There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. A dose of cold reality on climate change
From: "janson2997"
2. We are being sold a turkey on global warming
From: "janson2997"
3. Blair wants urgent action on post-Kyoto accord
From: "janson2997"
4. Blair talks of climate change revolution
From: "janson2997"
5. Cool nanotechnology can save energy
From: "janson2997"
6. BuzzFlash interview: Elizabeth Kolbert
From: "janson2997"
7. Offshore 101: End our dependence on fossil fuels
From: "janson2997"
8. Oil Rises to 7-Week High on Forecast of Gasoline Supply Decline
From: "janson2997"
9. Renewable Power Moves to State Agendas
From: "janson2997"
10. For People and Planet (WSJ)
From: "janson2997"
11. Big Businesses Have New Take on Warming (WSJ)
From: "janson2997"
12. There's Gold in Them Thar Waste Hills - Part 1
From: "janson2997"
13. Clean-Energy Trends 2006
From: "janson2997"
14. Energy Hits the Limelight
From: "janson2997"
15. Renewable Energy and Fuels: In the Mainstream
From: "janson2997"
16. Energy Hits the Limelight
From: "janson2997"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:28:13 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: A dose of cold reality on climate change
A dose of cold reality on climate change
Published: March 29 2006 03:00 | Last updated: March 29 2006 03:00
Tony Blair and his government have made a very big public issue of
the need to combat global warming. The Financial Times believes this
is right; for what could be worse than catastrophic climate change
and more tragic if early action could have prevented it? But we have
worried the government has been so busy preaching from various
pulpits, such as its presidencies last year of the European Union and
the Group of Eight, and setting itself exaggerated emission targets
that it has not properly looked around to see if anyone is following
its example. So it was good to see the government, as it yesterday
set out its revised climate change programme, beginning to count the
cost of competitiveness and eschewing any "masochistic" approach that
would make UK business pay the price of moral leadership.
In its new programme, the government says it is still on track to
meet its legal commitment, under the Kyoto protocol, to reduce the
UK's 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent by 2010.
But it has strayed off course to hit its own unilaterally-set target
of cutting carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by 20 per cent
over the same period. In setting this target, the government created
a rod for its own back, and predictably opposition politicians and
green activists set about beating it. But is falling a few percentage
points short of this latter goal so bad? There is a perfectly good
reason: the rise in gas prices that has made power generators
desperate to burn dirtier coal instead.
The UK is also adopting cannier tactics on its commitments to the EU
emission trading system. Last year the UK was the first among EU
states to table its programme of emission cuts for 2005-7. When this
turned out to be far more radical than that of many other states, the
UK tried, and failed (after the Commission took it to court), to
renege on it. This year London is to play a waiting game. This makes
sense, particularly because the commitment made this year is the
important one that will last through the first Kyoto period of 2008-
12. But is it wise for the government to plan to put all the burden
of any extra cuts in UK pollution permits on the electricity supply
industry? True, this sector is less subject to international
competition. Yet that ensures power companies will raise prices that
have already been very ÂÂvolatile.
Mixing common sense with moral leadership could also help Mr Blair in
securing future climate change commitments out of Kyoto refusniks
such as the US and Australia, and big polluters such as China and
India, which have no current Kyoto commitments. In a speech in New
Zealand today the UK prime minister will appeal to these countries to
make a broad post-2012 commitment for the good of the planet. His
words will carry the more weight with them, the more his own policy
at home seems sensible.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8fea269e-bec1-11da-b10f-0000779e2340.html
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:31:55 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: We are being sold a turkey on global warming
We are being sold a turkey on global warming
By Robert Matthews
Published: March 2 2006 22:01 | Last updated: March 2 2006 22:01
It is said that turkeys are so stupid that when it rains they stare
up at the sky with their mouths open until they drown. Turkey farmers
insist this is an apocryphal story put about by those who know
nothing of the ways of Meleagris gallopavo.
There is a no less apocryphal tale about Homo sapiens, according to
which humans stare up at the sky and do nothing as the earth's
climate changes and their livelihoods go down the drain. It would be
funny were it not at the heart of so many dire predictions of the
effects of global warming. From cities vanishing under rising seas to
global starvation as key crops fail, they blithely ignore the time-
honoured response of humans confronted by climate change: adaptation.
When the glaciers retreated at the end of the last Ice Age 10,000
years ago, hunter-gatherers downed spears and took up farming
instead. When American farmers were hit by the Dustbowl droughts of
the 1930s, they responded by switching to hardier crops, diversifying
production and improving irrigation – which allowed them to ride out
an even greater drought that struck in the 1950s.
Yet despite this long history of successful adaptation, the climate
change debate remains doggedly focused on mitigation strategies, such
as the Kyoto protocol, that seek to compel the whole atmosphere to do
our bidding. Even the staunchest supporters of such mitigation
policies would concede that they have thus far been more honoured in
the breach than the observance. The reason is not hard to find:
politicians are chary of doing anything that threatens economic
growth, and mitigation carries a hefty price tag.
Politicians might be more keen to take decisive action if they knew
what happens when adaptation is factored into the equation. The
dangers of failing to consider adaptation have long been recognised.
Almost a decade ago, the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organisation warned that predictions of the impact of climate change
that ignored adaptation were "unrealistic". In 2001, the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely regarded as the
voice of the climate science community, declared that adaptation must
be considered alongside mitigation when developing strategies for
dealing with climate change.
Yet as the UK House of Lords select committee on economic affairs
pointed out last summer, adaptation remains the Cinderella of the
climate change debate. Its report was summarily dismissed by climate
scientists, who claimed the committee lacked the expertise needed to
pronounce on the subject. Only climate scientists obsessed with
mitigation could deny that by comparison adaptation has received
scandalously short shrift.
Take the latest study of the likely effect of global warming on
Africa, published this week by an international team of scientists in
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It concludes
that as crops wilt under heat and drought, African food production
may be "severely reduced". Yields of maize, Africa's favourite crop,
will be especially badly hit.
Only after reaching this headline-grabbing conclusion do the
researchers state that they have taken no account of attempts farmers
might make to avoid such a calamity, such as planting different crops
or making better use of land and irrigation. They hint that a switch
to other crops such as sorghum might help, but give few details.
When the effects of adaptation are taken into account, the results
are frequently revelatory. In research about to appear in the journal
Environment and Development Economics, a team led by Robert
Mendelsohn of Yale University examines the economic impact of
predicted climate change when adaptation is included. It finds that a
warmer world can actually produce net economic gain – at least for
the richest nations. In contrast, the poorest nations look set to
suffer disproportionately, essentially because they have hot climates
already.
This has important implications for policies for dealing with the
impact of climate change. Because if rich nations actually thrive on
a warmer planet, they will be in a position to assist more vulnerable
nations to deal with the effects – without jeopardising their own
economic growth.
Many questions have still to be addressed: what is the optimal mix of
mitigation and adaptation, and how should rich nations assist those
worst affected by global warming? But the biggest question of all is
why climate scientists still seem so reluctant to accept that humans
are more resourceful than the average turkey.
The writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University,
Birmingham
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e5ba694a-aa20-11da-96ea-0000779e2340.html
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:43:56 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Blair wants urgent action on post-Kyoto accord
Blair wants urgent action on post-Kyoto accord
By Adrian Croft
AUCKLAND (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair called on Wednesday
for the world to work urgently on an agreement to tackle climate
change after the Kyoto Protocol expires.
Blair, touring Australia and New Zealand, emphasised his
determination to inject new momentum into global efforts to negotiate
a framework for a broad deal to take effect from 2012, when Kyoto
ends.
"I don't believe that we can wait five years to conclude a new
agreement. I think we've got to do it much more quickly than that,"
Blair told a climate change conference in Wellington, New Zealand. He
was speaking by video link from Auckland.
The new agreement should have at its heart a goal to stabilise
climate change, Blair said.
"I also believe that such an agreement, if it's going to be
successful, has got to include all the major countries of the world
and that includes the major developing economies of China and India
and also the United States, as the principal developed economy in the
world," he said.
Blair's official spokesman said earlier that Blair believed progress
needed to be made this year on a new post-Kyoto framework.
Blair said the consequences of inaction would be "absolutely
disastrous", adding: "I don't want it on the conscience of me or
people of my generation that we were told what this problem was ...
(and) did nothing about it and then my children and their children
end up having to deal with the consequences."
Blair has made tackling global warming a priority and he will seek to
press his case at a July leaders' summit of the Group of Eight
industrialised nations and at a September climate change meeting in
Mexico.
MISSED TARGET
Blair's words came, however, after Britain said on Tuesday it would
miss its own target to slash carbon dioxide emissions by a fifth, an
acknowledgement campaigners say damages Blair's bid to lead efforts
to tackle climate change.
Blair believes developing new technology is essential to achieve his
goal of stabilising temperatures and the concentration of greenhouse
gas emissions.
"It's almost as if we've got to produce the type of technological
revolution that gripped us with information technology," Blair said
in a question-and-answer session with the climate change conference.
"We've got to create the circumstances in which the investors out
there, businesses, financial markets, think this is where the
opportunity is going to go," he said.
Blair opposes measures such as restrictions on air travel. He says
they can hurt economic growth and erode public support.
The European Union, Japan and much of the rest of the industrialised
world are imposing mandatory cuts on emissions of heat-trapping gases
from burning fossil fuels under Kyoto.
The United States and Australia have not signed up to the Kyoto
emissions targets, saying they would threaten economic growth.
Environment ministers agreed on a road map last December to extend
Kyoto beyond 2012 and to hold talks to include the United States and
developing countries in a future framework.
(Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in London)
(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or
similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written
consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are
registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of
companies around the world.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=484282006
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:47:05 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Blair talks of climate change revolution
Blair talks of climate change revolution
VICKY COLLINS March 29 2006
A technological revolution is needed if the world is to tackle
climate change, Tony Blair said yesterday.
During a visit to New Zealand, the prime minister said hi-tech
innovations in the private sector were vital in tackling the problems
of security of energy supply and rising greenhouse gases.
He also told a climate change conference in Wellington that Britain
wanted to exceed its commitments under the international Kyoto
agreement on climate change.
Mr Blair's suggestion that Britain was still hoping to lead the way
on efforts to tackle global warming came despite the publication of a
government report saying that Labour's own target for cutting carbon
emissions may not be met.
The much-delayed climate change review, published by the Department
for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs yesterday, predicted that
carbon emissions would be reduced to only 15% or 18% of 1990 levels,
instead of the 20% promised. High economic growth and the rise in
global energy prices were blamed.
However, Britain is still on course to meet the Kyoto target of
cutting carbon emissions by 12.5% by 2012.
Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, said the 20% target was
still possible. "We believe we can reach the 20% target with support
from all sections of the economy and society."
Environmental groups acc-used the government of caving in to short-
term pressures.
Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland,
said: "This pathetic strategy will not deliver the government's
promise to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010 and will
further undermine the prime minister's reputation on this issue."
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/59005-print.shtml
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:49:59 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Cool nanotechnology can save energy
Cool nanotechnology can save energy
Huge reductions in heating bills, safer surgery and the next
generation of miniaturised computers are among the potential benefits
of new nanotechnology developed at Leeds.
By suspending nanoparticles in water or other liquids, Professor
Richard Williams and Dr Yulong Ding have created `nanofluids' which
can transfer heat up to 400% faster than other liquids. In a central
heating system, nanofluids could increase efficiency without the need
to use a more powerful pump, so saving energy and providing major
environmental benefits.
The University of Leeds now has one of the largest teams in the world
and the only group in the UK working on these `nanofluids'.
The fluids could open the door to the next generation of computers,
by overcoming one of the main limitations on developing smaller
microchips: rapid heat dissipation.
During critical surgery, nanofluids could be used to cool the brain
so it requires less oxygen and thereby enhance the patient's chance
of survival and reduce the risk of brain damage. They could also be
used to produce a higher temperature around tumours to kill cancerous
cells without affecting nearby healthy cells.
Dr Ding said: "With the strong research team here at Leeds we have
considerable expertise in developing nanofluids and already have a
number of prototypes under investigation. We are looking to
characterise these fluids so we fully understand their heat
conductive properties under static and dynamic conditions in both
large and micro channels."
The researchers are talking to industrial partners about moving
towards large-scale production.
Weitere Informationen: reporter.leeds.ac.uk/515/s4.htm
www.leeds.ac.uk
http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/energie_elektrotechnik/b
ericht-57221.html
http://tinyurl.com/f2bj5
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:54:26 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: BuzzFlash interview: Elizabeth Kolbert
BuzzFlash interview: Elizabeth Kolbert
BuzzFlash Interviews - BuzzFlash.com
03.28.06 -
Few of us have the opportunity to camp out on the Greenland ice sheet
or gaze at mammoth icebergs floating lazily in the bay. But
journalist Elizabeth Kolbert has, and her report to the rest of us is
both awesome and unsettling - which is her intent. Field Notes from a
Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change truly sounds an alarm.
Kolbert visited key research sites herself. She questioned the
scientists, as well as local residents, and observed not only the
data, but the land and seascapes firsthand. Her report tells us in
layman's terms what the world's top climate researchers are already
seeing. She wants us all to understand global warming, and why we can
no longer ignore or deny it.
* * *
BuzzFlash: In the Seventies we began the tradition of Earth Days, and
we seemed to have a growing environmental consciousness. It seemed to
be supported by conservatives and liberals alike. It was as American
as apple pie. Now it's a partisan issue. What happened?
Elizabeth Kolbert: In American politics in general, the environment,
very broadly understood, is the public space. It's the world that we
all occupy. As an observer of American politics, I think the public
space has been really devalued. There's only one planet and we all
share in it in some way, and it's our commonality. There's very
little sticking up for the public good now, and the environment has
fallen victim to that.
BuzzFlash: Why did you call the book Field Notes from a Catastrophe?
Elizabeth Kolbert: There was a struggle to find a title, it wasn't
something that just popped into my mind. I wanted to convey a sense
of what the book really is, and it's not a scientific treatise. It's
a series of notes – almost a travelogue. I go and I talk to people,
and I am out in the field with a lot of people. So I wanted to give
that sense of being out in the field. So that is "Field Notes."
And "Catastrophe" is pretty self-explanatory.
BuzzFlash: Global warming is the issue you investigate. But it's a
lot more complicated than that, of course. We're getting to the
point, as your book details, when the total global environment may
reach a stage that will be catastrophic. Is that correct
interpretation?
Elizabeth Kolbert: Yes. It's a global phenomenon, and due to the
sheer scale of it, the potential for irreversible harm is great.
BuzzFlash: You're a journalist, but you went out like a scientist.
You did, in essence, field research on this problem, looking at the
problem in a variety of locations, with a variety of people studying
it. What did you find?
Elizabeth Kolbert: I chose the scientists I followed quite carefully.
They're very eminent people, all of whom were doing very important
research. But the one thing that I hope comes through is that every
single one of these people was looking at very serious changes that
are already occurring. And the ways they are looking toward the
future are not at all speculative. Any global warming scientist will
tell you, this is not a field rife with speculation. As one person
put it to me, this is basically Physics 101. And they are all very,
very concerned.
One of the scientists put it to me very well. He made the point that
in many fields there's a scientific opinion and a lay opinion, and
the lay opinion is more hysterical than the scientific opinion. But
in the field of climate science, the climate scientists are the ones
who are saying, wow, wake up, this is really serious! If there's one
thought I'd really like to get out to people, it is that the
scientists are really, really worried.
BuzzFlash: You begin in your Preface with a recollection from the
Hotel Arctic on the west coast of Greenland. Can you tell us what you
found, because this sort of sets the tone for the book.
Elizabeth Kolbert: The Greenland ice sheet is ice that's up on land.
That ice is always flowing. There are ice rivers that flow
particularly fast and deliver a tremendous amount of water to the
sea, in the form of these huge and really fantastically beautiful
icebergs. They sort of float and laze around, and people come to
watch them because it's very spectacular. It's believed that that
probably was the source of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.
But this ice stream has been moving faster and faster, and the height
of the ice is sinking as it moves south. It thins out, and the point
where the icebergs sort of break off and enter the water has been
moving back very, very rapidly. All of that ice, as it's delivered to
the sea, contributes to the sea level rise. So it's something that
people are very worried about, and it's something that the
Greenlanders who live there will tell you is just astonishing. In
places that used to be iced over all winter, there's no sea ice. As I
was told, "You can see a lot of strange changes."
In the short term, some changes may be economically beneficial to
them. They can take their fishing boats out all winter now. But
they're not happy about it.
BuzzFlash: We had a recent report that the Antarctic ice sheet is
melting twice as fast as had previously been anticipated.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Both the ice sheets and the Arctic ice cap melting
are reasons to be worried, for somewhat different reasons. They're
all showing signs of change.
The Arctic ice cap, which is floating, since there's no land up
there, is shrinking very fast. People say that it is possible that by
the middle of this century, there will be no ice in the summer. That
has tremendous ramifications. You could say, well, big deal. There's
no ice in the Arctic. I don't go to the Arctic. What difference does
it make? But ice is a very important regulator of our climate because
it reflects light – that's basically sun and solar energy that's not
being absorbed by the earth. When you start to melt back that ice,
the water can absorb more heat - a tremendous amount of heat. Water
is a very good heat absorber, so the increase in heat feeds on
itself, and it basically becomes impossible to stop.
BuzzFlash: We have mostly a mythical conception of the Arctic circle,
largely related to Christmas and Santa Claus. There's also the
history of adventurers in the beginning of the century racing to get
to the Arctic circle. When you say this is just ice, there's
something in the back of our minds – at least in my mind – that
thinks somehow there's something below that. But you're saying,
really, the Arctic Circle is just a massive accumulation of ice.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Go to your globe and look at it. Once you're above
Siberia and Alaska, there's no land there. The continents make sort
of a ring, and then there's the Arctic Ocean. The ice cap is floating
on the water, and it used to stretch all the way to the edge of the
land. If you look at satellite data and the diagrams, which are in my
book, you can see the ice is pulling away from the edges of the land.
There are now places where the ice has pulled away many, many miles
from shore. It's just shrinking. It's coming farther and farther up
toward the North Pole. This makes people say, for example, that there
will be a northwest passage. The much, much sought northwest passage
will eventually open up.
BuzzFlash: There's a positive benefit to global warming. We'll have a
northwest passage.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Another point I try to get across in the book is
that we have lived under certain conditions as our society has
developed. Human history has all happened very rapidly, from the
perspective of geological history. We have become an industrialized
society with six billion people, and that's happened under a certain
set of climactic conditions. You change those conditions, and a lot
of people are not going to be able to live the way they were. You
have to be concerned about what happens next. You have to be
concerned about geo-political issues. You have to be concerned about
humanitarian issues - people living in places where they are just
barely scraping by and are just barely getting enough rainfall. If
you change the rainfall patterns, you really can't know what's going
to happen.
So yes, shipping companies may benefit, but it seems unlikely that
change as a whole is going to be good for the six billion of us who
are here right now.
BuzzFlash: Suppose there is a sudden rise in the earth's temperature.
The oceans could rise up to fifteen feet because of melting,
particularly synergistically with a rise in temperature. Once you
reach a tipping point, there's really no going back. There's nothing
presently in our technology which would enable us to be like the
surgeon and suddenly repair the hole in the ozone layers and so forth.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Right.
BuzzFlash: We want to emphasize to people who read this book that you
did due diligence. You went way beyond getting on the Internet or
reading a lot of books or just calling people. You were there in
Greenland, and Alaska, and so forth. What do you say to people who
say, well, this is gibberish? I don't want to put you in a political
spot, but the President of the United States would say this is just
unproven.
Elizabeth Kolbert: The Administration takes a very complicated and
somewhat internally inconsistent stand. They're on record saying this
is a real problem, and a serious problem. The President speaks of it,
very rarely - you have to sort of piece it together out of these
fragments - but their official position is that it's a serious
problem for which we have no solution at this moment, so we're going
to just sort of see, and maybe a solution will show up. That's their
position.
Now, there are people who are even further out there, like Senator
James Inhofe, who will say, this doesn't prove anything. There's
three or four places in the world that are actually getting colder,
so what are you talking about? That is just another form of denial.
It's like Michael Crichton's State of Fear, which is heavily
footnoted as to be tricked out as science.
But unfortunately, it really doesn't matter what people think or
deny. It really only matters what's going to happen to the world. The
earth doesn't really care about human opinion on this topic. You also
can deny that smoking causes cancer. You can deny that, and you can
smoke, and you can see what happens. But unfortunately it just
doesn't change the basic facts.
BuzzFlash: Let me back up a second to the Bush Administration. There
is a political dimension, of course, to responding to the problem.
The Bush Administration doesn't just acknowledge the problem and say,
well, we don't know what the solutions are. But they also say that,
even the proposed solutions, which seem to be common sense based,
aren't proven in any way to reduce the problem, so therefore we
aren't going to try to put those in place.
