The Great Lakes Zephyr - Wind Energy & Hydrogen Journal

From Alt Power Digest:

There are 2 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules
From: greenscitek@webtv.net
2. U.S. Military Looking to Solar Power
From: AP@alternatepower.com (Alternate Power)


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: greenscitek@webtv.net
Subject: Study Finds Net Gain From Pollution Rules

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=11&u=/washpost/a7586_2003sep26
Sat Sep 27, 1:00 AM ET:
By Eric Pianin, Washington Post Staff Writer:
A new White House study concludes that environmental regulations are
well worth the costs they impose on industry and consumers, resulting in
significant public health improvements and other benefits to society.
The findings overturn a previous report that officials now say was
defective.
The report, issued this month by the Office of Management and
Budget, concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough
new clean-air regulations during the past decade were five to seven
times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with
the rules. The value of reductions in hospitalization and emergency room
visits, premature deaths and lost workdays resulting from improved air
quality were estimated between $120 billion and $193 billion from
October 1992 to September 2002.
By comparison, industry, states and municipalities spent an estimated
$23 billion to $26 billion to retrofit plants and facilities and make
other changes to comply with new clean-air standards, which are designed
to sharply reduce sulfur dioxide, fine-particle emissions and other
health-threatening pollutants.
The report provides the most comprehensive federal study ever of the
cost and benefits of regulatory decision-making. It has pleasantly
surprised some environmentalists who doubted the Bush administration
would champion the benefits of government regulations, and fueled
arguments that the White House should continue pushing clean-air
standards rather than trying to weaken some.
"I'm sure the true believers in the Bush administration will brand this
report as true heresy because it defies the stereotype of burdensome,
worthless regulations," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday.
"They clearly don't understand that the government regulations are there
to protect you -- and they work."
John D. Graham, director of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, which produced the study, said: "Our role at OMB is to report
the best available estimates of benefits and costs, regardless of
whether the information favors one advocacy group or another. In this
case the data show that the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web
sites)'s clean-air office has issued some highly beneficial rules."
But an industry official said the report may have greatly understated
the costs associated with environmental regulations. Jeffrey Marks, a
clean-air policy expert with the National Association of Manufacturers
(news - web sites), said EPA "has traditionally underestimated the costs
of regulations on industry. . . . The tendency to choose benefit numbers
to correspond to favorable policy choices is strong within the agency."
The findings are more startling because a similar OMB report last year
concluded that the cost of compliance with a given set of regulations
was roughly comparable to the public benefits. OMB now says it had erred
last year by vastly understating the benefits of EPA's rules
establishing national ambient air quality standards for ozone and for
particulate matter -- a major factor in upper respiratory, heart and
lung disorders. Also, last year's report covered the previous six years
and did not account for the beneficial effects of the 1990 amendments to
the Clean Air Act that sharply reduced the problem of acid rain.
Many environmentalists had initially expressed fears that Graham,
founder of a Harvard University-based risk analysis institute, would
lead a Bush administration assault on regulatory safeguards. But Graham
has sided with environmentalists on several key issues, including new
rules to sharply reduce diesel engine emissions and the fine airborne
particles that contribute to asthma and other serious respiratory
ailments. The activists were quick to embrace this month's report.
"The bottom line is that the benefits from major environmental rules
over the past 10 years were [five to seven] times greater than the
costs," said Kevin Curtis of the National Environmental Trust. "And
that's a number that can't be ignored, even by an administration that
has blamed 'excessive' environmental regulations for everything from the
California energy crisis to last month's blackout to job losses to the
failing economy."
Environmental groups and some lawmakers assert that the administration
has begun to chip away at clean-air regulations and safeguards just when
the country is beginning to see the fruits of decades of tough
enforcement efforts. Earlier this month, the EPA issued its annual air
trends report showing that, since 1970, emissions of the six principal
air pollutants have declined by 48 percent. At the same time, EPA
officials put the finishing touches on a "New Source Review" rule change
that will enable utilities to extend the lifespan of older, dirtier
power plants without installing new anti-air pollution equipment.
But White House officials and Republicans say the administration
deserves credit for some of the improvement. They noted that the EPA has
approved the new diesel emission standards affecting trucks, buses and
off-road machinery in the coming years.
The OMB is required to report annually to Congress on the costs and
benefits of federal regulations and unfunded mandates on states and
American Indian tribes. This year's report provided cost-benefit
analysis on 107 major federal rules approved during the past decade
dealing with agriculture, education, energy, health and human services
(news - web sites), housing, labor, transportation and the environment.
In all cases, the benefits far exceeded the costs of implementing the
rule. But the most dramatic showing involved environmental protection.
Previous reports have been controversial because of the unavoidably
imprecise methodology used to assess the costs and benefits of a variety
of government regulations. In the absence of solid data or
documentation, analysts often must rely on educated guesses or long-term
impact projections that were prepared when the rules were put into
effect.
"The data is prospective rather than retrospective," said Gary Bass of
OMB Watch, a watchdog organization. "We don't have an adequate data set.
My guess is that if we did, the benefits would exceed the cost in a
wider spread than the OMB report shows."
==================================



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: AP@alternatepower.com (Alternate Power)
Subject: U.S. Military Looking to Solar Power

http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1991028
Move to Solar Power Soldiers
By John von Radowitz. Science Correspondent, PA News:
Military chiefs are developing a new "light infantry" that marches with the help of solar power.
The US Army is funding the system to reduce the number of cumbersome batteries soldiers need to carry into combat.
In future, troops may wear lightweight plastic solar panels that turn sunshine into electrical power woven into their uniforms.
The invention uses a special flexible material coated with a film of power-generating particles.
It is more sensitive than conventional solar cells, and able to convert indoor artificial lighting into energy as well as sunlight.
Modern soldiers are becoming increasingly dependent on batteries to power the large amount of portable equipment they take into battle.
Typically this includes communications equipment, satellite positioning devices, and combat aids such as range finders.
Military experts are concerned both by the weight of the batteries, and the need to rely on a power source to recharge them.
If tests of the prototype solar cells prove successful, they could enter service within three years.
Reporting on the development, The Engineer magazine said: "The US Army eventually hopes to use solar cells to make each soldier self-sufficient for electrical power."
Konarka, the Massachusetts-based designers, said ultimately it may be possible to incorporate ultra-thin solar cells into soldiers' uniforms.
The company is also developing a wide range of civilian applications for the technology.
========================================

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

All-Energy News and Discussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/All-Energy

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø