tagged w/ Energy Policy
-
EARTH: The Operators' Manual
An operators' manual helps keep your car or computer running at peak performance. Earth science can do the same for the planet. Join host Richard Alley – registered Republican, geologist, former oil company employee and expert on climate change and renewable energy — on a high-definition trip around the globe to learn the story of Earth's climate history and our relationship with fossil fuels. In Spain, Brazil, China and Texas, as well as at the U.S. Army's Fort Irwin and the U.S. Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, a diverse cast of Earth "operators" are proving that when the Earth's bounty meets human ingenuity, there are many reasons to be optimistic about our energy future. As Alley says, if enough of us get involved, "we can avoid climate catastrophes, improve energy security, and make millions of good jobs."EARTH: The Operators' Manual
An operators' manual helps keep your car or... more
-
-
Why is North Carolina not yet a site for drilling rigs, mud and service companies? Why is there shale gas exploration and production in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and on different rock formations in Arkansas, Texas and in the Rocky Mountains?
The answer is political.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/21/1947986/potential-bounty-for-north-carolina.html#storylink=cpyWhy is North Carolina not yet a site for drilling rigs, mud and service companies? Why... more
-
-
In July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead in the water. Polling revealed that support for the legislation was low and that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had done a poor job explaining the bill. Down in the trenches, mud was flying: a politician compared a progressive activist organization supporting the carbon price, GetUp!, to the Hitler Youth League (GetUp!, by the way, is also the organization that produced this moving and wildly viral video in support of marriage equality last fall).
Despite ferocious opposition, the carbon price squeaked through the Australian parliament months later, sending a jolt of optimism through the global community. Like other climate bills, it ended up being pockmarked with holes gaping enough to drive an SUV through, but one of the largest per-capita carbon emitters in the world was clearly willing to throw its hat in the ring on climate action. The skeptics had been proven wrong.
Here in the U.S., activists perked up at news of Australia’s carbon price but overall seem hardened to federal policy after the American Clean Energy and Security Act failed to pass in 2010 (many environmentalists were opposed to the hulking and imperfect bill anyway, adding another layer of ambivalence). And don’t even mention the attitude in Congress. “We’re busy enough fighting off attacks on the EPA” is the mantra Democratic Congressmembers and environmentalists alike are fond of repeating these days.
But like crocus bulbs shifting under the frozen ground, a movement has been building for federal climate policy. And the time is right: belief in climate change among the general public has just taken an upward turn, according to Brookings.
Partly due to the pressure applied by groups like Citizens Climate Lobby, politicians and other leaders are beginning to warm up the public on carbon pricing.
NASA Climate Scientist James Hansen has been promoting fee-and-dividend legislation for years, recently appearing on MSNBC with Treehugger’s Brian Merchant. Soon after, the Washington Post editorial page released a small flurry of pieces on carbon taxation. First, that famous tag-team, Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, along with former Republican House members Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest , endorsed a carbon price in an op-ed:
We could slash our debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our health and environment. This policy would strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies clean — and raise a lot of revenue.
Then the paper’s fickle editorial board endorsed Pete Stark’s existing carbon tax bill (H.R. 3242 – the Save Our Climate Act) currently languishing in committee. Leadership on the issue from politicians, even from well-known liberals like Stark, is sorely needed. Especially when the public, for better or worse, forms opinions based on their statements.
The LA Times editorial page, too, has been drumming up support for a carbon tax. Their neighbor to the north, British Columbia, passed a carbon tax three years ago and the evidence of its success is a hopeful sign.
Just do it. Put a price on carbon, one way or another. How much is levied, and where and exactly how it’s levied, aren’t as important as the principle that we all pay something for emissions.
In Canada — and in California — it will take time, and trial and error, to get climate change regulations off the ground and working. It’s difficult, yes. Complicated too. But it’s not economic or political suicide.
One can’t deny some heavy lifting is in order, but with luck we can learn from our past missteps. The environmental community will need to better communicate its goals, think outside the insular lobbying strategies of yore, and truly work with groups across the political and interest spectrum from unions and environmental justice groups to business and religious leaders, and especially Republicans.
