae fuel if the nation instituted a carbon cap-and-trade system, which would increase the monetary value of algae's ability to dispose of carbon dioxide. He will also consider how algae fuel economics would be impacted if there were increased nitrogen regulations (since algae can also remove nitrogen from air or water), or if oil prices rise to a prohibitive level.<br /><br />The third team member is Andres Clarens, a professor of <a href="http://ce.virginia.edu/" target="_blank">civil and environmental engineering</a> with expertise in separating the oil produced by the algae.<br /><br />The team will experiment on a very small scale — a few liters of algae at a time. They will seek to optimize the oil output by using a pragmatic engineering approach, testing basic issues like whether it makes a difference to grind up the organic material before feeding it to the algae.<br /><br />Wastewater solids and algae, either dead or alive, are on the menu. "We're looking at dumping the whole dinner on top of them and seeing what happens," Colosi said.<br /><br />Some of these pragmatic issues may have been tackled already by the various private companies, including oil industry giants Chevron and Shell, which are already researching algae fuel, but a published scientific report on these fundamentals will be a major benefit to other researchers looking into algae biofuel.<br /><br />Published evidence of improved algae oil output might spur significant follow-up efforts by public and private sectors, since the fundamentals of this technology are so appealing, Colosi said. Research successes would also open the door to larger grants from agencies like the U.S. Department of Energy, and could be immediately applicable to the handful of pilot-scale algae biofuel facilities recently funded by Shell and start-up firms.</p><p align="left"><em>Brevy Cannon is a general assignment writer in the media relations department at the University of Virginia.</em> </p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-40133838152751746972008-08-18T20:28:00.002-04:002008-08-18T20:38:09.020-04:00Cool New Solar Stuff<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">I always love reading about cool new breakthroughs allowing renewable energy to be produced in ways that are more flexible and less costly. The fact that there are so many such advancements on a fairly regular basis these days speaks to the strong market signals that are being sent. <br /><br />As we have talked about here before, getting energy is becoming increasingly expensive and difficult. The upside of that unfortunate fact, is that the market signals are finally being sent and the market is responding. <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><br /><div class="viewStoryDate"> August 12, 2008 </div> <!-- News Headline --> <h1 class="newsStoryHeadline"> Flexible Nanoantenna Arrays Capture Solar Energy </h1> <!-- News Sub-Headline --> <!-- Company or Author name --> <div class="viewStoryAuthor"> by Roberta Kwok, Idaho National Laboratory </div> <!-- Story dateline --> <div class="viewStoryDateLine"> Florida, United States <a href="http://renewableenergyworld.com">[RenewableEnergyWorld.com]</a> </div> <!-- Story intro --> <p class="viewStoryIntro"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Researchers have devised an inexpensive way to produce plastic sheets containing billions of nanoantennas that collect heat energy generated by the sun and other sources. The researchers say that the technology, developed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL), is the first step toward a solar energy collector that could be mass-produced on flexible materials.</span> </p> <!-- Quote --> <div id="newsStoryBody"> <p> While methods to convert the energy into usable electricity still need to be developed, it is envisioned that the sheets could one day be manufactured as lightweight "skins" that power products such as hybrid cars or iPods with potentially higher efficiency than traditional solar cells. The nanoantennas also have the potential to act as cooling devices that draw waste heat from buildings or electronics without using electricity.</p> <p> The nanoantennas target mid-infrared rays, which the Earth continuously radiates as heat after absorbing energy from the sun during the day. In contrast, traditional solar cells can only use visible light, rendering them idle after dark. Infrared radiation is an especially rich energy source because it also is generated by industrial processes such as coal-fired plants.</p> <p> "Every process in our industrial world creates waste heat," says <a href="https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=255&mode=2" target="_blank">INL</a> physicist Steven Novack. "It's energy that we just throw away." Novack led the research team, which included INL engineer Dale Kotter, W. Dennis Slafer of <a href="http://www.microcontinuum.com/" target="_blank">MicroContinuum Inc.</a> and Patrick Pinhero, now at the <a href="http://www.missouri.edu/" target="_blank">University of Missouri</a>.</p> <p> The nanoantennas are tiny gold squares or spirals set in a specially treated form of polyethylene, a material used in plastic bags. While others have successfully invented antennas that collect energy from lower-frequency regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as microwaves, infrared rays have proven more elusive. Part of the reason is that materials' properties change drastically at high-frequency wavelengths, Kotter says. </p><p><img src="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2008/8/12/1-1332-flexible-nanoantenna-arrays-capture-solar-energy.jpg" alt="" align="right" height="270" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="350" />The researchers studied the behavior of various materials — including gold, manganese and copper — under infrared rays and used the resulting data to build computer models of nanoantennas. They found that with the right materials, shape and size, the simulated nanoantennas could harvest up to 92 percent of the energy at infrared wavelengths.</p> <p> The team then created real-life prototypes to test their computer models. First, they used conventional production methods to etch a silicon wafer with the nanoantenna pattern. The silicon-based nanoantennas matched the computer simulations, absorbing more than 80 percent of the energy over the intended wavelength range. Next, they used a stamp-and-repeat process to emboss the nanoantennas on thin sheets of plastic. While the plastic prototype is still being tested, initial experiments suggest that it also captures energy at the expected infrared wavelengths.</p> <p> The nanoantennas' ability to absorb infrared radiation makes them promising cooling devices. Since objects give off heat as infrared rays, the nanoantennas could collect those rays and re-emit the energy at harmless wavelengths. Such a system could cool down buildings and computers without the external power source required by air-conditioners and fans.</p> <p> More technological advances are needed before the nanoantennas can funnel their energy into usable electricity. The infrared rays create alternating currents in the nanoantennas that oscillate trillions of times per second, requiring a component called a rectifier to convert the alternating current to direct current. Today's rectifiers can't handle such high frequencies. </p><p>"We need to design nanorectifiers that go with our nanoantennas," says Kotter, noting that a nanoscale rectifier would need to be about 1,000 times smaller than current commercial devices and will require new manufacturing methods. Another possibility is to develop electrical circuitry that might slow down the current to usable frequencies.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> If these technical hurdles can be overcome, nanoantennas have the potential to be efficient harvesters of solar energy. Because they can be tweaked to pick up specific wavelengths depending on their shape and size, it may be possible to create double-sided nanoantenna sheets that harvest energy from different parts of the sun's spectrum, Novack says.</span> </p> <p> The team's stamp-and-repeat process could also be extended to large-scale roll-to-roll manufacturing techniques that could print the arrays at a rate of several yards per minute. </p> <p> The researchers will be reporting their findings on August 13 at the <a href="http://www.aesconference.org/locationvenue.html" target="_blank">American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2008 2nd International Conference on Energy Sustainability in Jacksonville, Florida</a>. </p> <p> <em>Roberta Kwok is a Research Communications Fellow at Idaho National Laboratory. </em> </p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-89490494117467434702008-08-15T18:55:00.004-04:002008-08-15T19:15:50.394-04:00The New Century Farm<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2x9YxOB1OJ2FMtZ9FzsGcKGFrGQqhSUuM24bQYejbZN5PZNoqnvM_9ygSJQeJxiCUR0ohLwV-yQgyyquSSiaMYsrnltw2FaNlcfKTRYmjo4MgYQSCATd_SmIz_xPOOb04v8BobUD3aseQ/s1600-h/ISU_centuryfarm.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 330px; height: 216px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2x9YxOB1OJ2FMtZ9FzsGcKGFrGQqhSUuM24bQYejbZN5PZNoqnvM_9ygSJQeJxiCUR0ohLwV-yQgyyquSSiaMYsrnltw2FaNlcfKTRYmjo4MgYQSCATd_SmIz_xPOOb04v8BobUD3aseQ/s320/ISU_centuryfarm.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5234885973768592130" border="0" /></a><br />Iowa State University is launching what it calls "The New Century Farm" which ISU says will be "the first integrated, sustainable biofuel feedstock demonstration farm in the U.S. Research on the farm will be conducted in the areas of new feedstock development, processing, and increasing the utilization for biomass feedstocks into biofuel.<br /><br />One of the main focuses of the farm will be on biomass breeding and new means for processing biomass into biofuel. The effort seems to be providing a promising boost to finding ways to make much more biofuel from non-feed resources. This fuel would also have the added bonus of being lower in its energy-intensity and pollution impact. Under a climate cap-trade system, these kinds of fuels are likely to command a market premium. <br /><br />It is great to see this kind of massive, coordinated effort underway in America's heartland. To read more about the New Century Farm, <a href="http://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2382AA02-7A25-4AD6-9294-632EF91CDB2F/59707/COANewCenturyFarmOverview51507CompatibilityMode.pdf">click here</a>.Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-5724994452751393252008-08-15T13:11:00.006-04:002008-08-15T13:35:38.594-04:00More from Russia<span style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">The Georgian tragedy continues as Russia continues to blatantly violate the cease fire agreement it signed a few days ago. Russian troops remain in much of Georgia and human rights groups are reporting numerous executions, looting and burning of homes by Russian forces. <br /><br />Again - we must keep our eyes on this vivid and heartbreaking example of what the world will be like so long as the West remains addicted to the fossil fuels that fuel the despicable actions on display by Russia. America is lucky in that it has far more natural resources than the Europeans, but even we are stymied in the response we might otherwise have to this issue because of the world's need for fossil energy and Russia, the Middle East, and Venezuela's control over much of that resource. <br /><br />Below is a good op-ed from today's Wall Street Journal that makes some important points about what we are seeing. We can not allow our need for energy systematically dismantle the freedom we so enjoy -- and that other parts of the world so desire. <br /><br />The price of our continued partisan bickering . . . is furthering the ability of Russia and the Middle East to get away with these power plays that destroy so many lives -- and ultimately, will aid in the destruction of our own country.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The Wall Street Journal<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Kremlin's 'Protection' Racket</span><br />By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY<br />August 15, 2008; Page A15<br /><br />Russia's invasion of Georgia will be a defining moment for America's credibility and global stability. If the Medvedev (or, rather, Putin) regime succeeds in using force to topple a democratic and pro-Western government, based on spurious claims of "protecting" Georgia's population against its own government, the stage will be set for similar aggression against the other states -- from the Baltics to Ukraine -- that border Russia but look to the free West. The dangers of the post-September 11 World will be combined with the challenge of a new Cold War.<br /><br />Russia is fully aware of these ominous implications. It has accordingly sought to cloak this act of aggression in the raiment of modern international justice. Its officials and surrogates (including Mikhail Gorbachev) have falsely accused Georgian leaders of violating international law in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions, which have "Russian" populations on account of Russia's extralegal issuance of its passports in those areas.<br /><br />President Dmitry Medvedev has called for the "criminal prosecution" of the perpetrators of these supposed abuses and Vladimir Putin has alleged that if "Saddam Hussein [was hanged] for destroying several Shiite villages," Georgian leaders are guilty of much more. Ruthless Kremlin realists have learned the language of global humanitarianism.<br /><br />The language of "protection" was once a favorite pretext for Tsarist expansion in the 19th century. It is also the same rationale that Germany offered for absorbing the Sudetenland in 1938. The Kremlin's current claims are no more credible than its tattered justifications for invading Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. Russian assertions that Georgian forces provoked the conflict by attacking Russian troops call to mind Hitler's story that his 1939 invasion of Poland was justified by Polish attacks on Germans. This is particularly ironic, given the Kremlin's penchant for comparing Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />Moscow's sudden embrace of a "limited sovereignty" for Georgia doesn't square with Russia's own previous protestations about the sanctity of its sovereignty and stubborn insistence that it was free to act on its own soil as it saw fit. Moscow's concern about alleged atrocities and genocide is also preposterous in light of the Russian government's callous indifference to the very real genocides conducted by its allies in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, and in Rwanda and Darfur -- not to mention Moscow's own exceptionally brutal military campaigns in Chechnya.