Comment: Again, why do we need 100 more nuke plants? People are cutting back on their power because of the recession; people keep this up even during good times! Do not give your money to the Electric Giants; therefore, our earth will not be poison from nuke power, uranium mining, or mountain top removal!
By Jordan Burke and Katarzyna Klimasinska
Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Duke Energy Corp. led U.S. utility owners in reporting declines in second-quarter earnings after the recession sapped demand for power to run factories.
Duke’s profit dropped 21 percent to $276 million, according to a statement today by the Charlotte, North Carolina-based owner of utilities in the East and Midwest. New Orleans-based Entergy said its net income fell 16 percent to $226.8 million. Progress Energy Inc., Consolidated Edison Inc. and Allegheny Energy Inc. also reported declines in earnings. PPL Corp. posted a loss and suffered the biggest share decline in its history.
“Demand seems to be flattening out, and we don’t expect to see a strong rebound for probably another year and a half,” Duke Chief Executive Officer Jim Rogers said in a telephone interview. “I think the recovery will be pretty anemic, and it might be as late as 2011 before we see a full rebound.”
Wholesale prices in PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. power market, averaged $40.38 per megawatt-hour during the second quarter, down 60 percent from a year earlier. Earnings from Duke’s power-generation unit slid 66 percent. Progress, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, saw an 18 percent drop in power sales to industrial customers.
“Weak industrial sales is something that I’m seeing for every company that I cover,” said Marc De Croisset, an analyst at Macquarie Capital USA Inc. in New York.
Entergy Nuclear Plants
Beyond declining demand and prices, Entergy was stung by output disruptions, which contributed to a 44 percent drop in profit from its reactors. The company, which supplies power to about 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, got about 65 percent of its 2008 earnings from nuclear plants outside its service territories.
Net income at Progress fell 15 percent to $174 million. Allegheny, based in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, said its profit dropped 53 percent to $72.6 million. Consolidated Edison, owner of New York’s biggest utility, reported a 73 percent plunge in earnings to $150 million. Allentown, Pennsylvania-based PPL had a $7 million loss and cut its 2010 earnings forecast.
PPL tumbled $4.48, or 13 percent, to $29.50 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, its biggest drop on record. Progress slid 60 cents to $39.03, and Entergy dropped $2.73, or 3.4 percent, to $78.25. Allegheny declined $1.26 to $24.50, and New York-based Consolidated Edison fell 6 cents to $39.50. Duke, which exceeded analyst earnings estimates by 1 cent a share, rose 1 cent to $15.58.
Economic Outlook
The jobless rate in North Carolina, home to the largest utilities of Duke and Progress, reached a 33-year high of 11.1 percent in May, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In Pennsylvania, home of Allegheny and PPL, unemployment rose to 8.3 percent, the highest since 1985.
Consumer spending continues to slump, said Rogers, the Duke CEO. The nature of the recession may mean a gradual return to economic growth, he said.
“What I think we have experienced is a balance-sheet recession, and particularly given how hard hit the banks have been, I think recovery will be very slow,” Rogers said.
Those utility owners that are most reliant on wholesale markets, where prices are unregulated, are feeling the brunt of the demand slump, said Michael Worms, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets in New York.
Sales Slump
“These companies are doing nothing differently today than they were doing a year ago or two or three years ago, other than sales are down, pricing is down,” Worms said.
Duke supplies energy to about 4 million utility customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. PPL controls more than 12,000 megawatts of U.S. generating capacity. The company delivers power to about 4 million homes and businesses in Pennsylvania and the U.K.