Elizabeth Kolbert: They use every imaginable reason to justify doing
nothing. One of the justifications for doing nothing is, if you take
something like the Kyoto protocol, which is generally accepted as our
best hope for doing something at this point – they say, well, that
isn't going to really measurably impact the problem. And on some
level, they're right. The Kyoto protocol is inadequate. Every climate
scientist would tell you the Kyoto protocol does not address this
problem in a way that will really make a serious significant
difference at the end of the day - the end of the day being a century
from now.
That was always understood. The Kyoto protocol was always understood
as a first step, and then you have to take even more serious
measures. It's f like saying, well, I'm fat, and if I don't eat that
candy bar today, is it really going to make a lot of difference? No -
so I will just go to Dunkin Donuts, too.
These problems take a lot of hard work over a long time. But to just
throw up your hands at the beginning and say, well, that's not going
to solve the problem, is to not even take the first step. That's
really the situation we're in right now.
BuzzFlash: The American financial system and our way of life are sort
of a carpe diem lifestyle. We live for today. We are a society that's
built on instant gratification and consumption, and a six-hour news
cycle. How will Americans begin to understand that our lifestyle has
long-term implications, although not that far away anymore?
Elizabeth Kolbert: I wish I had the answer to that. It's the ultimate
challenge to our political system, and this is not a completely
partisan issue. A person I spoke to who really addressed this and is
quite downcast was John McCain, one of the few people in the Senate
who has really taken a strong stand on this. He said to me, our
political system is designed to respond to crises. By the time you
respond to this crisis, it is too late. So we really have to be
taking proactive measures. It's completely unclear that our political
system is capable of doing that.
BuzzFlash: What might this mean in terms of world drought?
Elizabeth Kolbert: I've talked to enough people to tell you that one
of the clear effects of climate change is going to be changes in
precipitation. It is not that easy to predict exactly what they will
be, and the models, in fact, sometimes show contradictory results.
But changes in precipitation mean that some areas will get drier and
some areas will get wetter, and that's a pretty well-accepted impact.
To go back to what I said before, we grew to the population that we
are now with the rainfall patterns that we have had for the last
fifty years, let's say. You change those, and you can imagine it
causing a lot of problems.
BuzzFlash: What would a rise in the sea level of fifteen feet do?
Elizabeth Kolbert: It would be catastrophic. You only get a rise in
sea level of fifteen feet when you melt one of these ice sheets –
either it's the Greenland ice sheet or the West Antarctic ice sheet.
And we are not going to see that tomorrow. It is not a process that
happens overnight, but probably over the course of a couple centuries.
It is possible that we have set that in motion, and that our great-
great-great-great grandchildren will feel the effects of that.
Someone compared it to rolling a boulder down the hill. You can't
stop it. That's why what's happened to the Greenland ice sheet is of
intense interest to people. There's a lot of change that's already in
the pipeline - the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One
has to hope not, but one cannot be sure. We have seen changes in the
ice sheet that are ominous – let's put it that way.
BuzzFlash: In your Foreword you talked about the doubling of the
speed of that ice stream that is flowing into the sea.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Right, that's a huge change.
BuzzFlash: What would awaken Americans to this problem? It may not
affect you now, but the legacy of not attending to this could be
catastrophic to your children.
Elizabeth Kolbert: I would be happy to give you the answer, if I knew
it. Why did I write this book? Here I am, doing what I know how to
do. And many other people are doing what they know how to do. So
there's many people out there trying to work on this problem, and
trying to say exactly that – wake up!
I do think we should be appealing to people as parents. Most
Americans above a certain age are parents. Think of all the energy we
spend, getting our kids ready to attend college and take the SATs,
for instance. But this is their future. It is definitely my
children's generation that will really start to feel some potentially
very, very serious effects, and certainly their children. We are
society that claims to believe in the future - Americans always claim
to be a forward-looking society – so we've got to look forward.
BuzzFlash: Well, Elizabeth, thank you for a wonderful book.
Elizabeth Kolbert: Thank you.
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
Interview Conducted by Mark Karlin.
* * *
RESOURCES:
Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Hardcover), by Elizabeth Kolbert, a
BuzzFlash premium.
Field Notes from a Catastrophe, a BuzzFlash review.
Q&A: A Planetary Problem, an interview with The New Yorker.
Elizabeth Kolbert received the American Association for the
Advancement of Science's magazine writing award for her three-part
series on which Field Notes from a Catastrophe is based, published in
The New Yorker.
(c) 2006, BuzzFlash.com
URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20563
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:03:25 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Offshore 101: End our dependence on fossil fuels
Offshore 101: End our dependence on fossil fuels
By AMORY B. LOVINS,
© March 29, 2006
Last updated: 5:11 PM
The United States has the world's mightiest economy and most mobile
society. Yet the oil that fuels its vehicles, the coal that drives
its industry, and the gas that heats its homes have become its
greatest weakness.
Fortunately, our 22-million-barrels-a-day oil, 1.1-billion-tons-a-
year coal, and 22-trillion-cubic-feet-a-year gas habits are also
expensive — and American business is the greatest force on Earth for
turning such market imperfections into profits.
The mother lode of all energy resources is efficient use.
People want hot showers, cold beer, illumination, comfort and
mobility. The trick is to satisfy those demands in the most efficient
way — which, barring market distortions, will also tend to be the
cheapest way.
Since the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the United States has gotten more
new energy from efficiency than from all net expansions of domestic
energy supplies put together.
The millions of little things people did to weatherize houses, get
more efficient cars, upgrade office lighting, plug up steam leaks,
etc., plus some shifts in economic structure, yielded four times as
many additional Btus as did the net increase in supply from all new
American oil and gas wells, coal mines and power plants built in the
same period.
Such savings don't mean doing less, worse or without. Energy
efficiency is not "conservation" by curtailment. It means doing more
with less, enjoying more comfort, providing the same or better
services, but doing it smarter with advanced technology — a resource
that is expanding, even as fossil fuels are being depleted.
Efficiency is step one. Displacing fossil fuels with renewable
sources is step two.
There are opportunities to replace gasoline with ethanol from woody
plants, electricity stored in batteries and potentially hydrogen. A
growing share of our electricity is being generated with modern wind
turbines, such as those now common in northern Plains states, at
costs competitive with power from fossil-fuel-fired plants.
Many states have taken the lead in innovation and efficiency
technologies. More than 20 states now have "portfolio standards" that
require utilities to increase their use of wind and other renewable
sources. A 2002 California law that limits light vehicles' carbon
dioxide emissions has since been endorsed by many other states.
Even if the federal government succeeds in legal action to quash this
initiative, there are other approaches. States can use revenue-
neutral "feebates" to shift customer choice, within each vehicle-size
class, by combining fees on purchases of inefficient vehicles with
rebates on purchases of efficient vehicles. The District of Columbia
has such a policy .
In 2004, my colleagues and I pulled together a broad-reaching roadmap
(Winning the Oil Endgame, at www.oilendgame.com), co-sponsored by the
Pentagon, for eliminating U.S. oil use by the 2040s. We'd do this not
by passing federal laws, taxing fuels, biasing markets, mandating
technologies, limiting choices or crimping lifestyles, but by
adopting smart business strategies.
We found that the tools for curing oil dependence can also revitalize
manufacturing. Americans can either replace foreign oil with
efficient foreign cars, or leapfrog to superefficient domestic cars,
and thus import neither oil nor cars.
Such innovation and revitalization could save billions of dollars per
year, some of which would otherwise finance our enemies, and preserve
more than a million jobs in automaking and related industries.
Meanwhile, a shift to biofuels could create three-quarters of a
million rural jobs, double farm incomes, and revitalize rural and
small-town America.
Our energy future is choice, not fate. Fossil-fuel dependence can be
reduced and eventually eliminated with proven and cost-effective
technologies that create wealth, enhance choice and strengthen
security.
The difference between 1973 and 2006 is that we know a lot more about
what works. Market-based policy incentives, led by the states with
federal support where needed, can spur the innovation and technology
to revolutionize energy efficiency, green fuels and clean
electricity. American business can lead the nation and the world into
the post-fossil-fuel era, foster a vibrant economy, and bolster
lasting security.
Amory B. Lovins is founder and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute
(www.rmi.org), an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit applied
research center in Snowmass, Colo.
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=102146&ran=212653
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:05:52 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Oil Rises to 7-Week High on Forecast of Gasoline Supply Decline
Oil Rises to 7-Week High on Forecast of Gasoline Supply Decline
March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a seven-week high on
speculation that a government report will show U.S. gasoline
inventories fell for a fourth straight week.
U.S. stockpiles of gasoline and distillate fuel, a category that
includes heating oil and diesel, probably dropped last week,
according to a Bloomberg News survey. Tomorrow's Energy Department
report is expected to show that refineries are performing maintenance
before the peak-demand summer months. Oil also rose on signs of
economic growth in the U.S. and Europe.
``This is when you price in the inventory expectations,'' said Aaron
Kildow, a broker at Prudential Financial Derivatives LLC in New York.
``Gasoline should be strong because we expect that supplies fell last
week. There's a direct relationship between supply and price.''
Crude oil for May delivery rose $1.64, or 2.6 percent, to $65.80 a
barrel at 12:18 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices
touched $65.90, the highest since Feb. 6. Futures are up 22 percent
from a year ago.
Gasoline for April delivery increased 2.87 cents, or 1.6 percent, to
$1.8575 a gallon in New York. Futures are 18 percent higher than a
year ago.
Prices of gasoline have swung back and forth as traders take
positions on two futures contracts for the fuel, one using the
additive MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, and another blended
for use with ethanol. MTBE is being phased out because refiners don't
want to be liable for groundwater contamination caused by the
additive.
Ethanol Blend
Yesterday, the April contract for reformulated fuel to be blended for
use with ethanol, known as RBOB, rose 1.45 cents, or 0.7 percent, to
close at $1.972 a gallon in New York.
``Gasoline inventories are tighter than they were a few weeks ago,''
said Kyle Cooper, director of research at IAF Advisors in Houston.
``It's all about perception, because inventories are well above where
they have been in previous years.''
Gasoline stockpiles probably declined 1.5 million barrels from 221.6
million, based on the median of 12 responses in the survey. Eleven
analysts said inventories fell and one expected a gain. Supplies of
gasoline in the week ended March 17 were 6.7 percent above the five-
year average.