<br /><br />Predictably, Messrs. Putin and Medvedev also assert that their actions in Georgia are no different from Western behavior vis-à-vis Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Accordingly, they have demanded Mr. Saakashvili's resignation.<br /><br />Moscow's clear goal is to replace a pro-Western government with a new Russian satellite, both through military action and by discrediting Georgia's leadership through false war crimes and genocide accusations. Behind the hypocrisy, Russia may be trying to lock in a new set of international rules, by which Moscow will be free to intervene at will in its "near abroad" while the United States looks on. These claims, reminiscent of the Brezhnev doctrine which posited that Moscow had a right to use force to preserve its empire, ring particularly hollow in the 21st century.<br /><br />Moscow's attack on Georgia is only part of a broader campaign against its real and perceived enemies, a mission that has been conducted without the least regard for settled principles of international law. This campaign includes the de facto annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia -- which must now be considered "Russia-occupied territory" protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention. It also encompasses cyber attacks against the Baltic states, state-ordered assassinations of individuals in Western countries, and economic intimidation, as in the recent cutoffs of Russian oil and gas shipments to Ukraine or the Czech Republic.<br /><br />It is important that Moscow pays a concrete and tangible price for its latest aggression, at least comparable to the price it paid for the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Visa denials to all individuals connected to the Russian government and vigorous oversight and enforcement activities against Moscow's state-owned companies would be a good way to start. Given Russia's historic insecurities, and the desire of Russian plutocrats to travel freely throughout the world, educate their children in the West, and own property overseas, such modest measures would be quite effective. Russia's WTO membership should be blocked and its G-8 participation suspended.<br /><br />The Bush administration should also make an assertive effort to deny the legitimacy of all Moscow's legal and policy claims, and defend Mr. Saakashvili without reservations. We should draw a sharp contrast between the American leadership in securing Kosovo's independence -- an infringement of Serbian sovereignty brought about by Belgrade's real genocide and war crimes -- and Moscow's cynical encouragement of secessionist movements in countries formerly a part of the Soviet Union, which was designed to reconstitute Russian imperial control. John McCain has already taken the lead on this, quickly reaching out to the Georgian president and condemning Russia's actions as a new form of empire building.<br /><br />While rebutting Moscow's claims of today, the U.S. should also press for a historical accounting. Russia's history goes directly to its credibility. We should remind the world that Russia remains unrepentant for the sins of its past, not the least of which are its previous 1803 and 1922 invasions and annexation of Georgia, its 1939 partition of Poland with Hitler's Germany, and the Katyn massacre that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of captured Polish officers (which Moscow still falsely blames on Germany). Russia refuses to take responsibility for its past oppression of numerous non-Russian "captive nations" -- among them, of course, the Georgians.<br /><br />American credibility is very much at stake here. If a true friend of the United States -- an ancient country already twice annexed by Moscow in the past two centuries, a democracy that has enthusiastically reached out to NATO and the European Union, and even sent troops to fight in Iraq -- can be snuffed out without concrete action by Washington, America's friendship will quickly lose its value and America's displeasure would matter even less. The repercussions would be felt world-wide, from the capitals of New Europe, to Jerusalem, Kabul and Baghdad.<br /><br />Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are Washington lawyers who served from 2004-2007 as members of the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-91423640963165550382008-08-12T13:47:00.006-04:002008-08-12T14:17:02.661-04:00Russia's Energy Lesson<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">What a sad set of events have unfolded over the past few days. You may not know it from the news coverage, but there is a new war in town -- Russia has been bombing and has troops on the ground in the small nation of Georgia (a former part of the Soviet Union by force that broke away in 1991).<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhreDaGEDvSDe4t8qnNf2Z1TLy_bgo5QrTPoxQTXsQCF45WRSHRKhTn6VXRTmAbvSVxzoO_P5WSFaWluefOgjSJu5YzJh6feon2aOqEPMnLstKJM55TabZ9cFtPc5VhUp122F6_BT2LMkYX/s1600-h/080809_georgia_war.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhreDaGEDvSDe4t8qnNf2Z1TLy_bgo5QrTPoxQTXsQCF45WRSHRKhTn6VXRTmAbvSVxzoO_P5WSFaWluefOgjSJu5YzJh6feon2aOqEPMnLstKJM55TabZ9cFtPc5VhUp122F6_BT2LMkYX/s320/080809_georgia_war.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5233696627391925138" border="0" /></a><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">This development is very serious and deserves far more attention than it has received. Russia is using force to restore its control over countries <span style="font-weight: bold;">and resources</span> that it lost with the fall of the Soviet Union. We are seeing no less than the beginning of an effort to re-construct the "Evil Empire".<br /><br />And <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">everything</span></span> about this move has to do with energy. Georgia has access to important oil pipeline infrastructure and Russia is bent on controlling it and squeezing off energy supplies to Europe whenever it wants anything from them.<br /><br />If this is not a clear sign of our need to develop our own secure, domestic energy infrastructure, I don't know what is! I hear over and over the pundits of AM radio screaming about how "oil is freedom" Well, take a good look at what 'freedom' is doing to the independent state of Georgia!<br /><br />I'm sorry, but oil - as efficient of a fuel as it is, is located in ALL THE WRONG PLACES in this world. Isn't that a hint that we should depend more on our own ingenuity and less on the graces of the greedy?<br /><br />I know my blog is about pragmatism -- and this topic is not an exception. I'm not saying we should turn our backs on drilling and finding new domestic sources of energy. Clearly, we must. But we CAN NOT continue to delude ourselves into thinking that we can continue to make deals with the devil <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AND</span></span> be a free people. It doesn't work that way. It never has.<br /><br />So just maybe Paris Hilton has it right? We need to drill <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AND</span></span> we need to massively develop alternative energy -- all of it (nuclear, wind, solar, geo-thermal, biogas, etc) so that we do not have to continue to stand by and watch Russia eat up surrounding nations, watch the Saudis continue to hand out $ for extremist terrorists and fund the very empire that will hold us hostage for energy.<br /><br />Would Luke Skywalker fund the construction of the Death Star? No. And neither should we!!<br /><br />Below is a terrific excerpt from a blog I found that provides detailed background on the whole Russia, Georgia history and the role of oil. I highly recommend reading the entire post -- which you can see by clicking on the blue entry listing below.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><br />From 'green with a gun' blog, entry: <a href="http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-russia-west-checkmate.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Georgia, Russia, the West - checkmate"</span></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Russia, Gazprom and oil</span><br />Russia has aspirations to return to the Great Power status it once had, both under the Tsars and under the Communists. As I described in <a href="http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/2008/01/great-powers-nuclear-weapons-and-un.html">talking about India and nuclear weapons</a>, a "Great Power" is a country whose economic and military might is such that it cannot be ignored in world affairs. Australia or Belgium can be ignored; the US or China cannot. For most of the 1990s Russia had effectively lost its Great Power status. It is now reclaiming it. Part of this is waving a stick at its neighbours, neighbours who were once part of Mother Russia - or the Soviet Union.<br /><img src="http://www.russiablog.org/GazpromBillboardMoscow.jpg" align="right" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="180" /><br />But this is not mere prestige we're talking about. Being a Great Power lets your people have more than their fair share of world resources. The US, for example, has 4.5% of the world's population but consumes about 24% its oil - the USA's Great Power status means that Americans can eat burgers, drive SUVs, and watch lots of tv. Russia was never as well-off as that, but it's better-off now than it was in the 1990s, and its people and government aspire to more.<br /><br />So these two things tie in with each-other, the military and the economic. And they mean that control over resources and where they flow to is very important. Russia's shown itself adept at manipulating this. For example, the Russia energy company <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom">Gazprom</a> supplies something like three-quarters of Eastern Europe's natural gas, and overall about a quarter of the EU's natural gas. If the EU pisses off Russia, Europeans face a cold winter. Russia has already shown itself ready to turn off the tap, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute">it did with the Ukrain</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute">e</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Belarus_energy_dispute">and Belarus</a>.<br /><br />You can see, then, that the US and EU are rather keen not to have to rely on Russian goodwill to keep the oil flowing out of Central Asia. If they rely on Russia for oil <span style="font-style: italic;">or</span> for natural gas, then if Russia switches one off it hurts a lot but they can change to the other, but if Russia controls <span style="font-style: italic;">both</span>, they're stuck. Russia has them not merely by the balls but also the throat. Russia can then dictate not only prices, but to some degree foreign policy. "Yes, dear EU, you can support airstrikes on our friends in Iran, but you will gain a new appreciation of your white Christmas, as you're walking out in the cold past your unfuelled cars."<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chokepoint #2, Georgia</span><br />The EU and the US have looked for a way out. From the Central Asian republics the oil - and any gas they find with it - can flow four ways.<br /><ul><li>through Russia, which option they cannot accept</li><li>through China, which would be technically difficult and extraordinarily expensive (it'd have to go through desert western China, and then on tankers all the way round to Europe again), and anyway by the time the pipeline got built the Chinese would want the oil for themselves, their consumption is increasing madly</li><li>through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This was part of the motivation for the US/NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, but those two countries are simply too unstable for pipelines to be built or survive - the Afghans cannot even secure their main prison in their capital, with several hundred prisoners escaping<br /></li><li>through Azerbaijan, and then by some route to the Mediterranean.</li></ul>Having no other option, they chose the last. From Azerbaijan the pipeline could go south to Iran, but this just transfers the problem from Russia to Iran - one country controlling a huge chunk of the EU's oil supply. It could go west to Armenia, but Azerbaijan and Armenia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War">fought a war</a> over an Azerbaijaini enclave within Armenia for six years, and though they've signed a ceasefire, they've not signed a peace treaty, and are still technically at war (like North and South Korea).<br /><br />That left going northwest to Georgia, and then into Turkey and thus to the Mediterranean through the port of Ceyhan. Of course Georgia faces two armed insurrections, one in Abkhazia and the other in South Ossetia. Russia supports the insurgents essentially to keep a country which used to be part of Mother Russia under its thumb. But until recently there'd been no major fighting for a few years. It also passes through Turkish Kurdistan, where the Kurds have been fighting for independence for decades (and they have it in fact but not in name in Iraqi Kurdistan, thanks the West's two wars against Iraq). Altogether, not brilliant, but... really that route seemed the best of a bad lot. Better than any of the alternatives, and better than nothing. And so we have the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline">Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline</a>.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The BTC pipeline</span><br />This was built just last year. It can carry about 1.5 million barrels a day of oil, but currently carries just 800,000 bbl/day. It was built with extra capacity because the Azerbaijainis hope to increase production, and in any case the EU - who with Japan and the US paid for it - hope to get oil from the Central Asian republics in future years.<br /><img src="http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2006/apr/caspian_pipeline/pipeline_map650.jpg" align="right" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="400" /><br />With the background so far, you can see why the BTC pipeline is so important to the West. With oil exports from the Persian Gulf declining over the next decade or so, Nigeria in a mess, Venezuela unfriendly, that leaves the Central Asian republics.<br /><br />The BTC pipeline was already damaged last week, probably in an attack by Turk-Kurdish rebels, as discussed <a href="http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Analysis_BTC_pipeline_explosion_999.html">here</a>.<br /><br />On an oil pipeline, the most place most vulnerable to attack is the pipe itself, which can be ruptured with relative ease, and of course it's impossible to protect 1,700km of pipeline. However, while easy to rupture it's also easy to repair - you'd get a loss of pressure for half an hour until they found where the rupture was, then it'd be down for a few hours until they repaired it. Little effort, but little gain for the saboteur. But pipelines have pumping stations, these are large, relatively easier to defend, but if struck the line will be down for days at least, depending on the level of damage.<br /><br />As for saboteurs, so for conventional warfighting. If in the course of the conflict pumping stations are destroyed, the oil flow stops. And while the fighting's still going on, nothing will be rebuilt - just ask the Iraqis, where more than five years after the invasion Baghdadis reckon they're doing well if they get six hours of electricity a day.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What's Russia up to?</span><br />Nothing more nor less than asserting and creating its Great Power status. It's not for nothing that last year they resumed <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm">patrols of nuclear bombers</a>, flying close to Britain and to Guam.<br /><br />There are many ethnic and historical issues behind the Georgia-Russia conflict. The Ossetians feel a kinship with Russia more than with Georgia, Georgia was set for NATO membership next year, putting a NATO country directly on Russia's border, and Russia has long held sway over the entire Caucasus. And since the West went to war with a Russian ally in Serbia to secure the independence and self-determination of the Kosovar Albanians, they can hardly complain if Russia goes to war with Georgia to secure the same for the Ossetians. But really that is not important: for the world and for Russia <span style="font-style: italic;">it all comes down to energy</span>, to controlling the flow of it. Russia has chosen an effective means of controlling the flow of oil from the Central Asian republics. <img src="http://file.shanghaidaily.com/News/Image//2008/2008-08/2008-08-09/20080809_369834_01.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="10" width="400" /><br /><br />Russia has accomplished a strategic coup de main. The aim of most warfare is to present your enemy with a <span style="font-style: italic;">dilemma</span>. For example, achieve air superiority against his land forces, and his forces can either sit still in bunkers and be encircled by your troops, or move and be bombed - either way they're screwed, it's a dilemma. Russia has presented the West with a dilemma - do nothing to help Georgia and lose BTC, or go to war against Russia and in the course of the conflict lose BTC.</blockquote>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-91133843985368159552008-08-09T12:59:00.003-04:002008-08-09T13:05:12.419-04:00Paradigm Shift on Natural GasThe investment message boards are often filled with good insight and analysis. This post from<br /><a>Investor Village.com </a><a href="http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2234&mn=122094&pt=msg&mid=5230051"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></a><a></a>caught my eye and I wanted to share it with you. You can visit the post directly by <a href="http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2234&mn=122094&pt=msg&mid=5230051"><span style="font-style: italic;">clicking here</span></a><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><b><span> A Paradigm Shift in the Highest and Best Use of NG [Natural Gas]<br />posted by: seethefuture06<br /><br /></span></b><div>I am convinced that T Boon has it right, that the only way to wean this country off foreign oil dependency is the full scale conversion to a NG powered light transportation country.</div> <div> </div> <div>Oil will fire heavy transportation, planes, trains, and long haul trucking.</div> <div>Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and clean coal will generate the electrical needs of the US.</div> <div>Compressed natural gas will power our cars and small trucks of tomorrow.</div> <div> </div> <div><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reasons for NG to emerge the victor among the many competing technologies</span>:</div> <div> </div> <div>1. Huge domestic reserves. We're finding huge NG reserves (like the 10-20 Tcf Haynesville play) at a frequency similar to the discovery rate of giant oil fields a hundred years ago. Peak oil occurred in the US in the 1970. Peak gas is many years in front of us such that as the 20th century was oil driven, the 21st century will be gas driven.</div> <div> </div> <div>2. Natural Gas Vehicle technology is proved and available today. Many cities, counties, and state transportation programs are driven by NG because a. their vehicles are generally kept in one or a few central locations where fueling can take place, and b. they are not driven very far away from their fueling facility. </div> <div> </div> <div>3. NGV can be retrofitted (at a cost of $1,500 to $2,000) to existing gasoline combustion engines with the added benefit that the retrofitted car can be <b><u>dual fuel</u></b> meaning your existing retrofitted vehicle (assuming you retain your gasoline fuel tank) will still operate perfectly well on gasoline. Someone will probably invent the detachable gasoline tank so that for a 700-800 mile non stop trip, you might fill with CNG and gasoline, and around town, run exclusively on NG with you gas tank hanging in your garage.</div> <div> </div> <div>4. The infrastructure in already in place for home refueling. Fuelmaker makes an in-home trickle fill fueling station (called Phill) which will fill at a gasoline equivalent rate of about a half gallon per hour. A 10 hour overnight fill puts about 5 gallons gasoline equivalent (GE) in your CNG tank, which will be about 70% of a full tank. CNG tanks will hold 7-8 gallons GE. At 30 mpg that's 200-250 miles between refueling and a 10 hour Phill fueling puts about 150 miles into your tank. Fuelink takes place at night when gas and electricity consumption is at it's lowest (Phill requires 6-8 amps (check this) to compress the gas which is like running a room air conditioner.).</div> <div> </div> <div>5. It's the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the by product. No Nox, Sox, CO. If however you were planning suicide by running your vehicle inside your garage, pack a lunch. It'll take days.</div> <div> </div> <div>6. No, (well minimal) refining, no mining. NG is normally flows ready to use from a simple well. Compared to strip mining coal, its like athroscopic heart surgery vs open heart surgery. Plug and go. Land is repaired quickly and cheaply. </div> <div> </div> <div>7. No other fuel source offers the potential for fast (high pressure) refueling at a commercial fueling station and low flow refueling at home with the safety of NG. Because NG flows from the meter to the compressor and into the car, there is no CNG stored anywhere in the garage except the cars tank. These tanks are very safe, on par with gasoline tanks. There is less danger of gas leakage and fire from Phill than any other NG fired appliance in your house. Risk is much higher will gas whether heater, gas stove, etc. Not som much with the Hydrogen car.</div> <div> </div> <div>8. NG can flow from drill bit to spark plug safely without trucks (in home refueling, at least). Oil to gas obviously has the oil going from the well to pipe to refinery to truck to filling station to their tank to yours. </div> <div> </div> <div>9. NG has a wide and localized distribution. NG is in the gulf, Texas, the midwest, the Rocky mountains, and Columbia basin and more to be found. We do not need to go to ANWAR or offshore in the foreseeable future. Adequate NG reserves can be proved up in the lower continental US for some time to come.</div> <div> </div> <div>10. So why is there so much talk about the hydrogen economy, biofuels, ethanol, hybrids (btw, electric cars will likely be successful along side the CNG vehicles), electric vehicles? If it's so obvious (well to me anyway, so I got to be prepared for this question) why hasn't it caught on?</div> <div> </div> <div>A. People don't understand two basic things about energy; 1, energy density and 2. energy volume. To most, a solar panel or a wind turbine and a gallon of gas are equivalent energy sources. The don't understand that the energy concentrated in that gallon jug of gas is enormous compared to the size of the alternative energy sourcing and storage infrastructure. Wind turbines, solar cells, batteries, etc are, from a power to weight and power to cost ratio, orders of magnitude apart. They also don't understand the sheer volume of energy that powers our economy. 20 million barrels of oil a day. The amount of energy, metal, and real estate, and human effort necessary to replace the incredible energy density of gasoline and its (now receding) once tremendous availability, is staggering. Doing so will place huge stresses on natural resources to simply build the new infrastructure. People just take oil based energy for granted, what a unique and irreplaceable resource it is (was). NG (along with nuclear) are the only viable, existing technologies with the energy densities and volume options to allow the transition to a post oil world.</div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-27716282540838617442008-08-05T11:49:00.004-04:002008-08-05T11:54:45.598-04:00Environmentalists "Strategery" Problem<span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">As if to reinforce the point I just made with the previous post, here is a story from Politico talking about some of the strategic flaws made by environmental groups. Unfortunately, most of the groups just chalk it up to a "perception problem" with the public -- meaning, they aren't wrong in their messaging, the public is just wrong in their perceptions. Ugh!<br /><br />Please - for the sake of the planet, LEARN to work WITH people rather than PREACHING AT THEM!!<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><br /><table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="650"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.politico.com/"><img src="http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif" border="0" /></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <p style="font-family: arial; font-size: 20px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <strong>Environmental groups faltered this year</strong><br /> <span class="author">By: <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);font-size:11;" > Erika Lovley </span><br /> August 4, 2008 05:47 PM EST</span> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="story" valign="top"> <span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:16;" ><p>Former Vice President Al Gore may have made global warming a household term, but this year’s tactical mistakes by the green army may have set the cause back just when it seemed to be on the brink of a legislative breakthrough. While pushing for sharp emission reductions, a number of environmental groups failed to adapt their pitch to acknowledge rising energy costs, experts say, leaving voters to believe that saving the planet will mean unaffordable energy prices.<br /><br />The Senate’s Climate Security Act — sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) — called for quick emission reductions that would have raised energy costs significantly for Americans. A handful of well-advertised studies by the business community painted the legislation as an economic apocalypse.<br /><br />But Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups were pushing lawmakers to go even further to prevent irreversible environmental damage.<br /><br />In a year when gasoline soared past $4 per gallon, the green message triggered populist anger and eventually drove away a core group of moderate and conservative Democrats.<br /><br />When the legislation came to the Senate floor, 10 conservative Democratic senators who voted to debate the bill also vowed to oppose it later — even after it had been sweetened with billions of dollars in last-minute public energy assistance.<br /><br />The group included Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who said he plans to offer his own legislation next year. He told Politico that environmentalists will be forced to compromise next year and support the development of clean coal, nuclear power and other alternative fuels.<br /><br />“We need to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on environmental efficiencies as part of that plan,” Webb said. “We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.”<br /><br />Polls show that the public clearly sees global warming and high energy prices as separate issues, rather than one overall problem. Now more Americans than ever are urging politicians to solve the skyrocketing gas prices before finding a solution to climbing temperatures. And while support for offshore oil drilling has reached a record high, solving global warming is low on the list of voter priorities.<br /><br />In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, global warming ranked seventh in a list of eight top voter priorities, behind the economy and energy at the top, and also following the war in Iraq, health care, terrorism and illegal immigration. It was ahead of only housing.<br /><br />“There was not enough emphasis that if we move aggressively toward sustainable energy, we will transform our energy costs,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who said he plans to offer his own global warming bill next year. “We were not as clear as we might have been.”<br /><br />Still, Democrats who backed the legislation remain supportive of the greens’ agenda.<br /><br />“I’m not discouraged at all,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.). “The environmental community understands that we have to have a starting point. The next bill should be modified with the greens but also with those in the business community.”</p><p>Boxer said environmental groups would continue to play a vital role in next year’s debate. “The vast majority of green groups support the targets that are necessary to avoid the most dangerous impact of global warming,” she said.<br /><br />Greens deny that their policy push overlooked the energy crisis but acknowledge a public perception problem.<br /><br />“The solution for us next year is connecting gas prices and global warming. We have to show voters that the solution to gas prices and the solution to global warming is the same,” said Greenpeace global warming expert Kate Smolski. “What’s been lost on decision makers is that the cost of inaction will far exceed any costs of dealing with the problem now.”<br /><br />It’s a balancing act that plenty of others saw coming.<br /><br />“You cannot have a system that emphasizes pain,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), whose American Solutions group opposed the global warming bill. “It is elitist. You’d have to be so wealthy you don’t notice the cost or so dedicated that the cost is irrelevant.”<br /><br />A study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found that energy costs are disproportionally affecting lower and middle class minority families.