Progress has about 3.1 million power customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. Allegheny, which derives most of its profit from wholesale power plants, has more than 1.5 million utility customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jordan Burke in New York at jburke29@bloomberg.net; Katarzyna Klimasinska in Houston at kklimasinska@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVp2rco_RYes
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
King Coal
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
July 26, 2009 08:38 PM
Over the past decade, nearly one hundred coal burning power plants have died in the proposal stage trumped by the legitimate objections of local communities fearful of a dirty deadly fuel that is neither cheap nor clean. Ozone and particulates from coal plants kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and cause widespread illnesses and disease. Acid rain emissions have destroyed the forests over the length of the Appalachian and sterilized one in five Adirondack lakes. Neurotoxic mercury raining from these plants has contaminated fish in every state--including every waterway in nineteen states--and poisons over a million American women and children annually. Coal industry strip mines have already destroyed 500 mountains in Appalachia, buried 2,000 miles of rivers and streams and will soon have flattened an area the size of Delaware. Finally, coal, which supplies 46% of our electric power, is the most important source of America's greenhouse gases.
Beating our deadly and expensive coal addiction will be lucrative. America's cornucopia of renewable energy resources and the recent maturation of solar, geothermal and wind technologies will allow us to meet most of our future energy needs with clean, cheap, abundant renewables. Bright Source, a solar thermal provider, has just signed contracts to provide California with 2.6 gigawatts of power annually from desert mirror farms. Construction costs are about the same per gigawatt as a coal plant and half the cost of a nuke plant. Once built, the energy is free forever. In contrast, once you build a coal plant, your biggest costs--fuel extraction and transportation and the harm from emissions--are just the beginning.
In the short term, a revolution in natural gas production over the past two years, has left America awash in natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight--and without the expense of building new power plants.
How? Well it's pretty easy. Around 900 of America's coal plants--78% of the total--are small (generating less than half a gigawatt), antiquated, and horrendously inefficient. Their average age is 45 years, with many limping past 75. These ancient plants burn 20% more coal per megawatt hour than modern large coal units and are 60-75% less fuel efficient than high-efficiency gas plants. These small units account for less than 42% of the actual capacity for coal fired power but almost one half the total emission of the entire energy sector! The costs of operation, maintenance, capital improvements and repair costs of these antiquated worm-eaten facilities, if properly assessed, would make them far more expensive to run than natural gas plants. However, energy sector pricing structures make it possible for many plant operators to pass those costs to the public and make choices based on fuel costs, which in the case of coal, appears deceptively cheap because of massive subsidies.
Mothballing or throttling back these plants would mean huge cost savings to the public and eliminate the need for more than 350 million tons of coal, including all 30 million tons harvested through mountain top removal. Their closure would reduce U.S. mercury emissions by 20-25%, dramatically cut deadly particulate matter and the pollutants that cause acid rain, and slash America's CO2 from power plants by 20%--an amount greater than the entire reduction mandated in the first years of the pending Climate Change Legislation--at a fraction of the cost.
These decrepit generators can be eliminated very quickly--in many instances literally overnight by substituting power from America's existing and underutilized natural gas generation, which is abundant, cleaner and more affordable and accessible today than dirty coal.
Since 2007, the discovery of vast supplies of deep shale gas in the United States, along with advanced extraction methods, have created stable supply and predictably low prices for most of the next century. Of the 1,000 gigawatts of generating capacity currently required to meet national energy demand, 336 are coal fired, many of which are utilized far more heavily than for cleaner gas generation units. Surprisingly, America actually has more gas generation capacity--450 gigawatts--than coal. But most of the costs for coal-fired units are ignored in deciding when to operate these units. Public regulators traditionally require utilities to dispatch coal first. For that reason, high efficiency gas generators, which can replace a large percentage of U.S. coal, are used only 36% of the time. By simply changing the dispatch rule nationally, we could quickly reduce power generated by existing coal-fired plants and achieve massive emissions reductions. The new rule would change the order in which gas and coal fired plants are utilized by requiring that whenever coal and gas plants are competing head-to-head, the gas generation must be dispatched first.
To quickly gain further economic and environmental advantages, the larger, newer coal plants that remain in operation should be required to co-fire with natural gas. Many of these plants are already connected to gas pipelines and can easily be adapted to burn gas as 15 to 20% of their fuel. Experience shows using gas to partially fuel these plants dramatically reduces forced outages and maintenance costs and can be the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions. This change can immediately achieve an additional 10 to 20% reduction in coal use and immediately reduce dangerous coal emissions.