`Preposterously Cheap'
Crude oil today is ``preposterously cheap,'' said Matthew Simmons,
chairman of Houston-based energy investment bank Simmons & Co. Crude
oil prices are going to go higher ``because demand is starting to
pull away from supplies,'' Simmons said.
Consumer confidence in the U.S. and business confidence in Germany
and Italy surged this month, reports showed today. Increased economic
growth may translate into rising fuel demand. The U.S. consumes 25
percent of the world's oil and members of the European Union use
almost 20 percent of global oil production.
Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy jumped in March to the
highest level in almost four years, driven by a strengthening labor
market that's lifting incomes and giving Americans the means to
spend. The Conference Board's confidence index rose to 107.2, the
highest since May 2002, from 102.7 in February, the New York-based
non-profit membership organization said today.
German and Italian business confidence surged in March as economic
growth accelerated. The Ifo confidence index, based on a monthly
survey of 7,000 German executives, today rose to a 15- year high of
105.4 from 103.4 in February. Germany is Europe's largest economy and
the world's fifth-biggest oil consumer.
``The German Ifo was very strong, the strongest number since 1991,''
said Jason Schenker, an economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte,
North Carolina. ``If the number is any indication, the German economy
could grow nicely this year.''
Iran and Nigeria
Prices have been propped up in recent weeks by the United Nations
Security Council discussion on how to pressure Iran to stop uranium
enrichment. Oil traders are concerned supplies of Iranian crude would
be disrupted if the UN imposes sanctions. Attacks on oil facilities
in Nigeria have reduced output by more than a quarter, also
bolstering prices.
``For the first time in our lifetime, we are out of any form of spare
capacity.'' Simmons said. ``It is a different energy world we live in
today.''
Prices rose yesterday after an announcement that a gasoline- making
unit at a refinery in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, will remain
shut longer than planned. The 150,000-barrel-a-day catalytic cracking
unit at Hovensa LLC's oil refinery, which went out of service March
11, didn't resume operation March 25 as planned, the Associated Press
reported, citing refinery spokesman Alex Moorhead.
``The path of least resistance is higher,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick,
vice president of energy risk management at Fimat USA Inc. in New
York. ``There are problems with Hovensa, in Nigeria and other parts
of the world, which threaten supplies and keep traders nervous.''
Brent crude oil for May settlement rose $1.25, or 2 percent, to
$64.86 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures exchange.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 28, 2006 12:20 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=email_us&refer=top_world_news&sid=a8M3.s9uGkX4
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:12:47 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Renewable Power Moves to State Agendas
Renewable Power Moves to State Agendas
Author: Jim Clarkson
Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2006
Following passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005--which was the
first major federal energy legislation in 13 years and did not
include many of the renewable power mandates championed by anti-
fossil-fuel activists--consumers in Maryland and Washington are now
facing state-specific renewable power mandates.
Effort Moves to States
The Energy Policy Act provides unprecedented subsidies for many
costly or currently unproven "green" technologies. What the activists
sought but did not get was a national requirement for utilities to
provide a certain percentage of renewable power and engage in
expensive conservation and efficiency programs. As a result, the
activists have stepped up pressure in the individual states, seeking
there what they could not obtain at the federal level.
The activists' agenda--already achieved in 19 states and the District
of Columbia--is to have each state mandate a "Renewable Portfolio
Standard" (RPS) and to require utilities to engage in "Demand Side
Management" (DSM).
An RPS law requires electric utilities to purchase or produce a
certain percentage of their electrical supply from wind, solar, and
biomass generation. Other so-called "green" energy sources are also
sometimes included. The use of renewable energy must be mandated
because it is almost always more expensive than conventional sources
and often presents problems of intermittent availability. Utility
companies and consumers rarely choose to purchase such power unless
forced to do so.
Everyone Must Pay Premium
A DSM program doles out rebates and other incentives for high-
efficiency appliances and such practices as weather stripping. The
programs involve significant cross-subsidies among utility
ratepayers, and they drive up overall costs, which are passed on to
customers.
According to consumer surveys, about 75 percent of Americans support
renewable power and are willing to pay modest premiums for it.
However, experience has shown that when a local utility offers "green
power" as a voluntary program, complete with the surcharge necessary
to cover the extra cost, only about 2 to 3 percent of customers
actually buy it. Thus, anti-fossil-fuel activists lobby for state and
federal laws requiring everyone to pay the premium prices for
renewable power, whether they desire to or not.
Maryland Law Takes Effect
Pursuant to a new law that took effect January 1, Maryland power
companies must buy at least 2.5 percent of their power from a list of
renewable sources that includes hydroelectric power. Another 1
percent must be purchased from sources considered still more
desirable by environmental activists, such as wind and solar power.
By 2019, power companies in the state will be required to purchase at
least 7.5 percent of their power from renewable sources.
Wash. Ballot Initiative Possible
In Washington state, activists are spearheading a petition drive to
place a renewable power mandate on the 2006 ballot. Consumers there
currently have the option of purchasing renewable power from Puget
Sound Energy, but few have been willing to pay the extra cost for the
activist-preferred power sources. Activist groups including the
Sierra Club and Climate Solutions are seeking to force consumers to
purchase power from renewable sources.
If the proposed measure is placed on the ballot and passes, power
companies would be required to purchase at least 15 percent of their
power from renewable sources by 2020. Importantly, hydroelectric
power, which is currently widely used in regional power generation,
would not qualify as a renewable power source, although power
companies could count some extra energy gained through costly dam
upgrades.
"I have mixed feelings" about the proposed mandate, Margi Mann of
Olympia, one of the first people to sign up to voluntarily purchase
renewable power from Puget Sound Energy, told the Olympian for a
January 25 article. "I commend the goals of the environmentalists and
other initiative backers, but I'm concerned about making it
mandatory."
Mandates, Costs Unneeded
"Power costs are already high in the Pacific Northwest, which make[s]
it difficult for industries" to compete with out-of-state
counterparts, said Michael Early, executive director of Industrial
Customers of Northwest Utilities, in a January 25 Seattle Times
article. Early and other observers point out, moreover, that many
utilities have been investing in fish-friendly improvements to dam
design; they would not be able to count such environmentally friendly
power generation toward the renewable energy mandate.
"Wind power and solar power, the renewable power sources most
frequently championed by activists, are significantly more expensive
than conventional power sources," said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "Just as importantly,
these 'green' power sources have environmental detriments of their
own, such as large-scale bird and bat massacres associated with wind
power and the enormous ecological footprint associated with solar
power."
"Renewable power mandates merely accentuate the inefficiency and cost
premiums attached to so-called renewable power sources," said Jerry
Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato
Institute. "If renewable power saved consumers money, created jobs,
or carried any of the other economic benefits so frequently claimed
by environmental activists, then government would not have to pass a
law to force power companies to purchase it or consumers to buy it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Jim Clarkson (jclarkson@rsmenergy.com) is a member of the board of
directors for the Institute for Energy Research.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18778
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:21:57 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: For People and Planet (WSJ)
For People and Planet
By AL GORE and DAVID BLOOD
March 28, 2006; Page A20
Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly
interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of
natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the
external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we
have a sustainable economy and society.
The industrial revolution brought enormous prosperity, but it also
introduced unsustainable business practices. Our current system for
accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes
and the creation of "national accounts" (the backbone of today's
gross domestic product). While this system was precise in its ability
to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to
account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be
limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic
development is hard-wired to externalize as many costs as possible.
Externalities are costs created by industry but paid for by society.
For example, pollution is an externality which is sometimes taxed by
government in order to make the entity responsible "internalize" the
full costs of production. Over the past century, companies have been
rewarded financially for maximizing externalities in order to
minimize costs.
* * *
Today, the global context for business is clearly
changing. "Capitalism is at a crossroads," says Stuart Hart,
professor of management at Cornell University. We agree, and we think
the financial markets have a significant opportunity to chart the way
forward. In fact, we believe that sustainable development will be the
primary driver of industrial and economic change over the next 50
years.
The interests of shareholders, over time, will be best served by
companies that maximize their financial performance by strategically
managing their economic, social, environmental and ethical
performance. This is increasingly true as we confront the limits of
our ecological system to hold up under current patterns of
use. "License to operate" can no longer be taken for granted by
business as challenges such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, water
scarcity and poverty have reached a point where civil society is
demanding a response from business and government. The "polluter
pays" principle is just one example of how companies can be held
accountable for the full costs of doing business. Now, more than
ever, factors beyond the scope of Keynes's national accounts are
directly affecting a company's ability to generate revenues, manage
risks, and sustain competitive advantage. There are many examples of
the growing acceptance of this view.
In the corporate sector, companies like General Electric are
designing products to enable their clients to compete in a carbon-
constrained world. Novo Nordisk is taking a holistic view of
combating diabetes not only through treatment but also through
prevention. And Whole Foods and others are addressing the demand for
quality food by sourcing local and organic produce. Importantly, the
business response is about making money for shareholders, not
altruism.
In the nongovernmental sector, organizations such as World Resources
Institute, Transparency International, the Coalition for
Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) and AccountAbility are
helping companies explore how best to align corporate responsibility
with business strategy.
Over the past five years we have seen markets begin to incorporate
the external cost of carbon dioxide emissions. This is happening
through pricing mechanisms (price per ton of carbon dioxide) and
government-supported trading platforms such as the European Union
Emissions Trading Scheme in Europe. Even without a regulatory
framework in the U.S., voluntary markets are emerging, such as the
Chicago Climate Exchange and state-level initiatives such as the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. These market mechanisms
increasingly enable companies to calculate project returns and
capital expenditures decisions with the price of carbon dioxide fully
integrated.
The investment community has also started to respond. For example,
the Enhanced Analytics Initiative, an international collaboration
between asset owners and managers, encourages investment research
that considers the impact of extra-financial issues on long-term
company performance. The Equator Principles, designed to help
financial institutions manage environmental and social risk in
project financing, have now been adopted by 40 banks which arrange
over 75% of the world's project loans. In addition, the rise in
shareholder activism and the growing debate on fiduciary
responsibility, governance legislation and reporting requirements
(such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the EU Business Review)
indicate the mainstream incorporation of sustainability concerns.
While we are seeing evidence of leading public companies adopting
sustainable business practices in developed markets, there is still a
long way to go to make sustainability fully integrated and therefore
truly mainstream. A short-term focus still pervades both corporate
and investment communities, which hinders long-term value creation.
As some have said, "We are operating the Earth like it's a business
in liquidation." More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and
social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to
achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to
its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet.