<br /><br />Sierra Club global warming lobbyist Dave Hamilton said the environmental community was partly a victim of timing. Despite efforts to educate the grass roots about the relationship between global warming and energy prices, news of the added energy assistance funding came too late and failed to resonate with key voting blocs.<br /><br />“The problems with energy prices have really happened in the last few months,” he said. “We somehow failed in making that a priority, and I think we have a huge amount [of work] to do on energy policy.”<br /><br />Environmentalists say Americans want immediate action on global warming but don’t want to pay for it. A recent study by the Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change showed that a large majority of Americans wanted serious government action on climate change but that only 14 percent were willing to pay more than $50 a month to help the cause.<br /><br />“You cannot drive home environmental legislation without considering the cost on the economy,” said National Association of Manufacturers lobbyist Keith McCoy. “That message was already universally unacceptable.”<br /><br />Leading policymakers suspect greens will continue to face hurdles if energy costs stay high.<br /><br />“They’re defeating themselves and hurting all of us on an issue that hurts all of us,” said former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who was instrumental in implementing the Clean Air Act. “The trouble comes when people try to attribute everything to global warming. Then the public gets skeptical about the claims.”<br /><br /><em> Avi Zenilman contributed to this story.</em></p></span></td></tr></tbody></table>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-27643548768041964542008-08-04T20:38:00.004-04:002008-08-04T20:49:20.801-04:00Environmentalists vs the Poor ?<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">The story below caught my eye because it lays out what can happen when special interests focus too narrowly on any one issue and take on the armor of the righteous. By being so purely wed to the perfect solution to pollution, environmental groups often leave themselves open to charges that their stated priorities (i.e. the environment) come at the expense of other values (i.e. helping to alleviate poverty). [See the story below].<br /><br />There is a grain of truth in what this new group is charging -- but they are employing the same extremism in defense of their issue that they accuse the environmentalists of.<br /><br />As energy prices stay high -- and rise even higher, we will need pragmatic solutions for finding enough energy at affordable prices more than ever if we are to avoid the damaging pendulum effect where society and its policies swing rabidly from one end of the extreme to the other.<br /><br />Does global warming disproportionately afflict the poor with the consequences it will bring? Of course - but the poor represented by this group also have a point that high energy costs also have a disproportionate impact on the poor. That, too, should be remembered the next time an environmentalist suggests adopting policies that will not take a balanced approach with the economy -- and could drive energy prices through the roof.<br /><br />If we are to <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">sustain</span> good policy drivers that yield renewable, cleaner energy -- that has to be done in balance with the needs of everyday people to live their lives -- and that means making sure that economic gains as well as environmental ones move forward together. <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><br /><h2>Oil sands get nod from U.S. anti-poverty group</h2><p class="subheadline">'All Energy Is Good'</p><p class="author"><strong>Claudia Cattaneo, Calgary Bureau Chief, Financial Post </strong><span> Published: Tuesday, July 29, 2008</span></p><div class="story-tools"><br /></div><div class="medium"><p class="photo border_btm"><img id="storyphoto" src="http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.financialpost.com/trading_desk/energy/687888.bin?size=404x272" alt="'Anything produced here will help'" /><span class="right">Canwest News Service </span><span>'Anything produced here will help'</span></p></div><div style="font-size: 12px;" class="story-content"><p>CALGARY -- Support for Canada's oil sands is coming from an unexpected American group--an anti-poverty coalition led by African-American civil rights and faith leaders.</p><p>The group is waging a national campaign targeting 50 "extreme" environmental organizations and 100 U. S. politicians it says are restricting energy supplies through climate-change legislation, causing oil prices to spike to levels that are "strangling" the poor.</p><p>Niger Innis, co-chairman of the "Stop The War On The Poor" campaign and national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the oldest civil rights groups in the United States, said the alliance wants more oil from Canada's vast unconventional deposits.</p><p>"We favour any and every energy source," he said in an interview. "We do not believe in this artificial game that the radicals play of pitting the so-called bad energy versus good energy. All energy, when prices are as high as they are, which is such a critical resource and the lifeblood of a nation's economy and the survival of people, is good energy as far as we are concerned."</p><p>The alliance's views are in stark contrast to policies embraced in recent months by U. S. politicians to restrict imports of Canada's "dirty oil."</p><p>They include California's move to a low-carbon fuel standard by the end of the year, a resolution by mayors of the largest cities in the United States last month singling out the oil sands as part of a crackdown on fuels that cause global warming, and a federal law adopted last December by the U. S. federal government that bans procurement of alternative fuels that generate more greenhouse gases than "conventional sources."</p><p>Even presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said he would break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected. The group challenged the top-ranking black representative in the U. S. Congress, Jim Clyburn, to a debate today in Washington, where Mr. Clyburn is launching a new commission to engage African-Americans on climate change.</p><p>Mr. Innis said African-Americans are more concerned about high energy prices, but many U. S. politicians are "being cowered by a very powerful, well-funded environmental extremist lobby that has a great deal of influence over them, and a great deal of influence over policy."</p><p>The alliance's strategy involves "outing" the extremist groups and the politicians it says are doing their bidding.</p><p>Its first targets, announced on the campaign's Web site, are California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council, a top anti-oil-sands crusader.</p><p>Policies that restrict energy development are hurting America's poor more than any other sector of society, forcing them to make "horrible choices between food, fuel and medicine," the alliance said in a news release yesterday. The alliance says it also represents a large cross-section of America's economically disadvantaged, from Latinos to farmers to consumer advocates.</p><p>Poor families spend as much as 50¢ out of every dollar of their income on energy, in contrast with 5¢ allocated by the average, median-income family, the alliance said. Energy prices are also one of the biggest causes of homelessness, it said.</p><p>The other co-chairman of the campaign is Bishop Harry Jackson, an African-American and the senior pastor of the Hope Christian Church in the Washington, D. C., area.</p><p>Americans for American Energy (AAE), a group advocating greater American energy independence, is also heading the effort.</p><p>"We certainly support the oil sands," said Cody Stewart, a spokesman for AAE, led by Wyoming State Senator Bill Vasey, Colorado State Senator Bill Cadman and Utah State Representative Aaron Tilton.</p><p>While the alliance's primary focus is to increase American supplies, it also favours taking a broader North American approach, he said.</p><p>"Anything that is produced here, or close to us, will help reduce prices and help the overall agenda to stop the war on the poor and bring costs down," Mr. Stewart said.</p><p>The message is similar to that made by U. S. oil companies, which for years have advocated lifting restrictions on oil and gas development in protected areas to boost secure domestic supplies.</p><p><i>Financial Post</i></p></div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-25321438696233575912008-08-04T12:19:00.003-04:002008-08-04T12:23:20.395-04:00China Investing More in Renewable Energy than U.S.<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Again, for those who use the refrain, "What about China?" as an excuse for the U.S. to avoid taking action on climate change by ramping up renewable, low-carbon, DOMESTIC energy . . . take a look at what China is actually doing already.<br /><br />China is actually ahead of the U.S. in dealing with many of these issues because they rightly perceive them as vital to their economic development and interest. We should too!<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Renewables surge unleashing a 'low-carbon dragon' </span></span><span class="origin"></span><br />Christa Marshall, <em>ClimateWire</em> reporter - Aug. 4, 2008 <p>Dollar for dollar, China is investing more in renewable energy than the United States, even though the Asian giant remains the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide overall, a new <a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/TCG_China_Summary.pdf"><b>report</b></a> has found.</p> <p>China poured almost $12 billion last year into wind, solar and other low-carbon technologies, placing it just behind Germany as the world's largest investor in alternative energy as a percentage of gross national product. China also is the global leader in total installed capacity of renewable power and is expected to be first in wind exports by 2009, riding a 120 percent surge in installation last year.</p> <p>"For too long, many governments, businesses and individuals have been wary of committing to action on climate change because they perceive that China ... is doing little to address the issue. However, the reality is that China's government is beginning to unleash a low-carbon dragon," said Steve Howard, chief executive of the Climate Group, a coalition of companies and governments that released the study on Friday.</p> <p>Other highlights from the report, which combined new and existing data:</p> <ul><li>China currently accounts for 24 percent of total global emissions of carbon dioxide, but its per capita carbon output is much lower than the United States', which constitutes 29 percent of the total. If the per-person carbon footprint of the average Chinese person were to equal that of the typical American, the Asian country's overall greenhouse gas emissions would match that of the entire planet.</li></ul> <ul><li>China's fuel efficiency standards for cars are 40 percent higher than those in the United States. Following a 2006 law, it also taxes sports utility vehicles at a much higher rate, up to 20 percent, than compact cars, which are taxed at 3 percent.</li></ul> <ul><li>The country plans to double the proportion of renewable energy it uses, from 8 percent in 2006 to 15 percent in 2020, with the bulk of that coming from 300 gigawatts of hydropower, followed by bioenergy (30 GW), wind (30 GW) and solar (1.8 GW) production.</li></ul> <ul><li>China is second only to Japan in the manufacture of solar photovoltaic technology.</li></ul> <ul><li>The percentage growth in some low-carbon industries in China far outpaces that of many other countries, including an average 20 percent annual growth rate in the market for solar water heaters.</li></ul> <ul><li>The country's economy has reduced its energy intensity, or the ratio of its total energy consumed to its gross domestic product, by 60 percent since 1980.</li></ul> <p>Policies such as a 2006 renewable energy law mandating that utilities purchase renewable power and building efficiency design codes helped drive some of the statistics, the report said.</p> <h3>Still ramping up coal</h3> <p>Yet don't expect criticism of the country's global-warming record to go away. Despite China's green efforts, fossil fuels still provide 80 percent of its power, and the country is still building roughly one coal-fired power plant a week.</p> <p>In a separate series of <a href="http://www.theclimategroup.org/special_projects/breaking_the_climate_deadlock/briefing_papers"><b>briefing papers</b></a> released Friday, the Climate Group noted that 70 percent of China's new electricity capacity by 2030 will be based on coal if current trends continue.</p> <p>"Under optimistic assumptions, this new coal-based capacity alone commits China to an additional four billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 -- more than the European Union's total CO2 emissions today," wrote Michel Colombier and Emmanuel Guerin, of the Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales.</p> <p>Furthermore, the country's reliance on hydropower has generated criticism. The Three Gorges Dam, which will be the world's largest hydropower project when it becomes operational in 2009, recently prompted protests for displacing more than a million people and worsening water pollution in surrounding areas.</p>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-86756318781773809422008-08-03T15:39:00.002-04:002008-08-03T15:44:26.725-04:00Don't Give Up on Biofuels!One of the latest green "fads" these days is to bash biofuels as causing everything from high food prices to global warming -- a neat trick when you consider the bigger culprit for both is OIL!! Below is a great story showing the huge gains that can be realized from miscanthus - a type of perennial switchgrass that can be used as an ethanol/biofuel feedstock.<br /><br />Does corn ethanol have some "eco-problems?" Yes. Should we throw the whole concept of biofuels out the window . . . NO!<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><div class="viewStoryDate"> August 1, 2008 </div> <!-- News Headline --> <h1 class="newsStoryHeadline"> Miscanthus Shows Great Potential as Ethanol Feedstock </h1> <!-- News Sub-Headline --> <!-- Company or Author name --> <div class="viewStoryAuthor"> by Diana Yates, University of Illinios </div> <!-- Story dateline --> <div class="viewStoryDateLine"> Illinois, United States [<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/home">RenewbleEnergyWorld.com</a>] </div> <!-- Story intro --> <p class="viewStoryIntro"> In the largest field trial of its kind in the United States, researchers have determined that the giant perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus outperforms current biofuels sources -- by a lot. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Using Miscanthus as a feedstock for ethanol production in the U.S. could significantly reduce the acreage dedicated to biofuels while meeting government biofuels production goals, the researchers report.</span> </p> <!-- Quote --> <p class="viewStoryQuote"> "Keep in mind that this Miscanthus is completely unimproved, so if we were to do the sorts of things that we've managed to do with corn, where we've increased its yield threefold over the last 50 years, then it's not unreal to think that we could use even less than 10 percent of the available agricultural land."<br /><br />-- Professor Stephen P. Long, Deputy Director, Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinios<br /> </p> <div id="newsStoryBody"> <p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use — a current White House goal — would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage.</span></blockquote><br />"What we've found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn," said <a href="http://www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">crop sciences</a> professor Stephen P. Long, who led the study. Long is the deputy director of the BP-sponsored Energy Biosciences Institute, a multi-year, multi-institutional initiative aimed at finding low-carbon or carbon-neutral alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. Long is an affiliate of the U. of I.'s <a href="http://www.igb.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">Institute for Genomic Biology</a>.<br /><br />In trials across Illinois, switchgrass, a perennial grass which, like <em>Miscanthus</em>, requires fewer chemical and mechanical inputs than corn, produced only about as much ethanol feedstock per acre as corn, Long said.<br /><br />"It wasn't that we didn't know how to grow switchgrass because the yields we obtained were actually equal to the best yields that had been obtained elsewhere with switchgrass," he said. Corn yields in Illinois are also among the best in the nation.<p></p> <p>"One reason why Miscanthus yields more biomass than corn is that it produces green leaves about six weeks earlier in the growing season," Long said. Miscanthus also stays green until late October in Illinois, while corn leaves wither at the end of August, he said.<br /><br />The growing season for switchgrass is comparable to that of Miscanthus<em>,</em> but it is not nearly as efficient at converting sunlight to biomass as Miscanthus, Frank Dohleman, a graduate student and co-author on the study, found.<br /><br />"One of the criticisms of using any biomass as a biofuel source is it has been claimed that plants are not very efficient — about 0.1 percent efficiency of conversion of sunlight into biomass," Long said. "What we show here is on average Miscanthus is in fact about 1 percent efficient, so about 1 percent of sunlight ends up as biomass."<br /><br />"Keep in mind that when we consider our energy use, a few hours of solar energy falling on the earth are equal to all the energy that people use over a whole year, so you don't really need that high an efficiency to be able to capture that in plant material and make use of it as a biofuel source," he said.<br /><br />Field trials also showed that <em>Miscanthus</em> is tolerant of poor soil quality, Long said.<br /><br />"Our highest productivity is actually occurring in the south, on the poorest soils in the state," he said. "So that also shows us that this type of crop may be very good for marginal land or land that is not even being used for crop production."<br /><br />Because <em>Miscanthus</em> is a perennial grass, it also accumulates much more carbon in the soil than an annual crop such as corn or soybeans, Long said.<br /><br />"In the context of global change, that's important because it means that by producing a biofuel on that land you're taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it into the soil."<br /><br />Researchers at Illinois are exploring all aspects of biofuels production, from the development of feedstocks such as Miscanthus<em>,</em> to planting, harvest, storage, transport, conversion to biofuels and carbon sequestration.</p> <p>Using Miscanthus in an agricultural setting has not been without its challenges, Long said. Because it is a sterile hybrid, it must be propagated by planting underground stems, called rhizomes. This was initially a laborious process, Long said, but mechanization allows the team to plant about 15 acres a day. In Europe, where <em>Miscanthus</em> has been grown for more than a decade, patented farm equipment can plant about 50 acres of <em>Miscanthus</em> rhizomes a day, he said.<br /><br />Once established, Miscanthus returns annually without need for replanting. If harvested in December or January, after nutrients have returned to the soil, it requires little fertilizer.<br /><br />This sterile form of Miscanthus has not been found to be invasive in Europe or the U.S., Long said.<br /><br />Many companies are building or operating plants in the U.S. to produce ethanol from lignocellulosic feedstocks, the non-edible parts of plants, and companies are propagating <em>Miscanthus</em> rhizomes for commercial sale, Long said.<br /><br />Although research has led to improvements in productivity and growers are poised to begin using it as a biofuels crop on a large scale, Miscanthus is in its infancy as an agricultural product, Long said.<br /><br />"Keep in mind that this Miscanthus is completely unimproved, so if we were to do the sorts of things that we've managed to do with corn, where we've increased its yield threefold over the last 50 years, then it's not unreal to think that we could use even less than 10 percent of the available agricultural land," Long said. "And if you can actually grow it on non-cropland that would be even better."</p> <p><em>Diana Yates is life sciences editor at the University of Illinois.</em></p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-6157082922021579622008-08-01T12:34:00.002-04:002008-08-01T12:42:39.879-04:00Storing the Sun<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Three cheers for MIT!! They have made a major breakthrough in the ability to store solar power -- which is a key need if it is going to emerge as a mainstream form of power. This is a very exciting development -- and shows what can happen when America's ingenuity is applied to problem-solving rather than blame spreading.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><span>SOLAR <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); font-style: italic;">ClimateWire</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">ENERGY:</span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"> MIT scientists announce breakthrough </span></span><span class="origin"></span><br /><h5 class="reporter"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Christa Marshall, </span><em style="font-weight: normal;">ClimateWire</em><span style="font-weight: normal;"> reporter - Aug. 1, 2008</span><br /></h5> <p>Harvesting the sun's energy at night may no longer be an impossible dream.</p> <p>In new research that some experts said could have sweeping implications for a major source of carbon-free electricity, two <span style="font-weight: bold;">Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists have found a cheap way to potentially store solar power.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">By a process mirroring photosynthesis, they have discovered how to split oxygen and hydrogen from water at low cost and using little electricity. The mechanism creates the possibility that the gases could hold power generated by the sun -- and possibly wind -- in fuel cells for later use in homes and businesses.</span></blockquote><p></p> <p>"What this allows is for the large-scale deployment of a technology that has yet to take off," said Daniel Nocera, an MIT professor of energy who performed the research, featured today in the journal <i>Science</i>.</p> <p>"Until now we hadn't really been able to find a practical way to duplicate what a leaf does," he said.</p> <p>Nocera and postdoctoral fellow Matthew Kanan recreated photosynthesis in the lab by putting an electrode in water filled with phosphate and cobalt metal. When a small amount of electricity was applied to the electrode, the chemical mix formed a thin film and produced oxygen bubbles.</p> <p>Using existing technology, the team then used a nearby platinum electrode to produce hydrogen from a leftover oxygen proton.</p> <p>Technology currently exists to split water in a similar fashion, but it relies on large equipment requiring massive amounts of electrical juice and an alkaline environment. In addition to being abundant and cheap, the cobalt-phosphate duo has the advantage of working in a small amount of water at room temperature.</p> <h3>'Major discovery' but not a 'silver bullet'</h3> <p style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Nocera predicted that within 10 years, his technology could allow homeowners to live almost free of the electrical grid -- with photovoltaic cells powering most daytime needs and solar-powered storage operating at night.</p> <p>Indeed, Nocera said he already was using the "photosynthesis" technique with a solar power panel in an MIT lab, although he acknowledged it was a bit "flimsy." The technology also could potentially be used to power cars if plug-in models became available, he said.</p> <p>"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said James Barber, a professor of biochemistry at Imperial College London who was an early researcher of photosynthesis. He was not involved with Nocera's research.</p> <p>A spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, Monique Hanis, said the group typically doesn't comment on peer-reviewed studies, but that the industry as a whole is searching for ways to improve efficiency.</p> <p>Still, others cautioned that the study provides a potential solution for only one aspect of using solar power to produce hydrogen and oxygen.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">"This is not a silver bullet," said John Turner, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). "This is just one part of a three-legged stool."</p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">According to Turner, one of the biggest challenges for storage involves figuring out how to mass produce a new type of photovoltaic panel specifically designed for working with a fuel cell. Science hasn't figured out how to design such a tool, much less mass-produce it in a commercial infrastructure that doesn't currently exist, he said.</p> <p>Nocera agreed that engineering work needed to be done to integrate his research with technology that captures sunlight. He said scientists at MIT and elsewhere were tackling the problem. Companies including Polaris Venture Partners have already contacted the MIT office expressing interest in the research, he said.</p> <h3>Harnessing the fickle sun</h3> <p>"Photovoltaics are expensive because they're not making enough of them at scale," Nocera said. "And manufacturers are only going to start making a lot of them with a storage mechanism."</p> <p>The fickle nature of sunlight is one of the biggest challenges for the industry, along with uncertainty about federal tax credits and a need for transmission lines ferrying solar electrons to population centers.</p> <p>Another challenge is that the element typically used to derive hydrogen from oxygen on electrodes, platinum, is expensive and scarce, but Nocera said ongoing investigation is making progress on that front.</p> <p>And every small advance is important, according to many solar industry watchers. Solar power has doubled in installed capacity since 2005, with an 83 percent jump last year outside California, but still constitutes a small percentage of U.S. electricity, according to figures from the Solar Energy Industries Association.</p> <p>"If we could just have three hours a day of solar storage, the price of photovoltaic technology would not really have to come down much at all to be competitive," said Larry Kazmerski, director of the National Center for Photovoltaics at NREL.</p> <p>That potential has prompted Nocera to stare at plants for years and ponder how to use their natural chemical processes to revolutionize power generation. Work on the study officially began in December, but the thought process had a much longer history.</p> <p>"This research has been 25 years in the making," he said.</p>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-84252711998528235032008-07-31T11:01:00.004-04:002008-07-31T11:04:36.279-04:00Bi-partisan Energy Effort forms in U.S. Senate<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Good news - there seems to be emerging a bi-partisan effort to roll out better energy policy in the Senate. Nothing is perfect - and this proposal will certainly contain imperfections -- but its looking like it has the potential to be the most productive thing this Congress has done so far.<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">E&E Daily<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">OIL AND GAS: 'Gang of 10' nears roll out of energy plan as floor talks collapse</span></span><br /><span class="origin"></span>Ben Geman, <em>E&E Daily</em> senior reporter <span class="origin">(07/31/2008)</span> <p>The collapse of Senate leadership negotiations over energy legislation is prompting greater attention on a bipartisan group planning to roll out a proposal they say would require concessions from both sides.</p> <p>The so-called Gang of 10 is planning to unveil a framework this week that relaxes oil-and-gas leasing bans on the outer continental shelf (OCS), coupled with conservation and alternative energy measures. The group, led by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), has been meeting frequently in recent days and weeks.</p> <p>"I think they have become very important," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.</p> <p>Members of the Gang of 10 also have called for a bipartisan energy summit. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday wrote to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stating they should together take the group up on its call for a summit to address various dimensions of energy policy, such as economic security, global warming and our "addiction to oil."</p> <p>Reid cited the current impasse over the speculation bill, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/features/documents/2008/07/16/document_gw_01.pdf"><b>S. 3268</b></a>, which Republicans want to amend with offshore drilling and other production measures -- and extension of renewable energy tax credits. "Given we have been unable to make progress on these measures, I think it is important that we both look at other ways to break the current legislative impasse on energy," Reid wrote.