Natural gas comes with its own set of environmental caveats. It is a carbon-based fuel and is extraction from shale, the most significant new source, if not managed carefully, can cause serious water, land use, and wildlife impacts, especially in the hands of irresponsible producers and lax regulators. But those impacts are dwarfed by the disastrous holocaust of coal and can be mitigated by careful regulation.
The giant advantage of a quick conversion from coal to gas is the quickest route for jumpstarting our economy and saving our planet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/king-coal_b_245117.html
July 26, 2009 08:38 PM
Over the past decade, nearly one hundred coal burning power plants have died in the proposal stage trumped by the legitimate objections of local communities fearful of a dirty deadly fuel that is neither cheap nor clean. Ozone and particulates from coal plants kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and cause widespread illnesses and disease. Acid rain emissions have destroyed the forests over the length of the Appalachian and sterilized one in five Adirondack lakes. Neurotoxic mercury raining from these plants has contaminated fish in every state--including every waterway in nineteen states--and poisons over a million American women and children annually. Coal industry strip mines have already destroyed 500 mountains in Appalachia, buried 2,000 miles of rivers and streams and will soon have flattened an area the size of Delaware. Finally, coal, which supplies 46% of our electric power, is the most important source of America's greenhouse gases.
Beating our deadly and expensive coal addiction will be lucrative. America's cornucopia of renewable energy resources and the recent maturation of solar, geothermal and wind technologies will allow us to meet most of our future energy needs with clean, cheap, abundant renewables. Bright Source, a solar thermal provider, has just signed contracts to provide California with 2.6 gigawatts of power annually from desert mirror farms. Construction costs are about the same per gigawatt as a coal plant and half the cost of a nuke plant. Once built, the energy is free forever. In contrast, once you build a coal plant, your biggest costs--fuel extraction and transportation and the harm from emissions--are just the beginning.
In the short term, a revolution in natural gas production over the past two years, has left America awash in natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight--and without the expense of building new power plants.
How? Well it's pretty easy. Around 900 of America's coal plants--78% of the total--are small (generating less than half a gigawatt), antiquated, and horrendously inefficient. Their average age is 45 years, with many limping past 75. These ancient plants burn 20% more coal per megawatt hour than modern large coal units and are 60-75% less fuel efficient than high-efficiency gas plants. These small units account for less than 42% of the actual capacity for coal fired power but almost one half the total emission of the entire energy sector! The costs of operation, maintenance, capital improvements and repair costs of these antiquated worm-eaten facilities, if properly assessed, would make them far more expensive to run than natural gas plants. However, energy sector pricing structures make it possible for many plant operators to pass those costs to the public and make choices based on fuel costs, which in the case of coal, appears deceptively cheap because of massive subsidies.
Mothballing or throttling back these plants would mean huge cost savings to the public and eliminate the need for more than 350 million tons of coal, including all 30 million tons harvested through mountain top removal. Their closure would reduce U.S. mercury emissions by 20-25%, dramatically cut deadly particulate matter and the pollutants that cause acid rain, and slash America's CO2 from power plants by 20%--an amount greater than the entire reduction mandated in the first years of the pending Climate Change Legislation--at a fraction of the cost.
These decrepit generators can be eliminated very quickly--in many instances literally overnight by substituting power from America's existing and underutilized natural gas generation, which is abundant, cleaner and more affordable and accessible today than dirty coal.
Since 2007, the discovery of vast supplies of deep shale gas in the United States, along with advanced extraction methods, have created stable supply and predictably low prices for most of the next century. Of the 1,000 gigawatts of generating capacity currently required to meet national energy demand, 336 are coal fired, many of which are utilized far more heavily than for cleaner gas generation units. Surprisingly, America actually has more gas generation capacity--450 gigawatts--than coal. But most of the costs for coal-fired units are ignored in deciding when to operate these units. Public regulators traditionally require utilities to dispatch coal first. For that reason, high efficiency gas generators, which can replace a large percentage of U.S. coal, are used only 36% of the time. By simply changing the dispatch rule nationally, we could quickly reduce power generated by existing coal-fired plants and achieve massive emissions reductions. The new rule would change the order in which gas and coal fired plants are utilized by requiring that whenever coal and gas plants are competing head-to-head, the gas generation must be dispatched first.