Mr. Gore, a former vice president of the United States, is chairman
of Generation Investment Management. Mr. Blood, formerly head of
Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is managing partner of Generation
Investment Management, which he co-founded with Mr. Gore.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114351506093609748.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:23:52 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Big Businesses Have New Take on Warming (WSJ)
Big Businesses Have New Take on Warming
Some Companies Move From Opposition
To Offering Proposals on Limiting Emissions
By JOHN J. FIALKA
March 28, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The global warming debate on Capitol Hill is focused on
whether the federal government should impose stricter emissions
rules. But a key Senate panel is shifting the discussion
from "whether" to "how."
The Senate Energy Committee is hearing from industry and activists
about how a mandatory plan to control carbon dioxide and other so-
called greenhouse gases could work. Many big businesses that resisted
efforts to fight global warming are sending blueprints and companies
like Southern Co. -- an Atlanta utility opposed to new controls --
have filed detailed proposals.
"We feel strongly that if there is going to be a mandatory program,
it really has to be economy-wide," said Chris Hobson, a senior vice
president at Southern. "To do it any other way would be unduly
burdensome to our customers."
"What's interesting here is the diversity of companies and their
willingness to respond in some detail," said Jonathan Pershing, a
climate-change expert for the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit
environmental think tank. Concern about the damage caused by climate
change and industry's thirst for regulatory certainty, he predicts,
could lead to passage of some form of mandatory carbon-dioxide
controls within five years.
The energy committee has received 160 plans from companies and
organizations, and members will hold a "roundtable" next Tuesday to
sift through them. It will be Congress's first review of possible
regulatory mechanisms of a system of mandatory controls.
President Bush has opposed anything other than a voluntary approach.
Congress has debated and rejected climate-change regulation, but last
fall the Senate opened the door a crack, with advocates mustering 53
votes for a resolution backing mandatory controls if they "will not
significantly harm the United States economy."
The corporate proposals are part of an attempt to explore what is
feasible along those lines. "There will be more good things put down
by smart people on this effort than there have been at the beginnings
of most processes like this," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici, (R., N.M.)
chairman of the Senate panel.
One of the most ambitious plans comes from Arkansas retailer Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., which last fall announced goals to make its stores
greener. Andrew Ruben, Wal-Mart's vice president for corporate
strategy, said the company wants the federal program to cover
electricity generators, large industrial companies and the entire
transportation sector. He said Wal-Mart won't wait for Congress to
act and is planning a program to cut its emissions.
The company, which operates one of the nation's largest truck fleets,
has set goals to make it 25% more efficient within two years and to
double its fuel efficiency within 10 years.
Some of the most detailed plans are coming from utilities and other
companies that would bear the economic brunt of new rules, including
some who have lobbied against more regulations.
A number of major companies, including Southern and DuPont Co., favor
what they call a "downstream" approach, which has an effect midway
between fuel producers and the ultimate energy consumer. It would
impose a cap-and-trade program for utilities and big manufacturers.
The government would assign companies a "cap" -- a number of permits
or credits to emit carbon dioxide -- which they could trade.
Operators who emit less than their quota would have leftover credits
to sell to those who need them to keep from exceeding their cap.
These companies also suggest that Congress add an "upstream" approach
to cover the millions of cars and trucks in the transportation
sector, which would be difficult to control driver-by-driver. So here
the controls would shift up the chain of production, to oil refiners
in the form of a higher fuel tax, or to auto makers, in the form of
more stringent efficiency standards for new cars. The upstream
approach would let market forces change consumer behavior.
"The U.S. could show a lot of leadership here because nobody else has
figured out how to do this," said Richard Rosenzweig, chief operating
officer of Natsource LLC, an emissions-trading firm in New York. He
noted that ways to curb emissions in the transportation sector, which
generates about 30% of the nation's carbon-dioxide emissions, will be
needed in any program to lower U.S. emissions.
Duke Energy Corp., a Charlotte, N.C., electricity producer, is among
companies suggesting that Congress apply the upstream approach to all
economic sectors in the form of a tax on the carbon content of fuel.
The approach would provide "price certainty, gradual timing and
administrative simplicity," Duke's plan says. Under some forms of
carbon tax, the government would use a portion of the income for
research and development of cleaner energy sources and more efficient
ways to use energy.
The American Iron and Steel Institute argues in its filing that
neither the upstream nor downstream approach will work unless heavy
energy users, such as steelmakers, get some form of relief from
higher energy prices. Otherwise, they say, companies may shift
production overseas. "Companies are very nervous about this," said
Jim Schultz, a vice president of the institute. He said the price of
carbon credits under the European Union's cap-and-trade system have
climbed so high that European steelmakers are considering moving more
production to countries such as Brazil, which doesn't have carbon-
dioxide controls.
The Senate panel also is looking at systems being developed by Canada
and Japan, both of which must comply with the Kyoto Protocol. That
agreement among 38 industrial nations, not including the U.S., to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions went into force in February 2005,
after Russia ratified it. The treaty requires most industrial nations
to reduce emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012.
It isn't clear how the plans submitted to the Senate energy panel
will compare with Kyoto's goals in reducing emissions. The blueprints
U.S. lawmakers are considering focus more on the nuts-and-bolts of
how the systems would work, rather than their precise effects in
lowering greenhouse gases.
Japan will rely on voluntary emissions reductions at home and major
government purchases of carbon credits from abroad to help Japanese
companies meet their Kyoto targets.
Canada's system would cover about 10,000 plants in major industries,
but, unlike Europe's, it has a "safety valve" that would allow the
government to freeze the price of carbon-dioxide credits if market
trading drives prices too high.
Some environmental groups argue the safety-valve approach will weaken
mandatory controls. Jason Grumet, executive director of the
bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, counters that it
could be key to U.S. passage.
"With a safety valve you can go into a politician's office and assure
him or her that the price will go no higher than X amount," said Mr.
Grumet. Getting the U.S. to launch a program, he said, may be crucial
to getting other big world emitters, such as China and India, to
brave the political pain of mandatory controls. "You can't let the
perfect become the enemy of the good."
Write to John J. Fialka at john.fialka@wsj.com1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114351012228809653.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:john.fialka@wsj.com
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 09:51:29 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: There's Gold in Them Thar Waste Hills - Part 1
There's Gold in Them Thar Waste Hills - Part 1
3.29.06 Chuck Steiner, President and CEO, WaterSmart Environmental,
Inc.
No - not real gold, and not fool's gold either - but rather a whole
lot of potential value. Them Thar Waste Hills consist of large piles
of municipal solid wastes; culm, gob, and waste coal piles;
phosphogypsum stacks; and overburden piles from oil sands strip and
pit mining. The waste hills range in size from a small to large. The
very small hill, for example, of municipal solid wastes (MSW) at
beautiful Key West, Florida is also the highest point in the city
unless the two latest hurricanes have dispersed the wastes to the
adjacent ocean. Other MSW hills are many times larger.
The potential value associated with all such waste hills depends
entirely on how they are managed.
Traditional MSW management for the last 75 years called for burying
the wastes and covering them with dirt until the landfill site could
hold no more, eventually forming a large hill at full capacity. Some
25 years ago enterprising waste-to-energy companies started a new
management approach by generating electricity from MSW. This was
accomplished by burning the MSW to create heat. The heat was used to
produce high pressure steam. The steam in turn powered a steam
turbine electric generator. The resulting waste-to-energy plants are
commonly referred to as mass burn MSW waste-to-energy facilities.
During the last 15 years marketplace efforts have been made to
prevent the continuing discharge of methane gas from landfills.
Methane gas is the most detrimental greenhouse gas, perhaps 20 times
as harmful to the environment as carbon dioxide gas. By burning the
methane in a gas powered electric generator the gas is converted into
carbon dioxide gas as electricity is produced.
Next generation waste management may be significantly improved by
using different technology to better manage solid wastes. The next
generation technology calls for the anaerobic digestion of MSW that
produces biogas in the same manner that landfills produce biogas.
Municipalities are quite familiar with anaerobic digestion technology
since some 10,000 already own and operate anaerobic digesters and
have been doing so for the last 75 years. The biogas can be
beneficially used by generating electricity in the same manner that
landfills are converting methane gas to electricity. This method of
waste management, however, is easily capable of producing over twice
as much electricity as mass burn MSW facilities are able to
accomplish by using improved anaerobic digestion technology.
There are now over 100 MSW-to-energy plants in operation in 31 states
throughout the United States. These plants incinerate about 15% of
the total trash generated or about 105,000 tons per day. On a
consolidated basis, these plants generate approximately 2,769
megawatts of electricity. The investment in capital facilities totals
more than $10 billion. These MSW-to-energy (also called biomass-to-
energy) plants represent extremely inefficient conversion of Btus
(British Thermal Units) to electricity. The total electricity
generated can be converted into equivalent Btus by multiplying the
total kWh by 3,414. 2,769MW x 1000 kW/MW x 24h x 3,414Btu/kWh =
226,880,784,000 Btus. The total 105,000 tons of trash per day is
equivalent to 105,000 x 2,000 lbs/ton = 210,000,000 lbs/day. Dividing
the total Btus/day by the lbs of trash/day results in an average
Btu/lb of trash or 226,880,784,000 divided by 210,000,000 = 1,080
Btu/lb average. Since MSW has a rather well known Btu value of about
4,750 Btu/lb, the total system conversion efficiency of existing MSW-
to-energy is 1,080 divided by 4,750 x 100% = 22.7%. According to the
US Department of Energy, biomass-to-electricity through pyrolysis
technology (same as mass burn MSW facilities) exhibits an efficiency
of approximately 20%. These dismal efficiencies of dry processing
are, for the most part, attributable to the inherent high moisture
content of biomass.
Anaerobic digestion technology is a wet rather than dry process.
Moisture is a process requirement rather than an operational
detriment. The ability of anaerobic digestion to convert Btus into
electricity may be theoretically determined as follows: MSW has an
average organic content of about 70%. 70% of 210,000,000 lbs/day =
147,000,000 lbs/day. Of this amount, approximately 75% are volatile
solids or 0.75 x 147,000,000 = 110,250,000 lbs/day. The new and
improved OAT(™) process of anaerobic digestion produces about 12
cubic feet of methane/lb volatile solids. The total methane produced
at 99% volatile solids to methane efficiency is found by 110,250,000
x 12 x 0.99 = 1,309,770,000 cubic feet/day.