</p> <p>Other members of the Gang of 10, which is modeled on the Gang of 14 that in 2005 that helped broker a deal on judicial nominees, are Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).</p> <p>A Democratic aide close to the process said it was a serious effort, with daily meetings at the member level. "I don't want anyone to have the misconception that is some show caucus that announces something and then has their LAs [legislative assistants] talk from time to time," the aide said.</p> <h3>Oil taxes, royalties in play?</h3> <p>Lawmakers and aides say the Gang of 10's plan will be comprehensive, encompassing domestic production, alternative transportation fuels and measures to reduce energy demand.</p> <p>"Hopefully, we can get something out there that can be talked about over the August break," Thune said yesterday. "We will continue to build support and expect that when we get back, the leaders ought to move on this and give us a chance to debate it and get it voted on."</p> <p>The framework is expected to include changes to the structure of drilling bans that currently cover both coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.</p> <p>The Democratic aide, stressing the plan is not finalized, said OCS proposals floated in the negotiations have included a systems in which the bans would change depending on the distance from shore.</p> <p>For instance, one approach includes a zone closest to shore where they are retained, followed by an area where states would have discretion over whether to OCS leasing would be allowed, while the bans would be lifted even further out.</p> <p>"The consistent theme to all the zone proposals is a system by which the state authority diminishes and the federal authority increases the further you get offshore," the aide said. Another idea floated would create compacts of coastal states that would make decisions jointly about leasing in the region.</p> <p>The expanded leasing would be coupled with a share of offshore oil-and-gas development revenues for the states that have leasing in adjacent OCS regions.</p> <p>This aide also said that repealing a moratorium on commercial leasing for oil shale in Western states, which Republican leaders have been pushing for, was not expected to be included, nor is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.</p> <p>Offshore drilling is one of the stickiest issues because relaxing leasing bans faces heavy -- though not unanimous -- opposition in the Democratic caucus. Thune said yesterday that the proposal is being crafted with the goal of winning 60 votes in mind (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2008/07/30/archive/2"><i>E&ENews PM</i></a>, July 30).</p> <p>But "there will be some pain in this for Republicans, too," he added.</p> <p>Another Senate aide said one idea being explored would repeal the Section 199 deduction on domestic manufacturing for oil producers, which would raise billions of dollars, while the Democratic aide said changes in royalty rates is also under consideration.</p> <p>To date, most GOP lawmakers have strongly opposed repealing oil industry tax incentives.</p> <p>The brewing Senate effort comes as a bipartisan group of 13 House members is also proposing a plan that links wider offshore drilling with renewable energy. But a proposal to ease OCS leasing bans faces very high hurdles due to opposition by Democratic leaders, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has not allowed a vote on the issue.</p>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-61813125456890068922008-07-30T19:26:00.006-04:002008-07-30T20:05:56.614-04:00The Grid - Making it Work for Renewable EnergyBelow is an interesting article with some good suggestions for getting America's grid in shape to be able to handle the power that renewable energy could provide. This is by no means the only way forward - but something to consider!<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><div class="viewStoryDate"> July 30, 2008 </div> <!-- News Headline --> <h1 style="font-weight: normal;" class="newsStoryHeadline"><span style="font-size:100%;"> Interstate Transmission Superhighways: Paving the Way to a Low-carbon Future</span> </h1> <!-- News Sub-Headline --> <!-- Company or Author name --> <div class="viewStoryAuthor"> by Michael Goggin, AWEA </div> <!-- Story dateline --> <!-- Story intro --> <p class="viewStoryIntro"> Imagine, for a moment, that today's Interstate superhighway system did not exist. Coast-to-coast delivery time for all sorts of goods we take for granted, from automobiles to asparagus, would take much longer and cost substantially more. Some goods might even be priced out of reach. </p> <!-- Quote --> <p class="viewStoryQuote"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Across the country, hundreds of wind projects comprising tens of thousands of wind turbines are on hold because no one wants to step forward and pay for upgrades that will primarily benefit others. </span>The obvious solution to this problem is a policy framework that will allow firms interested in building new transmission to collect the costs of the infrastructure investment from those who will benefit from it.<br /></p> <div id="newsStoryBody"> <p>This situation, obviously undesirable, is similar to the problem plaguing the U.S. electricity transmission system, <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">where the lack of a robust, integrated electric grid is rapidly emerging as the largest obstacle to the continued growth of the wind industry.</span> </p> <p>In its recently released report "<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52471" target="_blank">20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030</a>," the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) identified transmission limitations as a chief roadblock to realizing the enormous economic, environmental and energy security benefits of obtaining 20% of our electricity from the wind. Similarly, <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/news/2008/608.html" target="_blank">a poll conducted by NRG Systems</a> Inc. at last month's Windpower 2008 Conference in Houston, Texas, found that participants saw transmission issues as the biggest problem facing continued development of wind energy in the U.S.</p> <p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">The lack of electricity transmission infrastructure is particularly burdensome for wind energy development because wind resources tend to be located at a significant distance from population centers. The bulk of America's best wind resources are located in the plains, stretching south from the Dakotas to Texas, while most of the country's population lives along the coasts. Putting our country's incredible wind energy potential to use requires finding a way to move this electricity from where it would be generated to where it is needed.</span></blockquote><p></p> <p>Since almost all low-carbon electricity generation technologies are heavily dependent on developing new transmission infrastructure, significant investments in transmission are essential for the transition to a lower carbon future.</p> <p>A renewed investment in our outdated transmission system is a priority for other reasons as well. A stronger grid will be more reliable and more resilient in the face of potential disruptions caused by accidents or terrorist attacks. An investment in the grid will also reduce congestion — the grid's equivalent of traffic jams — that already costs consumers tens of billions of dollars per year in the form of higher electricity prices.</p> <p>Of course, rethinking and ultimately reshaping the nation's electric grid is no small task. While the benefits of solving the country's transmission problems significantly outweigh the costs of the required investment, enacting the policies that will allow this investment to take place will require a hard-fought battle against entrenched political interests. To use an analogy that works both in terms of its scope as well as the political will that was necessary to get it done, solving our country's transmission problems will require the same type of forward thinking and bold leadership that made it possible to build the interstate highway system starting in the 1950s. </p> <p><strong>The Transmission Superhighway Vision</strong></p> <p><a href="http://www.aep.com/" target="_blank">American Electric Power (AEP)</a>, a major investor-owned utility with regulated power companies serving customers in eleven states, and AWEA have partnered to create a vision of what a nationwide transmission superhighway would look like. One potential transmission build-out scenario that would allow the U.S. to obtain 20% of its electricity from the wind would include 19,000 miles of new 765-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, for an estimated price tag of US $60 billion. (A 765-kV line is a high-voltage power line that can carry larger amounts of electricity — and with significantly higher efficiency — than most older transmission lines in use today.) These high-voltage lines would serve as the backbone of an interstate transmission superhighway. A map of this scenario is provided in Figure 1, illustrating how new 765-kV transmission lines would be integrated with the existing high-voltage grid to interconnect new wind energy development in regions with significant wind resources.</p> <p align="center"><img src="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2008/7/30/1332-interstate-transmission-superhighways-paving-the-way-to-a-low-carbon-future.jpg" alt="" align="middle" height="337" width="450" /><br /><br /><strong>Figure 1:</strong> AEP-AWEA Transmission Superhighway Vision</p> <p>While the size and cost of the transmission superhighway may sound large at first glance, it is important to keep these numbers in perspective. Given that electricity transmission infrastructure typically remains in service for 50 years or more, the cost of the investment for the average household would be equivalent to about US $0.35 per month, less than the cost of a postage stamp. </p> <p>Those costs would be more than made up by the economic savings from replacing natural gas use with wind power generation, not to mention the benefits of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants. In fact, the DOE report estimated that obtaining 20% of U.S. electricity from wind would reduce electricity sector natural gas use by 50%. In addition, the DOE study found that the 20% wind energy scenario would reduce CO2 by 7.6 billion tons between now and 2030. Electric sector CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would be reduced by 825 million tons in the year 2030 alone, an amount equal to 25% of all electric sector carbon dioxide emissions in that year or the equivalent of taking 140 million cars off the road.</p> <p>A number of studies have found that the costs of transmission investments for wind power are significantly outweighed by the consumer savings that those investments produce. As illustrated in Figure 2, a 2006 study by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) found that over time an investment in new transmission infrastructure would produce benefits many times larger than the cost of the investment.</p> <p> </p><div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2008/7/30/1-1332-interstate-transmission-superhighways-paving-the-way-to-a-low-carbon-future.jpg" alt="" /><br /><strong>Figure 2:</strong> Results of Texas Study on the Costs and Benefits of Transmission for Wind (Source: ERCOT)<br /></div><p>In April of this year, <a href="http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2008/ERCOT_Website_Posting.zip" target="_blank">ERCOT followed up with a more detailed analysis</a> of the costs and benefits of potential transmission expansion plans. The study found that the smallest transmission investment plan would bring enough new wind energy online to save US $1.2 billion per year in fuel costs — enough savings to cover the US $3.8 billion cost of the transmission infrastructure in a little over three years. The new wind brought online by the next largest transmission plan would save $1.7 billion per year in fuel costs, repaying the $4.9 billion cost of the investment in 2.9 years.</p> <p>Similarly, the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) recently studied the costs of developing 16,000 megawatts (MW) of wind within its system (Midwest ISO, <em>Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Plan 2006)</em>, along with 5,000 miles of new 765-kV transmission lines to deliver the wind from the Dakotas to the New York City area. Although the overall generation and transmission costs reached an estimated investment of US $13 billion, the project produced annual net savings of US $600 million over its costs. These savings are in the form of lower wholesale power costs and prices in the eastern U.S. resulting from greater access to lower cost generation in the western states such as Iowa and the Dakotas.</p> <p><strong>Multiple Benefits<br /></strong>Higher-voltage lines that would be built as part of a forward-looking transmission plan have a number of economic and environmental benefits over the lower-voltage lines that are built through the piecemeal, incremental transmission expansion practices employed in the past and still prevalent today. According to an April 2008 report by M. Heyeck and E. Wilcox entitled, "Interstate Electric Transmission: Enabler for Clean Energy," a single 765-kV line can carry as much electricity as six 345-kV lines, using one-fourth as much land at one-third the cost and with one-tenth of the electricity losses.<sup> </sup>As a result, even though the 19,000 miles of new transmission lines envisioned in the AEP scenario would only amount to a 12% addition to the 160,000 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines already in use in the U.S., <a href="http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/energy_infrastructure/transmission/infrastructure2.pdf" target="_blank">they would be able to carry at least 20%-40% of U.S. peak electrical capacity.</a></p> <p>In addition to the benefits of integrating a large amount of new wind generation, a renewed investment in the country's transmission infrastructure would also have significant economic and reliability benefits that would justify this investment even in the absence of wind. An ongoing study of new transmission options found that transmission congestion currently costs eastern U.S. consumers US $29 billion per year in the form of higher electricity costs. The preliminary results of the study indicate that an investment in the transmission needed to significantly reduce this congestion would produce a net benefit for consumers of US $5 billion over the cost of the transmission. (Presented in D. Osborn, "Planning of a Power Transmission System Using Economic Tools," <em>JCSP Transmission Design Workshop</em>, June 2008) Similarly, <a href="http://www.pnwersenergyhorizon.com/files/PNWERReport_Rev2c_Final_16Jul08_ntwtm3.pdf" target="_blank">Idaho National Laboratory recently released a study</a> concluding that five proposed transmission lines in the western U.S. would provide US $55-85 billion in annual benefits.