That last point may seem like a joke in the current political climate but behind the scenes, many Republicans do support a carbon tax. David Roberts of Grist has even gone as far as calling carbon pricing a fundamentally conservative policy. Case in point: Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney’s economic advisor Gregory Mankiw is a strong proponent of a carbon tax, and his observations about the resistance to the policy reflect Roberts’ own:
In the debate over global climate change, there is a yawning gap that needs to be bridged. The gap is not between environmentalists and industrialists, or between Democrats and Republicans. It is between policy wonks and political consultants.
Among policy wonks like me, there is a broad consensus. The scientists tell us that world temperatures are rising because humans are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. Basic economics tells us that when you tax something, you normally get less of it. So if we want to reduce global emissions of carbon, we need a global carbon tax. Q.E.D.
We’re encouraged by statements from conservatives like Mankiw, Boehlert and Gilchrest, but what’s really moving us these days is the growing army of committed citizen lobbyists around the country we’ve seen jump into the lion’s den. They’re inspiring us to rethink our rote pessimism, and the idea that the general public can’t be rallied around this issue.
More at the linkIn July 2011, the Brisbane Times reported that Australia’s carbon price was dead... more
-
-
As part of the Obama Administration's blueprint for an American economy built to last, Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced $3 million available this year to support research to significantly lower the cost of solar energy. The funding will enable collaborative research teams from industry, universities and national laboratories to work together in the Energy Department's research centers including the Scientific User Facilities to develop solutions to drive down the cost of solar energy. By accelerating scientific breakthroughs, these research teams support the Department's SunShot Initiative goal to make solar energy cost competitive with other forms of energy by the end of the decade – creating jobs, enhancing U.S. energy security, and boosting American competitiveness in the global clean energy economy.
The past decade has seen explosive growth in global solar installations. For American companies to remain competitive in this growing market, they must continue to innovate, lowering the cost of existing products while transitioning breakthrough technologies into production.
Thats all well and good, but 3 megabucks is probably one hour's funding of the defense department. This is woefully inadequate if the US of A is going to be competative at all in cutting solar tech. Full article at the link.As part of the Obama Administration's blueprint for an American economy built to... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.html
Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses "Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina."
http://youtu.be/4Lbn9diK1PADr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.htmlDr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here: http://www.johnlocke.org/events/videos.html
Category:
*Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation's Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here:
Daniel Fine discusses North Carolina's approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (two minutes)---
http://youtu.be/4Lbn9diK1PA
The full one hour video can be seen here-->"North Carolina?s approach to natural gas fracking" ---> http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/02/27/no...
Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses "Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina."Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North... more
-
-
If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year — when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world — if we’re going to avoid being at the mercy of these world events, we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.
President Obama gave a speech at the University of Miami on Thursday discussing his energy plan — assuming that one can use the word “plan” to describe a strategy devoid of any judgment. Obviously, all-of-the-above = more of everything = more fossil fuels = Hell and High Water.
The president has come a long way from his 2008 declaration that this is “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Now it’s more like “Après nous, le Déluge” (see “JPL bombshell: Polar ice sheet mass loss is speeding up, on pace for 1 foot sea level rise by 2050“).
Just a year ago, “all-of-the-above” was actually a standard Republican talking point, so much so that Democrats routinely mocked it (see Markey slams oil-above-all” approach). It is certainly true that when the president says it, he means it, whereas the Republicans merely say it and then bitterly oppose all of the clean energy programs that Democrats put on the table. I’m not sure future generations will notice the difference.
Obama’s all-of-the-above energy speech took a none-of-the-above approach to environmental problems: It ignored them all, including the most important of them all, global warming.
Obama is currently in the midst of a failed presidency from a historical perspective because of his abandonment of the climate issue, which is the only issue future generations are going to care about if we don’t act now, as I’ve said many times.
Obama will probably get only one serious shot at redemption, the grand bargain on tax and the deficit at the end of this year (see “Bipartisan Support Grows for Carbon Price as Part of Debt Deal“). Speeches like this provide no evidence whatsoever that Obama even understands the stakes anymore.