The next step is to convert the methane into electricity. The hourly
methane production is found by dividing the daily production by 24 or
1,323,000,000/24 = 54,573,750 CFH (cubic feet per hour). This figure
divided by about 12 equals the kW sized gas generator that would
convert the total methane into electricity or 54,573,750/12 =
4,548,000 kW. kW/1000 = MW or 4,548,000/1000 = 4,548 MW or 1.64 times
as much as existing MSW-to-energy mass burn technology. This
establishes a greatly improved biomass-to-electricity efficiency to
36%. By adding combined cycle generation, the efficiency increases
above 50% or more than twice as much electricity than existing state-
of-the-art mass burn MSW facilities. Combined cycle refers to the
practice of using the waste heat from a power generation device to
produce steam. The steam, in turn, is beneficially used to produce
additional electricity through the use of a steam turbine generator.
Steam generation is the only method of making electricity in existing
mass burn MSW facilities. The splendid improvements in generation
efficiency can be accomplished by applying common scientific
principles to existing and fully established well known technologies.
New technology doesn't have to be created. Existing technologies must
be used in a different manner than before. It's that simple.
The use of new and improved anaerobic digestion technology to manage
MSW is therefore far more effective than existing waste management
practices in terms of total marketplace value produced. A bit of gold
from a pile of trash one might conclude.
Coal provides nearly 50% of the electrical generating fuel in the
United States and similar percentages apply around the world. Coal is
more abundant than oil, if fact, coal reserves are far more abundant
than oil reserves. There is enough coal on the earth to supply all
the current energy requirements of the entire planet for hundreds of
years. Coal is many times more abundant than the reserves of all
other fossil fuels combined.
In the normal mining of coal its overburden must first be removed.
The resulting piles of overburden materials become waste coal. They
are called "culm" piles in the eastern Pennsylvania anthracite coal
region and "gob" or "boney" piles in the bitiminous coal mining
regions of western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and elsewhere.
The Susquehanna River is the nation's sixteenth largest river and is
the largest river lying entirely in the United States that flows into
the Atlantic Ocean. The Susquehanna and its tributaries drain 27,510
square miles spread over parts of the states of Maryland, New York,
and Pennsylvania. The river meanders 444 miles from its origin at
Otsego Lake near Cooperstown, New York until it empties into the
Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland. The Susquehanna
contributes one-half of the freshwater flow to the Bay. Acid mine
drainage occurs in several tributaries to the Susquehanna.
Acid mine waste pollution is caused by the physical and chemical
weathering of a very common mineral. The main culprit seems to be
iron pyrite, a mineral as "fool's gold". The level of acidity and the
concentration of heavy metal pollutants in the mine drainage can be
directly correlated to the amount of pyrite in the area around the
mine. Physical weathering of the pyrite is essential to reduce the
grain size of the mineral. The early miners inadvertently accelerated
this process by grinding up the ore and dumping the overburden in the
mine tailings piles.
Raw coal may be sold as mined or may be processed in a
beneficiation/washing plant to remove noncombustible materials (up to
45% reduction in ash content) and inorganic sulfur (up to 25%
reduction). Coal beneficiation is achieved with wet physical
processes such as gravity separation and dissolved air flotation.
Beneficiation produces two waste streams: fine materials that are
discharged as a slurry to a tailings impoundment, and coarse
materials (typically greater than 0.5 millimeters in size).
Whether gob/culm piles or tailings ponds the chemistry of acid mine
drainage remains the same namely the chemical oxidation of pyrite
described in the following reactions:
Iron II ions and acidic hydrogen ions are released into the waters
that runoff from the mine drainage tunnels or tailings piles. Iron II
ions are oxidized to form iron III ions as shown in the following
reaction:
The iron III ions now hydrolyze in water to form iron III hydroxide.
This process releases even more hydrogen ions into the aquatic
environment and continues to reduce the pH. The iron III hydroxide
formed in this reaction is called "yellow boy", a yellowish-orange
precipitate that turns the acidic runoff in the streams to an orange
or red color and covers the stream bed with a slimy coating. Aquatic
life that dwells on the bottom channel of the stream is soon killed
off. Equation 3 describes this reaction:
If we were to look at the net effect of equations 1-3, we would find
that the pyrite is oxidized releasing acidic hydrogen ions into the
water and coating the stream bed with "yellow boy". The sum of
equations 1-3 is shown in the following reaction:
Complex systems in nature such as mine tailings piles and mine
draining tunnels cannot be described by just a few equations. Other
chemical reactions are occurring as shown in equation 5. In addition,
sulfides of copper, zinc, cadmium, lead and arsenic will undergo
similar geochemical reactions resulting in the contribution of toxic
metal ions into mine waste water. Other factors such as the presence
of acidic tolerant bacteria (ex. Thiobacillus ferroxidans) can also
speed up the process of sulfide oxidation.
There are thousands of gob and culm piles, tailings ponds, and
associated discharge streams that continue to inflict environmental
damage. Remediation efforts to date have consisted of revegetation.
Revegetation does little to stop acid mine drainage damage as every
rainfall event continues to add to the acid mine drainage volume
through waste coal percolation.
Nationally, waste coal has an average of 60% of the BTU value
(British Thermal Units, a unit of energy) of normal coals. It can
take up to twice as much waste coal to produce the same amount of
electricity. This means that, in most places, waste coal burners can
only be economically built where huge volumes of waste coal exist. It
would cost too much to truck far-away low-BTU fuel to a centralized
burner. Consequently, even if waste coal burning were a clean
solution, it wouldn't deal with the problem of more isolated waste
coal piles. Burning waste coal doesn't make the waste go away. If 100
tons of waste coal are burned, 85 tons will remain as waste coal ash.
Since far more mercury and other toxic contaminants enter a waste
coal burner to produce a given amount of electricity, these high
levels of toxic contaminants have to come out somewhere. Toxic metals
cannot be destroyed by burning them. To the extent that they are
captured in pollution controls (protecting the air), they are then
concentrated in the highly toxic ash that ultimately threatens the
groundwater wherever this ash is dumped. Waste coal burners have
cleaner air emissions than antiquated coal plants due to their better
pollution controls, but this only means that the ash is far more
toxic, since the highly toxic particulates captured in pollution
control equipment end up in the ash. The industry claims that 99.8%
of the mercury in the fuel is captured and ends up in their ash.
Waste coal ash is dumped in communities not far from the waste coal
burners, threatening the groundwater with leaching lead, mercury and
other poisons. Power plant waste is allowed to be dumped without the
basic protections (landfill liners) that are required for dumping
household trash. When burning any solid fuel, the resulting ash has a
higher surface area than the raw, unburned material. The dangers of
toxic leaching from ash can be expected to be greater than from the
unburned waste coal. The industry claims that by injecting limestone
into the ash, the ash becomes impervious to leaching. However, this
has not been proven and it seems likely that the alkaline affects of
the lime would afford only temporary protection, especially since the
region where most of the waste coal burners are (Pennsylvania, West
Virginia) suffers from the nation's worst acid rain that would tend
to deplete the effects of lime addition.
The waste coal burning industry's own data shows that waste coal ash
does in fact leach metals into groundwater, despite their public
assertions to the contrary. Ashes at 2 of 12 facilities studied in
Pennsylvania were shown to contain levels of arsenic higher than the
maximum allowable concentration set forth for land application of
sewage sludge. Of 221 samples of leachate from waste coal ash at the
ash dumps, lead contamination in 23 samples (10.4%) exceeded a level
10 times higher than EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
drinking water. Six samples exceeded this "10 times the drinking
water standard" level for cadmium, as did single samples for chromium
and selenium. In short, the chemistry of acid mine drainage from
gob/culm piles and tailings ponds remains the same for waste coal ash.
WITH FIGURES ETC:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_print.cfm?a_id=1238
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:18:52 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Clean-Energy Trends 2006
Clean-Energy Trends 2006
The following is an excerpt from Clean-Energy Trends 2006. To read
the full report, please download the PDF file by clicking on the link
to the left.
At long last, the tipping point is nigh: For the first time in modern
history, clean-energy technologies are becoming cost-competitive with
their "dirtier" counterparts. While oil and natural gas prices remain
stubbornly high and frustratingly volatile across the globe, and as
nuclear and coal-based energy remain dogged by environmental and
safety concerns, clean-energy prices continue their near-relentless
downward march.
Consider wind power. In certain regions, it is now one of the least
expensive and most easily deployed sources of new generating
capacity. Or ethanol, which has gained favor for vehicle use in both
in the U.S. and abroad. Or biodiesel, made from a wide range of
animal and vegetable oils, whose price is within striking distance of
petroleum-based diesel. Even solar, still relatively expensive
without subsidies, competes favorably in some places and is often the
cheapest choice for power in remote regions.
Suddenly, so-called "alternative" energy technologies are looking
pretty mainstream.
The growth of clean-energy markets reflects its growing acceptance.
Global wind and solar markets reached $11.8 billion and $11.2 billion
in 2005 -- up 47% and 55%, respectively, from a year earlier. The
market for biofuels hit $15.7 billion globally in 2005, up more than
15% from the previous year.
Multinationals like Archer Daniels Midland, BP, GE, Sharp, and Toyota
are partly responsible for stoking these technologies' aggressive
growth, leading the way with billion-dollar divisions dedicated to
solar, wind power, ethanol, and hybrid electric vehicles, among other
technologies. State and city governments throughout the U.S. are
playing a key role, too, competing feverishly to become clean-energy
hubs that attract economic development and jobs. The Silicon Valley
venture firms that financed the Internet and wireless telecom
revolutions -- among them Draper Fisher Jurvetson; Kleiner Perkins
Caulfield & Byers; Mohr, Davidow Ventures; and VantagePoint Venture
Partners -- have begun placing increasingly bigger bets on clean-
energy.
Even America's Oilman, George W. Bush, seems to be warming to clean
energy. In his 2006 State of the Union address, he declared what
pretty much every other American already knew: the U.S. is "addicted
to oil." Not an inconsequential statement for a Texan whose vice
president once dismissed energy conservation as merely a "personal
virtue." Bush proposed an initiative that calls for a 22% increase in
clean-energy research and a goal of replacing at least 75% of U.S.
Middle East oil imports by 2025 (though he offered no substantive
funding to do these things).
Even without federal intervention, global clean-energy markets will
flourish. According to Clean Edge research, biofuels (global
manufacturing and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) will
grow from $15.7 billion in 2005 to $52.5 billion by 2015. Wind power
(new installation capital costs) will expand from $11.8 billion in
2005 to $48.5 billion in 2015. Solar photovoltaics (including
modules, system components, and installation) will grow from an $11.2
billion industry in 2005 to $51.1 billion by 2015. And the fuel cell
and distributed hydrogen market will grow from $1.2 billion
(primarily for research contracts and demonstration and test units)
last year to $15.1 billion by 2015.