</p> <p><strong>A Key to All Low-carbon Technologies</strong></p> <p>A growing chorus of experts has begun to express the concern that a lack of transmission infrastructure will present an obstacle for all low-carbon energy technologies, including renewable energy, nuclear power and coal power plants outfitted with carbon capture and sequestration technology. One of these voices is Kevin Kolevar, DOE's assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability, who <a href="http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/KolevarTestimony061708.pdf" target="_blank">explained in his written testimony at a Senate hearing</a> on June 17:</p> <p><em>Significant new transmission will be necessary in the 21</em><sup><em>st </em></sup><em>century, largely because much of the Nation's future electricity demands will be met by generation sources located in areas that currently lack adequate grid connectivity. This applies to almost every type of generation: </em> </p> <ul><li><p><em>Most of the nation's best wind and solar resources are located in remote areas where existing transmission capacity is either minimal or non-existent; </em> </p> </li><li><p><em>Most new nuclear plants will not be sited in populous areas, and will likely require additional transmission capacity;</em></p> </li><li><p><em>Clean coal with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will presumably be sited near geologic formations suitable for CO</em><sub><em>2 </em></sub><em>storage, and may not be near major existing transmission facilities.</em></p> </li></ul> <p>Richard Sergel, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), expressed similar concerns at an AWEA press conference on March 19:</p> <p><em>We're sitting on the precipice of climate change legislation...It is in that context that we believe that the grid will be threatened unless we build the transmission infrastructure that is necessary to support renewable resources like wind, that will enable us to locate new clean coal facilities </em>—<em> or even the gas facilities </em>—<em> to locate them in places in which the grid will be able to withstand that so that we can meet the load requirements as they grow and have a reliable system for the operators to deal with." </em> </p> <p>Later, he added, "It doesn't matter if it's going to be the clean coal plant or the nuclear plant or the wind project or the solar project. The common denominator is that they are going to require transmission to move [electricity] from where it is [generated] toward the load centers."</p> <p>Given that the process of planning, permitting and building transmission lines can take five to ten years or more, a failure to enact the policies to enable a major investment in our transmission infrastructure will seriously limit our country's ability to address the climate change issue in a timely or cost-effective manner.</p> <p><strong>Forging A Path </strong> </p> <p>Although a number of studies have made it clear that the multiple benefits of investing in new transmission drastically outweigh the costs, thus far policymakers have been slow to take action. Fortunately, however, awareness among policymakers is growing. The June 17 hearing at which Kolevar spoke, held by the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee "to examine the challenges and regional solutions to developing transmission for renewable electricity resources," was its first hearing ever on the topic. AWEA Transmission Committee Chairman and Board President-Elect Don Furman of <a href="http://www.iberdrolarenovables.es/wcren/corporativa/iberdrola?IDPAG=ENINICIORENOVAB" target="_blank">Iberdrola Renewables</a> testified on behalf of AWEA at the hearing. The hearing was well attended, with four Republican and five Democratic Senators present and the hearing room full. </p> <p><a href="http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/FurmanTestimony061708.doc" target="_blank">In his testimony, Furman asked Congress</a> to ensure that: </p> <ul><li><p><em>there are sufficient incentives to encourage investments in the transmission facilities necessary to fully develop our renewable resources;</em></p> </li><li><p><em>the costs of new transmission facilities are fairly allocated to take into account regional and national benefits, including the development of renewable electric generation;</em></p> </li><li><p><em>utilities are able to recover the costs of reasonable transmission investments; </em> </p> </li><li><p><em>states cannot unfairly inhibit the development of transmission that will provide multi-state benefits; </em> </p> </li><li><p><em>U.S. power marketing agencies, the Department of Energy, and [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] are encouraged to promote regional transmission infrastructure and system operations in support of renewable energy development; and</em></p> </li><li><p><em>legislation regulating greenhouse gas emissions recognizes the contributions transmission can make to reducing emissions in the electric generation sector.</em></p> </li></ul> <p>To use terminology from the field of economics, our inability to build new transmission is fundamentally a public goods problem. In most regions, policies require wind plant developers that want to connect to the electric grid to pay for the full cost of an upgrade to the grid network, even though the majority of the benefits of this upgrade would accrue to millions of electricity consumers and other power plants that could piggyback on this investment. Across the country, hundreds of wind projects comprising tens of thousands of wind turbines are on hold because no one wants to step forward and pay for upgrades that will primarily benefit others. The obvious solution to this problem is a policy framework that will allow firms interested in building new transmission to collect the costs of the infrastructure investment from those who will benefit from it. Reforming the patchwork of policies that currently govern the allocation of transmission costs and the siting of new transmission lines will require cooperation among local, state, regional, and national entities.</p> <p>It is fitting that our response to issues of such immense chronological and geographic scope as climate change and energy security should be forward-looking and based on the larger national interest. A large-scale investment in a transmission superhighway is a critical first step in this direction. To do so, we must move beyond the narrow, short-term view that is frequently applied when assessing the costs and benefits of new transmission investments. In a similar display of leadership 150 years ago, a former railroad lawyer named Abraham Lincoln saw the important national interest in opening the American West to growth. He signed legislation to create the transcontinental railroad network in 1862, and seven years later a railroad system spanning the country was completed. Effectively addressing issues as large as the energy and climate change problems currently facing our country will require bold, forward-looking action of the type that our country has rallied to before in the face of adversity.</p> <p><em>Michael Goggin is an electricity industry analyst with AWEA.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>This article first appeared in July 2008 Windletter, the monthly newsletter of the </em><em><a href="http://www.awea.org/" target="_blank">American Wind Energy Association</a></em><em></em></p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-19239542201019049552008-07-29T15:24:00.005-04:002008-07-29T16:06:55.959-04:00US vs ThemI heard an interesting review of a new book that is out making the claim that the conservative mindset on foreign policy (the Us vs Them mentality) has weakened America's national security over the past half century because it treated foreign nations that may pose a threat to America as "evil enemies" that can not be negotiated with, rather than nations seeking power and having interests/cultures other than our own.<br /><br />What is so striking to me about this description, is <span style="font-style: italic;">how similar it is</span> to the way the traditional environmentalist movement has viewed industry in this country -- and rural areas or occupations like farming that oppose their viewpoint. <br /><br />Some of the same people who would argue passionately for why we must negotiate with Iran to avoid nuclear war fail to see that negotiation is needed with parts of their own country and the economy that don't ascribe to the typical command-and-control environmental policies they support. While folks on the left often understand well that care is needed in terms of how you talk to a foreign country (including the terms that are used and trust-building, good-faith gestures that are needed), they don't take that same care with their fellow countrymen who see the world differently. All too often, traditional environmental politics sees their opponents as pollution-loving, "haters" rather than recognizing that they have grown up with an entirely different world view. <br /><br />Now - I know that there are plenty of conservatives who have refused to be open to new ways of thinking about the environment -- failing to see how renewable energy can be a key engine in growing the economy . . . refusing to recognize the immensely challenging energy and pollution problems facing our country.<br /><br />Certainly, neither political point of view has the monopoly on closed-mindedness.<br /><br />I've traveled all around the U.S. and much of the world -- and it is crystal clear to me that America is actually made up of several different countries combined together. The cultures of the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, the West and California -- are all substantially different from one another -- to the extent that what seems obvious and "righteous" to one region is baffling and ridiculed by others.<br /><br />Perhaps we'd get much further on environmental and energy issues if we recognized the very real cultural differences that exist within the U.S. and negotiated them out rather than trying to control and demonize other parts of the country through the 30 second attack ad.<br /><br />Both the political left and the political right have developed very good narratives that explain why the other side is wrong, stupid, evil. Casting aspersions on "the other" is easy -- and as we have discussed here before, is a GREAT way to raise funds and power. But NONE of that ego-based hot air ever solved a problem over the long run.<br /><br />Surely, negotiating with our fellow countrymen and women -- as different as we all are from one another, can not be more difficult than negotiating with cultures that share little of our collective values? All it really takes is an open heart, a willingness to <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> listen and the ability to compromise for the greater good. Here's hoping there's more of that on the horizon -- both on the international <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> the domestic fronts.<br /><br />SaraSara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-52406436459803564632008-07-28T17:07:00.002-04:002008-07-28T17:10:12.188-04:00World's Largest Wind Farm: In OregonGreat news for us all - Oregon is going to build the largest wind farm, maybe in the world. Bringing jobs in tow with it! More of this please!!<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Seattle Times</span> / Associated Press<br /><div class="block"> <h1>Oregon to have world's largest wind farm</h1> <p class="summary">A state energy panel has approved building what developers say would be the world's largest single wind farm in Gilliam and Morrow counties...</p> <p class="byline">By <a href="http://search.nwsource.com/search?sort=date&from=ST&byline=The%20Associated%20Press">The Associated Press</a></p> </div> <div class="body"> <p>SALEM, Ore. — A state energy panel has approved building what developers say would be the world's largest single wind farm in Gilliam and Morrow counties in northeastern Oregon.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Officials say the Columbia River Gorge wind farm will be capable of generating 909 megawatts at its peak — enough to power some 225,000 homes.</p> <p>That would double the state's current wind-generated energy capacity.</p> <p>The wind farm is expected to <span style="font-weight: bold;">employ up to 300 people during construction and about 25 when it is operational.</span></p> <p>"This is a tremendous day for renewable energy in Oregon," state Energy Department Director Michael Grainey said Friday after the project got the go-ahead from the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council.</p> <p>The project is being developed by Caithness Shepherds Flat, LLC of Sacramento, Calif., and proposes 303 turbines. It was not immediately clear when it would be operational.</p> <p>Caithness says Shepherds Flat will be the largest single wind farm in the world. The project is planned for privately owned land about five miles southeast of the Columbia River town Arlington.</p> <p>Output would enter the Federal Columbia River Transmission System through Bonneville Power Administration's Slatt Substation.</p> <p>Other wind projects under review in Oregon include the 400-megawatt Golden Hills Wind Farm in Sherman County and the 143-megawatt Newberry Geothermal Project in Deschutes County.</p> <p>The largest wind farm in the United States is Horse Hollow in Texas at 736 megawatts.</p> <p>But investor T. Boone Pickens has said he plans to build a wind farm with a peak of 4,000 megawatts in Texas by 2014.</p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-64215787893321551502008-07-28T07:55:00.003-04:002008-07-28T08:04:24.770-04:00The Problem with Partisanship<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">The story below from today's Financial Times makes some very good points about the dysfunction of "politics-as usual" that has unfortunately settled into both presidential campaigns in America. <br /><br />The force of political machines in both the democratic and republican parties is intense -- but equal contribution comes from the press and the myriad of "special interest groups" whose market economy DEPENDS on propelling the problem they are organized around (i.e. environment, guns, health care) rather than around solving it. After all, what reward to any of the various associations or non-profits get for "fixing" their problem: less fundraising, and eventually, being put out of jobs.