Here are two other places in the speech where he repeats his new slogan:
OBAMA: But over the long term, an all-of-the-above energy strategy requires us having the right priorities. We’ve got to have the right incentives in place. I’ll give you an example. Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year — $4 billion. They don’t need a subsidy. They’re making near-record profits. These are the same oil companies that have been making record profits off the money you spend at the pump for several years now. How do they deserve another $4 billion from taxpayers and subsidies?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Preach it, Mr. President! (Applause.)…
OBAMA: I said this at the State of the Union — a century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. (Applause.) It’s time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that has never been more profitable; double down on clean energy industries that have never been more promising — that’s what we need to do. (Applause.) This Congress needs to renew the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil.
The potential of a sustained, all-of-the-above energy strategy is all around us. Here in Miami, 2008, Miami became the first major American city to power its city hall entirely with solar and renewable energy. Right here in Miami. (Applause.) The modernization of your power grid so that it wastes less energy is one of the largest projects of its kind in the country. On a typical day, the wind turbine at the Miami-Dade Museum can meet about 10 percent of the energy needs in a South Florida home, and the largest wind producer in the country is over at Juno Beach. Right here at this university, your work is helping manufacturers save millions of dollars in energy bills by making their facilities more energy efficient. (Applause.)
Preach it?
This is politics over principle pure and simple. Cutting a few billion dollars to the uber-profitable fossil fuel industry is a great applause line, but it’d be like making your entire anti-smoking cutting subsidies to the tobacco industry.
Let me end with Salon’s Andrew Leonard on the speech:
By Joe Romm on Feb 27, 2012
More at the linkIf we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these... more
-
-
Lo sviluppo vorticoso delle rinnovabili impone un ripensamento dell’intero sistema energetico: dalle infrastrutture per la trasmissione e dispacciamento ad una maggiore razionalizzazione per il governo dei flussi di energia in entrata nelle reti elettriche.Lo sviluppo vorticoso delle rinnovabili impone un ripensamento dell’intero... more
-
-
America and Oil. It's like bacon and eggs, Batman and Robin. As the old song lyric went, you can't have one without the other. Once upon a time, it was also a surefire formula for national greatness and global preeminence. Now, it's a guarantee of a trip to hell in a hand basket. The Chinese know it. Does Washington?
America's rise to economic and military supremacy was fueled in no small measure by its control over the world's supply of oil. Oil powered the country's first giant corporations, ensured success in World War II, and underlay the great economic boom of the postwar period. Even in an era of nuclear weapons, it was the global deployment of oil-powered ships, helicopters, planes, tanks, and missiles that sustained America's superpower status during and after the Cold War. It should come as no surprise, then, that the country's current economic and military decline coincides with the relative decline of oil as a major source of energy.
If you want proof of that economic decline, just check out the way America's share of the world's gross domestic product has been steadily dropping, while its once-powerhouse economy now appears incapable of generating forward momentum. In its place, robust upstarts like China and India are posting annual growth rates of 8% to 10%. When combined with the growing technological prowess of those countries, the present figures are surely just precursors to a continuing erosion of America's global economic clout.
Militarily, the picture appears remarkably similar. Yes, a crack team of SEAL commandos did kill Osama bin Laden, but that single operation - greeted in the United States with a jubilation more appropriate to the ending of a major war - hardly made up for the military's lackluster performance in two recent wars against ragtag insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If anything, almost a decade after the Taliban was overthrown, it has experienced a remarkable resurgence even facing the full might of the US , while the assorted insurgent forces in Iraq appear to be holding their own. Meanwhile, Iran - that bete noire of American power in the Middle East - seem as powerful as ever. Al Qaeda may be on the run, but as recent developments in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and unstable Pakistan suggest, the United States wields far less clout and influence in the region now than it did before it invaded Iraq in 2003.