In total, we project these four clean-energy technologies, which
equaled $40 billion in 2005, to grow fourfold to $167 billion within
the coming decade.
It's not all smooth sailing, however: There remains turbulence in the
clean-energy sector. The solar industry is experiencing growing
problems, unable to gain access to enough silicon feedstock to keep
pace with demand. It will continue to put pressure on upward pricing
over the short term. Biofuels, while showing great promise, face
obstacles, not the least of which is how to quickly ramp up
widespread distribution channels. Growth of wind turbines, while
currently expanding rapidly, could flag as well as short-term price
increases due to high steel costs and shifting currency valuations.
And mass adoption of fuel cells and hydrogen remain decades away.
We believe many such obstacles are surmountable through a combination
of incremental and breakthrough technology developments, the
continued scale-up of manufacturing, and smart investments by
corporations, investors, and governments. As we've seen over the last
five years since issuing our first report on clean technologies
(Clean-Tech: Profits and Potential, April 2001), the market has
considerable momentum and represents one of the fastest-growing
technology sectors on the planet.
Solar Shines for Investors
It could be said that 2005 was the Year of the Sun. On both the
private and public markets, solar outshined other energy
technologies. VCs put more than $150 million into U.S.-based
companies such as Advent Solar, Energy Innovations, Heliovolt,
MiasolŽ, Nanosolar, and PowerLight in 2005 -- double the investments
in 2004.
Solar's glow was even more evident in the public markets. The three
largest technology IPOs of 2005 were for solar companies: Q-Cells,
SunPower, and Suntech Power. Combined, they raised more than $800
million (on the Frankfurt, NASDAQ, and NYSE exchanges, respectively),
and by the end of their first trading day, each had market
capitalizations exceeding $1.5 billion.
Clean-tech stocks in general are doing well. A number of clean-energy
stalwarts are trading at or near their 52-week highs. At the time of
publication, Energy Conversion Devices (ENER), Evergreen Solar
(ESLR), Itron (ITRI), and Spire Corp. (SPIR) were all trading at
roughly double their year-ago levels. But stock prices for other
clean technologies, including fuel cells and microturbines, showed
less energy.
U.S.-based venture capital investments in energy technologies
increased from $716 million in 2004 to $917 million in 2005. As a
percent of total VC investments, energy tech increased from 3.3
percent in 2004 to 4.2 percent in 2005. Over the last six years,
venture investments have more than quadrupled as a percent of total
VC investments, increasing from under 1 percent of total venture
investments in 1999 to last year's 4.2 percent.
Clean Energy State of Mind
In the United States, clean energy has become a politically unifying
issue with wide support from those of every political stripe, from
traditional liberals to current and former military brass. This
bipartisanship has been particularly evident at the state level,
where nearly twenty states now have renewable portfolio standards
(RPS) that mandate a percentage (often up to 20-25 percent) of
electricity coming from clean energy. States like California, Hawaii,
New York, and Pennsylvania are embarking on aggressive -- and
impressive -- clean-energy programs.
It's a trend we expect to continue as states view clean energy as an
opportunity to address air pollution, public health problems,
greenhouse gases, and grid congestion -- and a way for states to
become known as centers for clean-technology development, with all
the new jobs and businesses that can result.
Download the full report
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/trends2006.pdf
(18 pages)
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:33:17 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Energy Hits the Limelight
Energy Hits the Limelight
By Teresa Hansen, Associate Editor
After years of lackadaisical concern - and in some years no concern -
about our country's energy supply, is our nation's need for new,
clean energy supplies finally getting the attention it deserves? On
President's Day, President Bush began a weeklong effort to, according
to his administration, bring the energy ideas he discussed in his
State of the Union address to the attention of the American people.
The President is said to be putting energy in the same category of
importance as health care and education. Of course, considering the
progress (or lack of progress) in health care and education in past
years, being elevated to the same status as these two issues may not
be a good thing.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized that, to
keep our country's economy growing, we need "reliable supplies of
affordable, environmentally responsible energy." He said his proposed
budget "provides strong funding for leading-edge technology - from
hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as
ethanol." Since his address, the President's proposed fiscal year
2007 budget has been released. I'm not going to attempt to address
all the energy-related budget requests, but I do want to highlight a
few important areas.
According to Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, two initiatives the
President discussed in his State of the Union address are critical to
the Department of Energy's future and to our country's evolution from
a petroleum-based economy. First, is the American Competitiveness
Initiative. The President committed to doubling the budget of the
combined offices of the Department of Energy's Science Office, the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology over the next 10 years. This substantial budget
increase is directed in each of these three areas at supporting
research in the physical sciences, which is expected to include many
energy-related research and development activities.
The second critical initiative, according to Secretary Bodman, is the
Advanced Energy Initiative, which is aimed at making sure America has
reliable, affordable and clean energy supplies necessary to keep it
competitive. The Advanced Energy Initiative focuses on two vital
areas:
Changing the way American's fuel their vehicles; and,
Changing the way American's power their homes and businesses.
Both areas are extremely important, but for this editorial, I want to
concentrate on the Initiative's discussion of powering our homes and
businesses. One of the main focuses of this Initiative is to reduce
our country's growing appetite for natural gas, especially as a fuel
for electricity generation. By diversifying our electric power
sector, the Bush Administration believes our country can have
affordable electricity and an affordable, ample supply of natural gas
to fuel U.S. industries, making our country more competitive in the
global market. Therefore, one of the Initiative's main goals is to
accelerate future technologies in three promising areas: clean coal
technology, nuclear power, and renewable solar and wind energy.
Obviously, adequate funding will be required to meet these goals.
During his 2000 campaign, President Bush committed to investing $2
billion over 10 years to fund research in clean coal technologies.
One of the Advanced Energy Initiative's main goals is to complete
this commitment to clean coal technology research funding and move
the resulting innovations into the marketplace. The President's
proposed 2007 budget includes $281 million for a Coal Research
Initiative. If approved, this amount will nearly complete his $2
billion commitment four years early. The proposed budget includes $54
million for FutureGen, the flagship demonstration project for clean
coal technology. In addition to this proposed funding, the Office of
Fossil Energy had a balance of more than $500 million at the end of
fiscal year 2005 that will also be used to continue clean coal
technology research.
To advance nuclear energy, the Advanced Energy Initiative proposes
developing a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to address
spent nuclear fuel, eliminate proliferation risks and expand the
promise of clean, reliable and affordable nuclear energy. Under this
partnership, America will work with nations like France, Japan, the
United Kingdom and Russia - countries with advanced civilian nuclear
energy programs - to develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors
and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. The GNEP will not only
promote the deployment of advanced reactors and new spent fuel
recycling methods, it should also reduce waste and eliminate many of
the nuclear byproducts that can be used to make weapons. The
President's proposed 2007 budget contains $250 million for the GNEP.
In addition to the GNEP funding, the 2007 budget contain $31.4
million for Generation IV, a program designed to improve efficiency,
sustainability and proliferation resistance of advanced nuclear
systems. Another $54 million is tagged for Nuclear Power 2010, which
should pave the way for new, advanced light-water reactors by 2010.
The Office of Radioactive Waste Management requested $544.5 million
for further development of the Yucca Mountain Project and $67.8
million for the development of transportation infrastructure and
establishment of a long-term procurement plan for transportation
activities. Approval of this nuclear portion of the budget should be
a big shot in the arm for the nuclear energy industry.
A third goal of the Advanced Energy Initiative is renewables: to
reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so that they
become cost-competitive by 2015 and to expand access to wind energy
through technology. To fulfill solar energy's promise, the
President's proposed 2007 budget requests $148 million for solar
development - an increase of $65 million over the 2006 budget. To
expand wind energy, the 2007 budget includes $44 million for wind
energy research - a $5 million increase over 2006.
These figures represent only a small portion of the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $23.6 billion. It's also
important to remember that by the time the House and Senate actually
approve the 2007 budget, the numbers will likely be much different.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Advanced Energy Initiative was
written, that it includes a substantial focus on developing cutting-
edge electricity generation technologies, and that the Bush
Administration has included funding for the Initiative in its
proposed budget, sure beats anything we've seen in recent years.
Let's just hope it progresses better than its equally important
counterparts - health care and education.
Power Engineering March, 2006
Author(s) : Teresa Hansen
http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?
Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=251357&VERSION_NUM=2&p=6
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:36:14 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Renewable Energy and Fuels: In the Mainstream
Renewable Energy and Fuels: In the Mainstream
Those in the renewable energy industry have known for a long time
what those who are unfamiliar with the industry are just learning -
renewable energy has entered the mainstream, it is here to stay and
it has a bright future.
By Teresa Hansen, Associate Editor
It won't be long until the Mandalay Bay Resort and Convention Center
in Las Vegas plays host to one of the best shows in town - POWER-GEN
Renewable Energy & Fuels. Now in its third year, the conference and
exhibition will take place April 10 - 12, 2006.
According to Mike Eckhart, president of the American Council on
Renewable Energy (ACORE), a co-sponsor of the event, renewable energy
had its best year ever in 2005 and is poised to perform even better
in 2006. High fossil fuel prices are playing a key role in the
advancement of renewable energy and fuels, as are various government
policies and initiatives. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes
several features that should boost renewable technologies. And, as
discussed in the Opinion column on page 5 of this issue, the Advanced
Energy Initiative is focused on advancing energy technologies, with
renewable wind and solar energy being specifically identified. The
Initiative also focuses on biomass and hydrogen fuels and even
includes a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to promote
development of hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power automobiles,
homes and businesses. These high-profile initiatives are proof of
something that those in the industry have known for a long time -
renewable energy has entered the mainstream, it is here to stay and
it has a bright future.
Perhaps this explains why POWER-GEN Renewable Energy & Fuels has
enjoyed such great success. The event, which saw a 100 percent
increase in exhibiting companies and a 60 percent increase in
attendance in 2005, is expected to continue this exceptional growth
in 2006. Currently more than 120 speakers are scheduled to speak at
this year's event, covering topics such as renewable energy
generating technologies, renewable energy market development,
regulations, economic and financing trends, and fuel and hydrogen.
More than 100 companies will be exhibiting, giving attendees the
opportunity to network with colleagues in the exhibit hall while
learning about the latest renewable energy products and services. The
more than 2,000 industry professionals who are expected to attend
POWER-GEN Renewable Energy and Fuels will also have the opportunity
to attend pre-conference workshops and technical tours.
