We Need Alternate Energies Now
-
-
Tax-free financing for coal power plants under attack
Environmental activists and others are opening a new frontier in their fight against coal-fired power plants by questioning the use of tax-exempt bonds to help fund such projects.
New York City Comptroller William Thompson earlier this month called on the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate tax-free bond use in financing the plants. He cited the potential for expensive regulatory changes aimed at curbing greenhouse gases, the escalating cost of coal and subsequent risks to investors and taxpayers.
The Sierra Club also has been warning about the use of tax-exempt financing for coal plants owned by public or private entities, according to Becki Clayborn, a regional representative for the group.
"To us, it's a huge risk on taxpayers that doesn't need to be there," she said.
Last fall, the Sierra Club sent letters to municipal members of American Municipal Power-Ohio about financial risks attached to the nonprofit power wholesaler's involvement in the Prairie State coal-fired plant Peabody Energy Corp is building in southern Illinois.
"This massive power plant, which has not yet been built, would not only be a large source of water pollution, air pollution and global warming emissions, but will likely put your municipality at financial risk," the letter said. It pointed to escalating cost estimates for the project and legislation in the U.S. Congress that if passed, could raise the cost of power produced by the plant.
~~~~~~~~
Gee, why don't all those squawking about a carbon tax that would be revenue neutral complain about higher utility bills because of stunts like this? You are already being taxed by big coal.
Environmental activists and others are opening a new frontier in their fight against coal-fired power plants by questioning the use o... more -
Human activity fueling weird weather, U.S. says
Thursday's report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a synthesis of the latest research on extreme weather in the U.S. and comes after nearly six months that saw a record number of tornadoes, unusual winter warmth and record-setting precipitation in many regions.
It comes as the most extreme weather event so far this year, the Midwestern floods, continues to unfold.
The report said there is strong evidence the increasing frequency of extreme rain, heat, drought and tropical storms is caused by global climate change.
Most scientists believe that human activity is causing or accelerating global warming.
"Changes in some weather and climate extremes are attributable to human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases," the study authors concluded.
The report also concluded that:
• Human-caused warming likely has caused much of the increase in average and extreme temperatures observed in the U.S. over the past 50 years.
• Heavy precipitation events have increased over the past 50 years. That's consistent with increases in atmospheric water vapor associated with human-caused increases in greenhouse gases.
• Droughts are becoming more severe in some regions, though there are no clear national trends.
• The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, likely driven by human-caused increases in sea-surface temperatures.
However, the number of hurricanes making landfall does not appear to have increased over the past century.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/...
For some reason Current is stating this url could not be found. So I'm posting it here.
Edit: The Washington Post printed the same story so I posted that link in the original space. Thursday's report from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a synthesis of the latest research on extreme weather in the U.S. an... more -
Taking biofuel crops off land and cultivating them at sea
The dream of tackling climate change with biofuels has been tarnished by the rush to produce them on land. Not only are there serious environmental costs, including deforestation, water use, production of greenhouse gases, and energy-efficiency limitations, but there are rising concerns about the effects on the world's poor. Already the price of food is being driven up as land is taken away from food production, increasing the cost of food and nutrition for those who can least afford it.
It is curious then that, bar a brief mention in a recent paper on sustainable biofuels by the UK-based Royal Society, the potential for biomass production at sea is largely ignored.
A vast resource
The oceans are the largest active carbon sink on the planet, covering more than 70 per cent of its surface area, and are predicted to grow as sea levels rise. Our seas also receive a larger proportion of the world's sunshine than land does, particularly in the tropical and subtropical belt where land is more scarce. To agriculturalists, the oceans are vast and grossly underused fields well-provided with sunlight and water.
The full potential for sea cultivation (mariculture) has only recently been recognised. The 'blue revolution' of freshwater aquaculture and mariculture is growing exponentially.
Statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization show mariculture is strongest in Asia and the Pacific. While aquaculture production has risen sixty-fold since the early 1950s (to 59.4 million tonnes in 2004) and is worth around US$70 billion, 91.5 per cent of this was produced in Asia and the Pacific.