If American power is in decline, so is the relative status of oil in the global energy equation. In the 2000 edition of its International Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy confidently foresaw ever-expanding oil production in Africa, Alaska, the Persian Gulf area, and the Gulf of Mexico, among other areas. It predicted, in fact, that world oil output would reach 97 million barrels per day in 2010 and a staggering 115 million barrels in 2020. EIA number-crunchers concluded as well that oil would long retain its position as the world's leading source of energy. Its 38% share of the global energy supply, they said, would remain unchanged.
What a difference a decade makes. By 2010, a new understanding about the natural limits of oil production had sunk in at the EIA and its experts were predicting a disappointingly modest petroleum future.
In that year, world oil output had reached just 82 million barrels per day, a stunning 15 million less than expected. Moreover, in the 2010 edition of its International Energy Outlook, the EIA was now projecting 2020 output at 85 million barrels per day, hardly more than the 2010 level and 30 million barrels below its projections of just a decade earlier, which were relegated to the dustbin of history. (Such projections, by the way, are for conventional, liquid petroleum and exclude "tough" and "dirty" sources that imply energy desperation - like Canadian tar sands, shale oil, and other "unconventional" fuels.)
The most recent EIA projections also show oil's share of the world total energy supply - far from remaining constant at 38% - had already dropped to 35% in 2010 and was projected to continue declining to 32% in 2020 and 30% in 2035. In its place, natural gas and renewable sources of energy are expected to assume ever more prominent roles.
So here's the question all of us should consider, in part because until now no one has: are the decline of the United States and the decline of oil connected? Careful analysis suggests that there are good reasons to believe they are.
From standard oil to the Carter Doctrine.........
Continue at:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MI21Dj02.htmlAmerica and Oil. It's like bacon and eggs, Batman and Robin. As the old song... more
-
-
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES PROGRAM
Fletcher School Tufts University
Dr. Daniel I. FineResearch AssociateMining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT
LUNCHEON LECTURETUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 201111:00AM – 1:00PMCABOT 703
“Shale Gas War: The Geopolitics of U.S.Self-Sufficiency”
Dr. Daniel Fine
is a Research Associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute,MIT. Dr. Fine is also a current Policy Adviser on Non-Conventional Oil and Gas. He isco-editor of
Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week , the Engineering and Mining Journal and theWashingtonTimes
. Dr. Fine participated in the Atlantic Council Workshop on Central Asian Policyand the Hudson Institute Russia-United States Relations Project. He has given testimonyon strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs andthe Energy and Natural Resources. Dr. Fine was a member of the Domestic EnergyProduction Issue Team of the Center For The Study Of The Presidency and Congress“Strengthening America’s Future Initiative.” He has participated as a panelist on energy public policy at the Rocky Mountain Global New Energy Summit.
Register to attend this event at
http://www.danielfine.eventbrite.com
Business Casual Attire Required
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64842008/Shale-Gas-Wars-Flyer-9-20-11INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES PROGRAM
Fletcher School Tufts University
Dr. Daniel... more
-
-
Before the government approves a new industrial process in the UK it must have ensured that it won't harm either people or the environment. Mustn't it? That's what any sane person would expect. Any sane person would be wrong.
One year ago, a company called Cuadrilla Resources began drilling exploratory shafts into the rock at Preese Hall near Blackpool, in north-west England, to begin the UK's first experiments with extracting gas trapped in formations of shale. The process – called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking - involves pumping a mixture of water, sand and drilling fluids at high pressure into the rock, to split it apart and release the natural gas it contains. In June, Cuadrilla temporarily suspended its operations as a result of two small earthquakes in the area, which might have been caused by the fracking. The experiment is likely to resume soon. Cuadrilla has also started exploratory drilling at two other sites in the region.
Here are the issues that must be resolved if we are to be assured that fracking is a safe and responsible process.
1. Contamination
There are two issues here: the chemicals injected into the rocks and the contaminants released by the fracturing. Both have the potential to pollute water supplies.
The Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester reviewed the impacts of fracking in the only country where it has so far been commercially exploited, the United States. It found that fracking poses "significant potential risks to human health and the environment."