To quickly gain further economic and environmental advantages, the larger, newer coal plants that remain in operation should be required to co-fire with natural gas. Many of these plants are already connected to gas pipelines and can easily be adapted to burn gas as 15 to 20% of their fuel. Experience shows using gas to partially fuel these plants dramatically reduces forced outages and maintenance costs and can be the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions. This change can immediately achieve an additional 10 to 20% reduction in coal use and immediately reduce dangerous coal emissions.
Natural gas comes with its own set of environmental caveats. It is a carbon-based fuel and is extraction from shale, the most significant new source, if not managed carefully, can cause serious water, land use, and wildlife impacts, especially in the hands of irresponsible producers and lax regulators. But those impacts are dwarfed by the disastrous holocaust of coal and can be mitigated by careful regulation.
The giant advantage of a quick conversion from coal to gas is the quickest route for jumpstarting our economy and saving our planet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/king-coal_b_245117.html
Friday, July 24, 2009
Deeds, McDonnell discuss energy, roads
RAY REED MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE
Published: June 27, 2009
LYNCHBURG -- Gubernatorial hopefuls R. Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, in their first back-to-back appearances on the same stage, told Boys State attendees in Lynchburg yesterday that they could improve transportation in Virginia without raising taxes.
Deeds, a Democrat, said he would seek to pay for better roads by promoting business growth that would increase state revenues, but ultimately that growth depends on better roads.
"I have no plan to raise taxes," Deeds said twice.
McDonnell, a Republican, said he'd try to finance roads by "cutting spending on things that are not a priority."
Both candidates, who have served as prosecutors in criminal courts, drew applause when they told the 800 high school students that they support the death penalty for certain crimes.
Deeds, a state senator from Bath County, said "when a person commits a crime that sets him apart from society, you forfeit your life." But people shouldn't be "gleeful" about the penalty's use, Deeds said.
McDonnell, a former state attorney general, said, "I support the death penalty" for crimes that are premeditated and heinous, although "it is the ultimate penalty."
Deeds, responding to a student's question about his qualifications, said he has 22 years in elected office, 18 of them in the General Assembly.
"At the end of the day, the questions can't be about left or right, and you have to be right for every part of the commonwealth," Deeds said.
"I've got what it takes," he said, to applause.
After his speech, Deeds said crowds on the campaign trail have responded most strongly to messages about strengthening the state's economy. "People want to have hope, and that when things improve it will include them," Deeds said.
McDonnell gathered his share of applause as well, starting with his idea to make Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast, starting with offshore drilling in 2011.
He also said Southwest Virginia coal deposits, the state's nuclear-energy companies, and the spaceport on Wallops Island are other key parts of the state's energy potential. Deeds mentioned green energy as a potential new fuel source.
Both candidates told the young audience that they plan to curb college tuition costs by using more state funds to operate universities.
"I have a four-year plan to stabilize tuition costs," said Deeds, adding that tuition for Virginia students has risen 78 percent in eight years. Those plans include "putting a big chunk of money into needs-based financial aid."
McDonnell, also noting that Virginia has lowered the share of tuition costs it covers with state funds, said he has a goal to award 120,000 more degrees in the next 15 years than state education officials now expect.
McDonnell didn't say how he'd find more tuition funds in the state budget.
Ray Reed writes for The News and Advance in Lynchburg.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/GOVS27_20090626-221605/276662/
Published: June 27, 2009
LYNCHBURG -- Gubernatorial hopefuls R. Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, in their first back-to-back appearances on the same stage, told Boys State attendees in Lynchburg yesterday that they could improve transportation in Virginia without raising taxes.
Deeds, a Democrat, said he would seek to pay for better roads by promoting business growth that would increase state revenues, but ultimately that growth depends on better roads.