Similarly, 99.8 per cent of the eight million or so tonnes of seaweed produced each year, with a market of nearly US$6 billion, come from Asia and the Pacific, primarily China, Japan and Korea.
Seaweeds as fuel
Until now, seaweed has been valued mainly as food, but also as fertiliser, animal feed, and recently for a growing phycocolloid industry producing algin, agar and carrageenan. But it could also be a major fuel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After reading this it looks like a partial solution that could be viable. It frees up land for use to grow food, will not use up scarce water resources, and does not use up carbon resources as other energy sources do.
The dream of tackling climate change with biofuels has been tarnished by the rush to produce them on land. Not only are there serious ... more -
Environmental Justice Coalition blasts cap-and trade, backs carbon tax
Condemning carbon trading as “fraught with uncertainties, lack[ing] transparency and creat[ing] large opportunities for emitting facilities to engage in fraud,” a national coalition of environmental justice organizations has called for a federal carbon tax to address “the most critical issue of our time” — the climate crisis.
The June 2 statement from the Climate Justice Leadership Forum is the latest sign of mounting disaffection with the top-down push for carbon cap-and-trade. It is particularly significant because the 28 signatory organizations, which span the country from Anchorage to New Orleans and from Oakland to New York City, have been the spearhead of a rising movement by communities of color to crack open the historically affluent and white U.S. environmental lobby, much of which has backed the cap-and-trade approach to pricing carbon emissions.
Moreover, CJLF’s endorsement of “an equitable carbon tax” serves notice that lower-income and “minority” constituencies are concluding that the disproportionate impacts of carbon taxes and other user fees can (and must) be reversed through progressive use of the tax revenues. Indeed, the group’s statement declares that:
An equitable carbon tax must be set high enough to encourage emissions sources to make financial investment in technological controls and energy efficiency, and to begin researching and developing clean, renewable energy options.
A carbon tax cannot remain static and should not merely track inflation but should rise over time so that resource conservation and development of clean renewable energy can continue to be an attractive alternative to fossil fuel use.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have always been wary of cap and trade, particularly since so many politicians are for it as well as the World Bank. I agree with a carbon tax and believe it can be more effective in providing funds for alternate energies and also be more effective in weaning us off fossil fuels. Al Gore is also a proponent of a carbon tax as he reiterated in his testimony on Capitol Hill last year. It would be revenue neutral, more transparent to track and enforce, and provide a sure means for funds to wean us off dirty energy sources while also sparking employment. Condemning carbon trading as “fraught with uncertainties, lack[ing] transparency and creat[ing] large opportunities for emitting facil... more -
CO2 emissions may rise 130%, oil demand 70%: International Energy Agency
"A leading energy body is calling for a $45 trillion (£23 trillion) green revolution to tackle global warming.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said nations must spend 1% of annual economic output on new technology to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
It warned that without action, CO2 emissions would rise by 130% and oil demand would jump by 70% by the middle of the century.
But the IEA added that meeting the new target would be a formidable challenge." "A leading energy body is calling for a $45 trillion (£23 trillion) green revolution to tackle global warming. ... more -
Celebrate clean coal, come on!
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects.
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in Am... more -
Don't be deceived, there's no such thing as 'clean coal'
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a reliable source of electricity but at an astronomical price that is hidden from us consumers.
Maybe you pay for it with your child's asthma. Maybe you paid for it with your father's heart attack or your grandmother's stroke that took her speech away. Maybe you lost a baby to SIDS on a particularly bad air day.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants are a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, air toxins - and premature deaths. The EPA estimates that over 30,000 Americans are dying prematurely each year due to emissions from power plants, the majority of which are coal-powered.
This doesn't even address the high mortality rates associated with the mining process.