"The fracturing and 'flowback' fluids … contain a number of hazardous substances that, should they contaminate groundwater, are likely to result in potentially severe impacts on drinking water quality and/or surface waters/wetland habitats."
Amazingly, fracking fluids in the US are exempt from regulation. Companies are allowed to treat the composition of the fluids as trade secrets. There is little information on what they contain and what risks they might present.
But, using data on the chemicals being stored by these companies, the Tyndall Centre has been able to identify at least some of the substances being injected into the rocks there. Of 260 chemicals, it finds that 58 give rise to concern. Some are known carcinogens, some are suspected carcinogens, some are toxic to people, some are toxic to aquatic life, some are mutagenic (which means they can cause genetic defects) and some have reproductive effects.
The fluids returning to the surface carry not only the chemicals injected into the rocks, but also those picked up in travelling through them. Among these, the Tyndall report shows, are heavy metals and radioactive materials.
Both the fracking fluids and the flowback fluids can contaminate water either through the cracks forced open in the rocks by the fracking process, or through drilling bores through aquifers. In the US this has happened repeatedly. The Tyndall Centre found that water supplies have been contaminated not only by the fracking chemicals and dissolved pollutants from the rocks, but also by gas bubbling out through the cracks.
The documentary Gasland shows people turning their taps on and setting light to the water. In some cases, gas bubbling up from underground fractures has caused explosions in the basements of people's homes.
Cuadrilla's bore passes through an aquifer before it reaches the shale formation. The company's chief executive told the Guardian: "You never have control. Fractures will always go into the path of least resistance."
2. Water use
Fracking requires the use of very high volumes of water. The Tyndall Centre report warns that it "could put considerable pressure on water supplies at the local level in the UK." All the zones in the catchment in which Cuadrilla's operations at Preese Hall take place are classified by the Environment Agency as "over licensed", "over abstracted" or "no water available".
3. Greenhouse gases
The natural gas produced by fracking is the same simple chemical (methane) as the gas extracted by conventional means. When it is burnt, a given volume produces the same quantity of carbon dioxide as conventional gas does. Even so, the impact of shale gas on the atmosphere could be much greater than the impact of the same volume of conventional gas. Here's why.
Methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. It does not persist in the atmosphere for as long as carbon dioxide, but during the first 20 years following its release, it is 56 times as effective at trapping heat.
More methane is likely to escape from the process of splitting rocks open than from drilling into conventional aquifers.
A paper published earlier this year in the journal Climatic Change found that methane emissions from shale gas fracking, "are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas." This, it says, boosts the climate changing impact of shale gas to such an extent that it is not just worse than conventional supplies, but worse even than coal, which is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. The paper found that, per unit of energy released, burning shale gas produces between 120% and 200% of the emissions produced by burning coal.
4. Raising fossil fuel reserves
Last month the Carbon Tracker Initiative worked out the proportion of current fossil fuel reserves that humanity can burn while keeping the chances of exceeding 2C of global warming to 20% or less. It found that current reserves contain roughly twice as much carbon as we can afford to release in the entire millennium.
Fossil fuel companies have already found far too much, in other words. It seems like madness to be prospecting for new reserves, especially new reserves with such a high potential to do harm, when we can't afford to use existing supplies.
So I asked the government some simple questions. The answers should stop anyone with a concern for human health or the environment in their tracks.
I asked to see the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for Cuadrilla's fracking operations, which it hopes to resume soon. Answer: there isn't one. The Department of Energy and Climate Change told me:
"The local planning authority has concluded that Cuadrilla's exploration activities do not fall within the criteria for EIA, and none has been performed."
I asked to see the Health Impact Assessment. This is what the government said:
"We are aware of no requirement on Cuadrilla to perform a health impact assessment, and we gather that they have not to date done so."
I asked to see the Life Cycle Analysis for the full impacts of extracting shale gas. The department told me:
"Government has not conducted a specific analysis of the size and variability of greenhouse gas emissions from the shale gas extraction process."
But, apparently disregarding the paper in Climatic Change, it produced the following guess:
"We would expect that shale gas should have a carbon footprint of the same order as natural gas from conventional onshore fields, and significantly lower than that of coal."