<br /><br />The same elements that are eating away at the republican "maverick" and the democratic "outsider" are those that stand in the way of making real progress on any major issue. We, the people, need to become aware of the true price of indulging in partisan "feel good" blame games -- or we are doomed to keep playing them while our economy and our security crumble.<br /><br />Sara<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Financial Times</span><br /><div class="ft-story-header"><h2>Issues are ignored in this American image war</h2><p>By Clive Crook </p><p>Published: July 27 2008 18:14 | Last updated: July 27 2008 18:14</p></div><script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> function floatContent(){var paraNum = "3" paraNum = paraNum - 1;var tb = document.getElementById('floating-con');var nl = document.getElementById('floating-target');if(tb.getElementsByTagName("div").length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]);}}}}</script><p><img alt="" src="http://media.ft.com/cms/80420dbc-5bf7-11dd-9e99-000077b07658.jpg" height="288" width="470" />Barack Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East did what it was supposed to. It untapped a stream of presidential images: the candidate<a class="bodystrong" target="_blank" title="Obama greets 200,000 Berliners" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9527aa0-59c2-11dd-90f8-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=729ab242-9cb1-11db-8ec6-0000779e2340.html"> addressing 200,000 delighted Berliners</a>; the candidate mingling comfortably with American soldiers, riding in military helicopters like a commander-in-chief; the candidate dealing with foreign leaders as an equal. For most voters, it is the images that will stick – what else was there? – and they are priceless. John McCain’s chief line of attack against Mr Obama, that he lacks experience especially in foreign affairs, has been blunted if not neutralised.</p><p>Poor Mr McCain had the worst week of his campaign. Unable to lie low and let Mr Obama have his European moment, the only wise course, he made matters worse. He ran a television spot that said “blame Obama for the high price of gas”, a patently ludicrous assertion. (Republicans were laughing at their own candidate.) Campaign officials said he might announce his vice-presidential choice – a sad and unsuccessful attempt to steal some of Mr Obama’s limelight. And having spent months goading Mr Obama for his lack of foreign affairs experience, Mr McCain portrayed his own schedule of dreary and sparsely attended small-town events as proof of his superior authenticity.</p><p>In this election, the image war is turning into a rout. As Mr Obama grows in self-assurance (not that he was lacking any to begin with), Mr McCain looks older and less sure-footed. The greater surprise, though, and the real let-down in this campaign, is that the image war is all there is. In a way, last week’s contrasts sum things up. And what a pity this is. This was supposed to be an election about substance, with candidates – each of them an outsider in his own way – capable of mutual respect, capable of challenging party loyalists and keen to engage with each other in a new kind of politics. Instead we have the old kind of politics, only more so.</p><p>This is partly – but only partly – the fault of the candidates and their staffs. </p><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Both campaigns are organised around the brain-dead, instant-rebuttal paradigm of modern democratic politics. The quickest and easiest way to deal with a proposal or statement from the other side is to question the candidate’s good faith or (even better) catch him in an error, however meaningless, or seeming to contradict something he has said before. The gaffe and the flip-flop are the most valuable currency of the campaigns. There is rarely any need, and never any time, to think about the merits of what the other side is advocating. If you do that, you might have to yield ground, which is weak. Disdain your rival’s incompetence, inconsistency, and poor character, and move on.</blockquote><p></p><p>Consider Iraq. To be sure, Mr Obama and Mr McCain differ on whether the war should have been fought in the first place – but that is no longer the question. Going forward, either would be far more constrained by factors beyond US control, and by the advice of people on the ground, than they care to admit. Both would want to disengage not totally but as far as possible and without leaving chaos behind. The question is how you do that and the options are somewhat limited. But neither cares to have that discussion.</p><p>Instead, Mr Obama says that Mr McCain wants to <a class="bodystrong" target="_blank" title="US hopefuls jostle for war dividend" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a8f9a00-c36e-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html">keep US forces there for 100 years</a> (a calculated distortion of Mr McCain’s position), while Mr McCain last week accused Mr Obama of being willing to lose a war to win an election (a slur on Mr Obama’s character). Knowing what we know now, the war was a mistake. Mr McCain knows it too, but will not say so. Knowing what we know now, the surge was a success. Mr Obama knows it too, but will not say so.</p><p>Mind you, this intellectual paralysis over Iraq is a model of lively engagement compared with their discussion of other policy questions supposedly at stake in November – because most other issues are being ignored altogether. The most striking instance is healthcare reform. By any standards this is a question of momentous importance for the US, and not just in its own right. As I have argued before, the broken US healthcare system is deeply implicated in many of the country’s other pressing concerns. Anxiety over stagnant wages? Blame the rising cost of employer-provided health insurance. Fears about the deteriorating fiscal outlook? Healthcare costs again, because of Medicare and Medicaid.</p><p>Both candidates recognise this and have offered markedly different proposals – which is good. But are they discussing those proposals at all, preparing the public, acknowledging the trade-offs, seeing some merit as well as the drawbacks in each other’s plans? Are they doing what they promised to? They are not. An eerie silence has descended on the whole subject – except for the perfunctory exchange of <a class="bodystrong" target="_blank" title=" McCain attacks rivals’ plans for healthcare" href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97893fa2-154f-11dd-996c-0000779fd2ac.html">accusations</a> (Mr Obama is for socialised medicine; Mr McCain is for corporate profits).</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">As I say, the candidates are only partly to blame. My own profession is just as guilty. No less than the back-room campaign strategists, we are obsessed with polls, racing form, gaffes and flip-flops. </span>The recent off-the-cuff comments by Phil Gramm, a McCain adviser – he said the US was becoming “a nation of whiners” and the economy was in a “mental recession” – and his subsequent departure from the campaign received, I would guess, more (and more careful) press and television coverage this month than the nuts and bolts of healthcare reform have received since the campaigns began last year.</p><p>Then again, whose fault is that? In a free country, you get the media and the politicians you deserve.</p><p>Send your comments to <a class="bodystrong" href="mailto:clive.crook@gmail.com">clive.crook@gmail.com</a></p>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1735140827360887440.post-11214382850098279602008-07-25T11:13:00.004-04:002008-07-25T11:19:49.122-04:00Ohio State University Breakthrough in Auto Efficiency<span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Great news from Ohio State University -- a breakthrough in efficiency for cars! </span></span><br /><br /><div class="viewStoryDate"> July 25, 2008 </div> <!-- News Headline --> <h1 class="newsStoryHeadline"> Material May Help Autos Turn Heat into Electricity </h1> <!-- News Sub-Headline --> <!-- Company or Author name --> <div class="viewStoryAuthor"> by Pam Frost Gorder, Ohio State University </div> <!-- Story dateline --> <div class="viewStoryDateLine"> Ohio, United States [<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53145">RenewableEnergyWorld.com</a>] </div> <!-- Story intro --> <p class="viewStoryIntro"> Researchers have invented a new material that could potentially make cars more efficient, by converting heat wasted through engine exhaust into electricity. The researchers say that the material has twice the efficiency of anything currently on the market. </p> <!-- Quote --> <p class="viewStoryQuote"> "We'd been working for 10 years to engineer this kind of behavior using different kinds of nanostructured materials, but with limited success. Then I saw this paper, and I knew we could do the same thing we'd been trying to do with nanostructures, but with this bulk semiconductor instead."<br /><br />-- Joseph Heremans, Ohio Eminent Scholar in Nanotechnology, Ohio State University.<br /> </p> <div id="newsStoryBody"> <p>The same technology could work in power generators and heat pumps, said project leader <a href="https://pro.osu.edu/profiles/heremans.1/" target="_blank">Joseph Heremans, Ohio Eminent Scholar in Nanotechnology at Ohio State University</a>.</p> <p>The materials are known as thermoelectric materials, and they rate the materials' efficiency based on how much heat they can convert into electricity at a given temperature.</p> <p>Previously, the most efficient material used commercially in thermoelectric power generators was an alloy called sodium-doped lead telluride, which had a rating of 0.71. The new material, thallium-doped lead telluride, has a rating of 1.5 — more than twice that of the previous leader.</p> <p>What's more important to Heremans is that the new material is most effective between 450 and 950° Fahrenheit — a typical temperature range for power systems such as automobile engines. </p> <p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">Some experts argue that only about 25 percent of the energy produced by a typical gasoline engine is used to move a car or power its accessories, and nearly 60 percent is lost through waste heat — much of which escapes in engine exhaust. A thermoelectric (TE) device can capture some of that waste heat, Heremans said. It would also make a practical addition to an automobile, because it has no moving parts to wear out or break down.</span></blockquote><p></p> <p style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"The material does all the work. It produces electrical power just like conventional heat engines — steam engines, gas or diesel engines — that are coupled to electrical generators, but it uses electrons as the working fluids instead of water or gases, and makes electricity directly."</p> <p>"Thermoelectrics are also very small," he added. "I like to say that TE converters compare to other heat engines like the transistor compares to the vacuum tube."</p> <p>The engineers took a unique strategy to design this new material.</p> <p>To maximize the amount of electricity produced by a TE material, engineers would normally try to limit the amount of heat that can pass through it without being captured and converted to electricity. So the typical strategy for making a good thermoelectric material is to lower its thermal conductivity.</p> <p>In Heremans' lab, he used to work to lower the thermal conductivity by building nanometer-sized structures such as nanowires into materials. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter.</p> <p>Those nanostructured materials are not very stable, are very difficult to make in large quantities and are difficult to connect with conventional electronic circuits and external heat sources.</p> <p>For this new material, he and his colleagues took a different strategy: they left out the fancy nanostructures, and instead focused on how to convert the maximum amount of heat that was trapped in the material naturally. To do this, they took advantage of some new ideas in quantum mechanics.</p> <p>Heremans pointed to a 2006 paper published by other researchers in the journal Physical Review Letters, which suggested that elements such as thallium and tellurium could interact on a quantum-mechanical level to create a resonance between the thallium electrons and those in the host lead telluride thermoelectric material, depending on the bonds between the atoms. </p> <p>"It comes down to a peculiar behavior of an electron in a thallium atom when it has tellurium neighbors," he said. "We'd been working for 10 years to engineer this kind of behavior using different kinds of nanostructured materials, but with limited success. Then I saw this paper, and I knew we could do the same thing we'd been trying to do with nanostructures, but with this bulk semiconductor instead."</p> <p>Heremans designed the new material with Vladimir Jovovic, who did this work for his doctoral thesis in the <a href="http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/" target="_blank">Department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio State</a>. Researchers at Osaka University — Ken Kurosaki, Anek Charoenphakdee, and Shinsuke Yamanaka — created samples of the material for testing. Then researchers at the <a href="http://www.caltech.edu/" target="_blank">California Institute of Technology</a> — G. Jeffrey Snyder, Eric S. Toberer, and Ali Saramat — tested the material at high temperatures. Heremans and Jovovic tested it at low temperatures and provided experimental proof that the physical mechanism they postulated was indeed at work.</p> <p>The team found that near 450° Fahrenheit, the material converted heat to electricity with an efficiency rating of about 0.75 — close to that of sodium-doped telluride. But as the temperature rose, so did the efficiency of the new material. It peaked at 950° Fahrenheit, with a rating of 1.5.</p> <p>Heremans' team is continuing to work on this patent-pending technology.</p> <p>"We hope to go much further. I think it should be quite possible to apply other lessons learned from thermoelectric nanotechnology to boost the rating by another factor of two — that's what we're shooting for now," he said. </p> <p>This research was funded by the BSST Corporation; the State of Ohio Department of Development's Center for Photovoltaic Innovation and Commercialization at Ohio State University; the Beckman Institute; the Swedish Bengt Lundqvist Minne Foundation; and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.</p> <p><a href="http://pam.gorder.org/" target="_blank"><strong><em>Pam Frost Gorder</em></strong><em> </em></a><em>is an assistant director of research communications at Ohio State University. </em> </p> </div>Sara Hessenflow Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10163076617666000853noreply@blogger.com0