Thus, coal kills more people annually than homicides (16,000 in 2000) or AIDS (14,000) and nearly as many as traffic accidents (42,000). So when coal industry advocates like Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal, and Bountiful resident Bruce Taylor, co-owner of the proposed coal plant in Sevier County, say "cleaner coal," what exactly do they mean?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant annually generates:
* 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),
the primary human cause of global warming,
* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death,
* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), equal to what would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs,
* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease,
* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone,
* 170 pounds of mercury, an extremely potent neurotoxin; just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe for human consumption. The Great Salt Lake is already heavily contaminated with mercury.
* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who regularly drink water containing 50 parts per billion,
* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
None of these numbers sounds "clean" to me. So, does coal advocate Lucas consider a "clean" coal plant to produce only 7,000 pounds of annual sulfur dioxide emissions instead of 10,000 pounds? Does he consider 2 million tons of carbon dioxide instead of 3.7 million tons to be "clean" or how about 120 pounds of mercury instead of 170 pounds? Does "clean" coal only cause 20,000 premature deaths annually as compared to 30,000?
The reality is coal is dirty and will likely remain so.
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a reliable source o... more -
What nuclear renaissance?
If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute.
Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash.
"Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
much more at the link. If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face ... more -
Groundbreaking of North America's largest solar Photovoltaic energy park
Joint venture partners SkyPower and SunEdison Canada have announced the official groundbreaking of First Light, North America's largest solar photovoltaic energy park to date, located on approximately 300 acres of land in Lennox and Addington County, Ontario. Construction of the 19-megawatt (MW) solar park is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2009. Local communities will benefit from clean renewable energy sufficient to power more than 2,000 homes annually.
The Government of Ontario in concert with the Ontario Power Authority, which launched the innovative Standard Offer Program in 2006, have created a unique program that provides a platform for stimulating investment and job creation in the renewable energy sector.
The historic groundbreaking of First Light demonstrates the strong support of the provincial government, municipal leaders, and communities and is a clear indication that Ontario's renewable energy targets are achievable. First Light is an important first step of many towards delivering secure, sustainable and clean energy to Ontarians for generations to come.
First Light will be built in two phases. The power generated from the project will be distributed through the Hydro One utility, providing clean energy to customers in the Township of Stone Mills for 20 years.
The environmental and health benefits of the two-phase facility are substantial. It is estimated that First Light will reduce yearly carbon emissions by an amount equal to displacing 4,200 cars and light trucks each driving 12,000 miles per year.
snip:
"Through innovation, creativity and hard work, SkyPower, SunEdison and the Province of Ontario are 'making dirt fly' and, most important, putting assets in the ground to help mitigate climate change," stated Theodore Roosevelt IV, Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and Chairman of the Firm's Global Council on Climate Change.
Joint venture partners SkyPower and SunEdison Canada have announced the official groundbreaking of First Light, North America's larges... more -
Oil could hit $120 a barrel within six months
Crude oil may rise to $120 a barrel within six months due to the dollar weakness and global political tensions, the chief executive officer of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. said.
``I think a trading range between $80 and $120 a barrel this year is about right,'' Peter Barker-Homek, the head of the United Arab Emirates state-controlled company, which is also known as Taqa, said in an interview in Dubai today. ``But with the softness of the dollar, and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics, I think we could see $120 oil.''
In October, Barker-Homek said that crude would rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter because of unfettered Asian demand growth and possible supply shocks. Oil prices continued to rise today after the Taqa CEO made his latest forecast.
Crude oil may rise to $120 a barrel within six months due to the dollar weakness and global political tensions, the chief executive of... more -
Scientists Warn of Looming Water Supply Crisis
The water cycle is being affected by anthropogenic climate change, and that does not bode well for much of our world including the Southwestern United States. The water cycle is being affected by anthropogenic climate change, and that does not bode well for much of our world including the Sou... more
-
How Green Is Your Candidate?