The government passed my questions about contamination to the Environment Agency (EA). I asked which chemicals have been licensed for underground injection by gas fracking operations in the UK.
It told me that the chemicals being used by Cuadrilla have been "assessed as 'non hazardous' under the Groundwater Directive".
But which chemicals are they? I had to press the agency for a list. It sent the following:
Hydrochoric acid; FR-40, which it calls "a blend of chemicals including Polyacrylamide"; Ucarcide, a bacteria-killing pesticide whose active substance is Glutaraldehyde; and Stimlube-W, which it simply described as "a polymer".
Further questions asked can be read at the linkBefore the government approves a new industrial process in the UK it must have ensured... more
-
-
pdy
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
-
Native American land – a total five percent of the land area of the United States – contains an estimated 10 percent of the nation’s energy resources, and yet almost all of the renewable sources of power on these lands are under-utilized, tribes and government officials agree.
http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/#slide_8Native American land – a total five percent of the land area of the United... more
-
-
-
HOBBS, N.M. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce says the U.S. nuclear energy industry doesn't have technological problems — it has "political problems."
The "United States developed the nuclear power field and then regulated it out of existence. We have built no new nuclear power plants in 30 years," Pearce said Wednesday, the first day of a two-day international nuclear energy conference in Hobbs.
The Republican New Mexico congressman said nuclear power is essential to the nation's energy future, and suggested that the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan brought on by a devastating earthquake was an incident to build from, not run from.
"We should be analyzing exactly what went on, instead of saying 'no' to all nuclear," Pearce told the gathering, which is considering how to make nuclear energy a viable and essential piece of the world's energy portfolio.
Former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, a longtime supporter of nuclear energy, thanked Lea and Eddy counties in southeastern New Mexico for being open to the nuclear industry. The counties are home to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository; Urenco USA, which runs a uranium enrichment plant near Eunice; and International Isotopes, which proposes to provide uranium deconversion services for the plant.
Domenici said the area is unique because the people "don't run and hide when we hear the words 'nuclear' or 'radioactive.' We sit down to learn about the facts and myths, and make sure they are completely understood."
In the next year, the United States must find a way to finance some nuclear power plants and make a commitment to dispose of the nuclear waste now spread across the country, Domenici said.
___
Information from: Hobbs News-Sun, http://www.hobbsnews.comHOBBS, N.M. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce says the U.S. nuclear energy industry... more
-
-
Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues
N.M. Tech News Service
HOBBS – Nuclear energy, small-scale reactors and safety in the industry will take center stage next month at the 2011 national energy conference in Hobbs.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle Conference on Wednesday and Thursday, April 27 and 28, will focus on potential developments and implementation of small-scale reactors.
The conference features top leaders in nuclear technology, including Babcock & Wilcox, New Mexico Tech, URENCO USA, Washington TRU Solutions, Uranium Resources Inc., Energy Solutions and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The "uranium fuel cycle" begins with mining, continues with enrichment, followed by use in a reactor, and ends with processing and storage. Hobbs is in the center of the developing Eastern New Mexico Energy Corridor, which is involved in all aspects of the nuclear energy fuel cycle.
"Almost the entire cycle is contained in New Mexico, from mining to waste storage. This conference is an important step in bringing together key players in the area and continuing a dialogue about energy and our national policies," said Van Romero, Ph.D. and vice president of research at New Mexico Tech.
A new enrichment facility is now operational near Eunice, N.M. A deconversion plant is in the licensing stage in Lea County. Also located in the region are Waste Control Specialist LLC and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, which is a long-term storage facility funded by the Department of Energy. While not currently being mined, vast deposits of raw uranium ore exist in west-central New Mexico.
What's missing? The small-scale nuclear power plants.
"Communities in southeast New Mexico have expressed an interest in nuclear power," Romero said.
One area the conference will focus on is the commercial deployment of small nuclear reactors in eastern New Mexico. Representatives of Babcock & Wilcox will present their strategy to how to deploy a light-water reactor system to provide energy to communities in New Mexico.