The exhibit hall will open on Monday evening, April 10, with a
reception from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., allowing attendees a chance to
preview the exhibits. A keynote session beginning at 9 a.m. on
Tuesday morning, April 11, will kick off the conference. The keynote
speakers will voice their views on the promise, prospects and
challenges faced by the U.S. renewable energy sector, spanning
renewable power generation and renewable fuels production.
Henry "Hank" Courtright, EPRI's vice president of environmental and
energy analysis, will begin Tueday's keynote session. Courtright is
responsible for strategic direction and performance for EPRI's
technology program in climate change, air quality, land and ground
water issues, electromagnetic fields (EMF), and water and ecosystems.
Jeff Sterba, Public Service of New Mexico's (PNM's) president,
chairman and CEO, will follow Courtright in the keynote session.
Sterba is also a board member and an executive committee member of
Edison Electric Institute and EPRI.
The next keynote speaker, Lorraine Bolsinger, is GE Energy's
Ecomagination vice president. Ecomangination, an initiative
introduced by GE Energy late last spring, is aimed at bringing to
market new technologies that will help its customers meet pressing
environmental challenges. Bolsinger is responsible for partnering
with customers, external organizations, internal teams and GE's
Global Research organization to develop innovative solutions to
customers' tough environmental problems.
James Woolsey, Booz Allen Hamilton's vice president, will also be
speaking during the keynote session. Woolsey joined Booz Allen
Hamilton in July 2002 and previously served in the U.S. Government on
five different occasions, where he held Presidential appointments in
two Republican and two Democratic administrations. Woolsey is
currently the co-chairman (with former Secretary of State George
Shultz) of the Committee on the Present Danger. He is also chairman
of the advisory boards of the Clean Fuels Foundation and the New Uses
Council.
The final speaker at Tuesday's keynote session will be Bill Keese,
the Western Governor's Association Advisory Committee's co-chair for
Clean and Diversified Energy. His duties include helping the
Governor's Association achieve its goal of developing 30,000 MW of
clean and diversified electricity generation in the West by 2015.
Keese most recently served eight years as the California Energy
Commission chair. Among his responsibilities at the Commission was
the support of renewable energy technologies.
In addition to Tuesday morning's keynote session, POWER-GEN Renewable
Energy and Fuels will include another keynote session on Wednesday
morning. The speakers/panelists in this session are leaders in
industry finance, professional services and government and will share
their views on the direction of renewables, key issues to be
addressed and their outlook on future progress. Those speaking
include Howard Berke, Konarka Technologies Inc.'s chairman and CEO,
Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations Inc.'s chairman and CEO, Paul
Gaynor, UPC Wind Management LLC's president, Michael Garland, Babcock
& Brown's managing director, Michael Naylor, NMH Search's president,
and Brian Nixon, Scottish Enterprise's energy director. This keynote
session will be co-moderated by Mike Eckhart and Arthouros Zervos,
European Renewable Energy Council's president.
In addition to the keynote and multi-track sessions, attendees will
have an opportunity to attend one of two pre-conference workshops on
Monday. An all-day workshop, "Uncovering the Full Renewable Energy
Potential," will be offered on Monday. A half-day workshop, "Weather
and Climate Impacts on Renewable Energy Projects: From Successful
Site Assessments to Cost Effective Operations," will also be offered.
Two technical tours will be offered on Monday: a favorite from last
year, the Hoover Dam Special Hard Hat Tour, and a second, recently
added tour, the Las Vegas Valley Water District Ronzone Reservoir
Distributed Solar Array Tour. This site is one of six sites planned
in a 3.1 MW distributed solar array that will be the largest
photovoltaic project built by a public agency in the United States.
The Ronzone Reservoir and Pumping Station is the first of the six
sites to begin operation. Information about both of these tours can
be found at www.power-gengreen.com.
While the keynote and multi-track sessions, pre-conference workshops
and technical tours will keep attendees busy, there will be plenty of
time on Tuesday and Wednesday for attendees to visit the exhibit hall
and talk to representatives of the many exhibiting companies. Nowhere
will attendees find so many renewable energy companies under one roof.
To register for POWER-GEN Renewable Energy and Fuels, visit www.power-
gengreen.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
ACORE's Utility Committee on Renewable Energy to Meet
In conjunction with POWER-GEN Renewable Energy and Fuels 2006, the
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) will hold its first
annual Utility Committee on Renewable Energy meeting. The Utility
Committee on Renewable Energy is newly chartered around three key
activities that interest load-serving entities: information exchange,
networking opportunities and education. As key "implementers" of
renewable energy activities, utility organizations will play an
important role in promoting a cohesive, fact-based and accurate
message to the public on the benefits and costs of renewable energy
resources.
Executives and managers at utilities that own and operate power
generating facilities are invited to get involved in this committee
and attend the meeting, which will take place on April 12 from 1 p.m.
to 5 p.m. at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas. More
information about the organization and the meeting is available at
www.acore.org or can be obtained by calling Tom Wierich, ACORE, at
202-393-0001
Power Engineering March, 2006
Author(s) : Teresa Hansen
http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?
Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=251366&VERSION_NUM=2&p=6
http://tinyurl.com/nb468
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:38:27 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Energy Hits the Limelight
Energy Hits the Limelight
By Teresa Hansen, Associate Editor
After years of lackadaisical concern - and in some years no concern -
about our country's energy supply, is our nation's need for new,
clean energy supplies finally getting the attention it deserves? On
President's Day, President Bush began a weeklong effort to, according
to his administration, bring the energy ideas he discussed in his
State of the Union address to the attention of the American people.
The President is said to be putting energy in the same category of
importance as health care and education. Of course, considering the
progress (or lack of progress) in health care and education in past
years, being elevated to the same status as these two issues may not
be a good thing.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized that, to
keep our country's economy growing, we need "reliable supplies of
affordable, environmentally responsible energy." He said his proposed
budget "provides strong funding for leading-edge technology - from
hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as
ethanol." Since his address, the President's proposed fiscal year
2007 budget has been released. I'm not going to attempt to address
all the energy-related budget requests, but I do want to highlight a
few important areas.
According to Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, two initiatives the
President discussed in his State of the Union address are critical to
the Department of Energy's future and to our country's evolution from
a petroleum-based economy. First, is the American Competitiveness
Initiative. The President committed to doubling the budget of the
combined offices of the Department of Energy's Science Office, the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology over the next 10 years. This substantial budget
increase is directed in each of these three areas at supporting
research in the physical sciences, which is expected to include many
energy-related research and development activities.
The second critical initiative, according to Secretary Bodman, is the
Advanced Energy Initiative, which is aimed at making sure America has
reliable, affordable and clean energy supplies necessary to keep it
competitive. The Advanced Energy Initiative focuses on two vital
areas:
Changing the way American's fuel their vehicles; and,
Changing the way American's power their homes and businesses.
Both areas are extremely important, but for this editorial, I want to
concentrate on the Initiative's discussion of powering our homes and
businesses. One of the main focuses of this Initiative is to reduce
our country's growing appetite for natural gas, especially as a fuel
for electricity generation. By diversifying our electric power
sector, the Bush Administration believes our country can have
affordable electricity and an affordable, ample supply of natural gas
to fuel U.S. industries, making our country more competitive in the
global market. Therefore, one of the Initiative's main goals is to
accelerate future technologies in three promising areas: clean coal
technology, nuclear power, and renewable solar and wind energy.
Obviously, adequate funding will be required to meet these goals.
During his 2000 campaign, President Bush committed to investing $2
billion over 10 years to fund research in clean coal technologies.
One of the Advanced Energy Initiative's main goals is to complete
this commitment to clean coal technology research funding and move
the resulting innovations into the marketplace. The President's
proposed 2007 budget includes $281 million for a Coal Research
Initiative. If approved, this amount will nearly complete his $2
billion commitment four years early. The proposed budget includes $54
million for FutureGen, the flagship demonstration project for clean
coal technology. In addition to this proposed funding, the Office of
Fossil Energy had a balance of more than $500 million at the end of
fiscal year 2005 that will also be used to continue clean coal
technology research.
To advance nuclear energy, the Advanced Energy Initiative proposes
developing a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to address
spent nuclear fuel, eliminate proliferation risks and expand the
promise of clean, reliable and affordable nuclear energy. Under this
partnership, America will work with nations like France, Japan, the
United Kingdom and Russia - countries with advanced civilian nuclear
energy programs - to develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors
and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. The GNEP will not only
promote the deployment of advanced reactors and new spent fuel
recycling methods, it should also reduce waste and eliminate many of
the nuclear byproducts that can be used to make weapons. The
President's proposed 2007 budget contains $250 million for the GNEP.
In addition to the GNEP funding, the 2007 budget contain $31.4
million for Generation IV, a program designed to improve efficiency,
sustainability and proliferation resistance of advanced nuclear
systems. Another $54 million is tagged for Nuclear Power 2010, which
should pave the way for new, advanced light-water reactors by 2010.
The Office of Radioactive Waste Management requested $544.5 million
for further development of the Yucca Mountain Project and $67.8
million for the development of transportation infrastructure and
establishment of a long-term procurement plan for transportation
activities. Approval of this nuclear portion of the budget should be
a big shot in the arm for the nuclear energy industry.
A third goal of the Advanced Energy Initiative is renewables: to
reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic technologies so that they
become cost-competitive by 2015 and to expand access to wind energy
through technology. To fulfill solar energy's promise, the
President's proposed 2007 budget requests $148 million for solar
development - an increase of $65 million over the 2006 budget. To
expand wind energy, the 2007 budget includes $44 million for wind
energy research - a $5 million increase over 2006.
These figures represent only a small portion of the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $23.6 billion. It's also
important to remember that by the time the House and Senate actually
approve the 2007 budget, the numbers will likely be much different.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Advanced Energy Initiative was
written, that it includes a substantial focus on developing cutting-
edge electricity generation technologies, and that the Bush
Administration has included funding for the Initiative in its
proposed budget, sure beats anything we've seen in recent years.
Let's just hope it progresses better than its equally important
counterparts - health care and education.
Power Engineering March, 2006
Author(s) : Teresa Hansen
http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?
Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=251357&VERSION_NUM=2&p=6
http://tinyurl.com/ngjo2
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
A personal quest to promote the use of wind energy and hydrogen technology in the Great Lakes area of the United States. The Great Lakes area is in a unique position to become an energy exporting region through these and other renewable energy technologies. *Update 2014: Just do it everywhere - Dan*
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
[fuelcell-energy] Digest Number 1429
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not promote businesses that are not about keeping the environment clean or renewable energy via comments on this blog. All such posts will be reported as spam and removed.