And how much does it matter to you? Because that is really the deciding factor in making this the crucial issue it must be now. BTW, I wonder if Obama's and Clinton's campaigns are carbon neutral like John Edwards's was. I fear we have already lost the greenest candidate. And how much does it matter to you? Because that is really the deciding factor in making this the crucial issue it must be now. BTW, I... more
-
Exxon Mobil Posts Record Profits
Disgusting but not surprising. It seems people in this country on the whole truly just don't care for this planet and the future. RECORD PROFITS. That means people are still pumping the oil and not forcefully pushing for anything that will mitigate the 70 million tons of Co2 we spew into the air every day. I suppose it will truly have to take a catastrophic event to really wake people up. And at this point I even wonder if that would do it. And do people really believe anyone running for president on any side will now or even could work to bring down Exxon Mobil? Oh, but who cares.... they look good in debates and that's all that matters. Disgusting but not surprising. It seems people in this country on the whole truly just don't care for this planet and the future. RECO... more
-
What Will Come Out of Bali?
This may well be our last chance. The world is watching.
-
New Push In Massachusetts For Cellulosic Ethanol
Hopefully that paradigm shift Al Gore spoke of on NBC this week is gaining momentum. I think it will if people react favorably to states taking these actions and when businesses find it is more advantageous to them economically to make the moral choices that will not only bring jobs and prosperity, but a sustainable planet. Hopefully that paradigm shift Al Gore spoke of on NBC this week is gaining momentum. I think it will if people react favorably to stat... more
-
Green Fuel From Pond Scum?
Who would have thought? Interesting.
Green Fuel Solution Lurks in Pond Scum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
US: October 26, 2007
NEW YORK - A plant scientist from West Texas believes one of the oldest, simplest life forms can help ease some of today's toughest energy and environment problems.
Algae converts carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, into a vegetable oil that Glen Kertz, a plant cell expert who used to work for oil companies, hopes can be economically turned into the renewable motor fuel biodiesel.
Algae doesn't need prime farmland, vast quantities of fertilizer, or large harvest vehicles to be grown and harvested, unlike corn which is the main US feedstock for ethanol, the top alternative motor fuel.
The single-celled organisms, which are among the world's fastest growing plants, can prosper in small bags of water under the light of greenhouses.
"The more light I have, the more energy that I can capture and put back into the transportation system," Kertz, CEO of private company Valcent Products, said in an interview. He says he can quickly grow algae, sometimes known as pond scum, anywhere but a rainy place like Seattle. /
FUNDS VENTURE IN
Venture capitalists are racing to invest in alternative energy sources as finding crude cheaply in places friendly to the United States becomes harder, oil prices hit record levels edging toward US$100 a barrel, and worries about global warming escalate. /
end of excerpt.
Who would have thought? Interesting. Green Fuel Solution Lurks in Pond Scum ... more -
Bottled Water: Killing The Planet
Want an easy way to help save this planet? Stop drinking bottled water.
-
Oil Hits 92 A Barrel... On To Iran!
Counting on how comfortable and selfish the majority of Americans are will only enable those who seek to keep us slaves to oil.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/23/top6.htm
And according to reports, oil output will drop to half by 2030. So unless we begin to demand alternate energies and more efficient fuel standards along with innovations that do not require fossil fuels to run our cars not in ten years but NOW, not only will society break down due to the continued wars over this resource as population continues to rise, but it is also predicted that around that time at current pace we will be seeing wars over an even more precious resource: water. No wonder Bush bought a huge tract of land in Paraguay right next to the Guarini Acquifer and with a military base not far from it. The "leaders" of this world already know what is coming and they are getting theirs first. So for those who say only government can solve this climate crisis, you are wrong. Unless people themselves work to make governments less corrupt and do what is necessary to bring us into the future, they won't on the whole do it as long as not doing it is more profitable for them and their benefactors. I truly do believe gas could go up to five dollars or more a gallon in this country and people would still continue to do exactly as they are doing now while bitching the whole way to the gas station to fill up their SUVs to go to the mall... never realizing that they have within them the power to force these companies to either do right or force them into bankruptcy. I don't know, sometimes I wonder if seeing it all fall apart is exactly what we need to wake us the hell up... even if that would then mean it is really too late to do anything about it. Counting on how comfortable and selfish the majority of Americans are will only enable those who seek to keep us slaves to oil. ... more
-
related topics
We Need Alternate Energies Now
Contributors (67)
We Need Alternate Energies Now