Babcock & Wilcox is the leading international company in development and deployment of small-scale nuclear reactors. The company unveiled the B&W mPower reactor in 2009. The mPower reactor, with its scalable, modular design, has the capacity to provide 125 megawatts to 750 megawatts of electricity for a five-year operating cycle without refueling. The reactor is designed to produce clean, near-zero emission operations, according to the company website.
Following the Babcock & Wilcox presentation, Romero will lead a discussion on "Small Reactor Research and Readiness." Then, a representative from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy will talk on the status and outlook for nuclear energy development.
The two-day conference is hosted by the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy, a division of New Mexico Tech, the Economic Development Corp. of Lea County and New Mexico Junior College.
Online registration is under way at www.energyplexnm.com or by calling 575-397-2039.
Read more: ABQJOURNAL BIZ: Hobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/212143529029biz03-21-11.htm#ixzz1Jmt91Adv
Subscribe Now Albuquerque JournalHobbs conference focuses on nuclear energy issues
N.M. Tech News Service... more
-
-
Surprisingly, these influential and outspoken panellists, who you might expect would have opposing views on just about everything, seem to be having a candid, but surprisingly civil conversation about a very controversial subject: was it something in the water?Surprisingly, these influential and outspoken panellists, who you might expect would... more
-
-
A discussion of achieving the American Dream under difficult economic, social and environmental constraints, framed by the lyrics to Dylan's "All along the Watchtower"
Excerpt: “There must be some kind of way out of here,” said the Joker to the Thief.
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief.”
With these words, Bob Dylan starts his most performed song “All Along the Watchtower,” about the clash of values in America between those focused on what really matters and those focused on guarding the hierarchies of the “Castle.” I’ve been hearing Dylan’s song in my head these past weeks of struggle and liberation from dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa. The Joker and the Thief represent archetypes of those who reveal hidden truths and a Robin Hood approach to justice, challenging conventional power and wealth. They are not concerned with the rewards of life in the castle. Their goal is to stop the domination of the castle over the surrounding wild lands where Nature abides — where one might “know what any of it is worth.”
Read more at : http://sustainabletompkins.org/signs-of-sustainability/tompkins-weekly-column/rebooting-the-american-dream-in-tompkins-county/A discussion of achieving the American Dream under difficult economic, social and... more
-
-
Speaking in Iowa Tuesday, Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, said the United States should not shy away from nuclear power because of what happened in Japan.
“There are many people, including me, who believe that it behooves us to increase a reliance on nuclear power,” Politico reported Mr. Barbour saying. “We don’t know what happened in Japan. We need to study and learn and make sure that we continue to have safe reliable clean nuclear energy in the United States.”
The need for an increase in domestic nuclear power was certainly shared by Mr. Barbour’s likely rivals before the accident in Japan.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and a candidate for president in 2008, said in 2007 that Americans are embracing nuclear power as they learn how safe it is.
“There’s been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded. I mean, we’ve been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents,” he said in an interview in October of 2007.
“A lot of it is changing attitudes, educating the public that nuclear byproducts can be disposed of safely, because the first reaction people have is, our kids are going to glow in the dark if we put that stuff in our state. That’s not the case,” Mr. Huckabee said.
At the same conference, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, told a group of bloggers that “I’m in favor of more nuclear energy.” That matches up with policies he pursued as governor. In 2008, Mr. Pawlenty called for repeal of his state’s moratorium on new nuclear power plants, according to Minnesota Public Radio.
Sarah Palin has long supported the idea of nuclear power. In September of 2008, campaigning with Senator John McCain of Arizona, Ms. Palin said that “in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.”
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, has also embraced nuclear. In 2008, she was quoted as saying that a new nuclear power plant in her district would bring energy bills down for her constituents. She backed Mr. McCain’s plan for 45 new nuclear plants, saying “It’s a great idea. And the sooner the better.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/2012-republicans-embrace-nuclear-power-so-far/?hpSpeaking in Iowa Tuesday, Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, said the United... more
-