"I have no plan to raise taxes," Deeds said twice.
McDonnell, a Republican, said he'd try to finance roads by "cutting spending on things that are not a priority."
Both candidates, who have served as prosecutors in criminal courts, drew applause when they told the 800 high school students that they support the death penalty for certain crimes.
Deeds, a state senator from Bath County, said "when a person commits a crime that sets him apart from society, you forfeit your life." But people shouldn't be "gleeful" about the penalty's use, Deeds said.
McDonnell, a former state attorney general, said, "I support the death penalty" for crimes that are premeditated and heinous, although "it is the ultimate penalty."
Deeds, responding to a student's question about his qualifications, said he has 22 years in elected office, 18 of them in the General Assembly.
"At the end of the day, the questions can't be about left or right, and you have to be right for every part of the commonwealth," Deeds said.
"I've got what it takes," he said, to applause.
After his speech, Deeds said crowds on the campaign trail have responded most strongly to messages about strengthening the state's economy. "People want to have hope, and that when things improve it will include them," Deeds said.
McDonnell gathered his share of applause as well, starting with his idea to make Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast, starting with offshore drilling in 2011.
He also said Southwest Virginia coal deposits, the state's nuclear-energy companies, and the spaceport on Wallops Island are other key parts of the state's energy potential. Deeds mentioned green energy as a potential new fuel source.
Both candidates told the young audience that they plan to curb college tuition costs by using more state funds to operate universities.
"I have a four-year plan to stabilize tuition costs," said Deeds, adding that tuition for Virginia students has risen 78 percent in eight years. Those plans include "putting a big chunk of money into needs-based financial aid."
McDonnell, also noting that Virginia has lowered the share of tuition costs it covers with state funds, said he has a goal to award 120,000 more degrees in the next 15 years than state education officials now expect.
McDonnell didn't say how he'd find more tuition funds in the state budget.
Ray Reed writes for The News and Advance in Lynchburg.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/GOVS27_20090626-221605/276662/
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
U.S. agriculture, energy secretaries to visit county Saturday
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:25 AM EDT
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will visit Pittsylvania County Saturday as part of President Obama's "Rural Tour."
Vilsack and Chu are scheduled to talk about green jobs and a new energy economy with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.
The cabinet secretaries are scheduled to fly in to Danville around 10:30 a.m. and visit Piedmont BioProducts, a biodiesel pilot project at Ken Moss's Windy Acres Nursery in Gretna.
After a quick lunch, Vilsack and Chu will hold a town hall meeting at Buddy Mayhew's farm on Carter Lodge Road in Blairs.
The town hall meeting, which is open to the public, will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"We're expecting a large crowd," said Freddie Wydner, the county's agricultural director.
A large tent will be set up and there will be seating for around 200 people.
"If you want a seat, you'd better arrive early," Wydner said.
Info on:Name : Windy Acres Nursery Inc
DIRECTIONS
Windy Acres Nursery
1105 Cotton Patch Rd
Gretna, VA.
From Danville: Highway 29 North to Gretna. After passing Chatham exits look for a closed Shell station on the right. At the top of the hill take a left on Cotton Patch Rd (look for sign). Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building.
From Lynchburg: Highway 29 South to Gretna. Pass both Gretna exits and go approximately 2 more miles, take next right Cotton Patch Rd. (look for sign) Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building.
From Roanoke: 220 South to Rocky Mount. Take 2nd Rocky Mount Exit to route 40 east. Go approx. 40 minutes to Highway 29 south to Danville. Once on Hwy 29 south go approximately 2 miles and take next right onto Cotton Patch Rd. (look for sign) Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/15/chatham/news/news53.txt
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:25 AM EDT
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will visit Pittsylvania County Saturday as part of President Obama's "Rural Tour."
Vilsack and Chu are scheduled to talk about green jobs and a new energy economy with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.
The cabinet secretaries are scheduled to fly in to Danville around 10:30 a.m. and visit Piedmont BioProducts, a biodiesel pilot project at Ken Moss's Windy Acres Nursery in Gretna.
After a quick lunch, Vilsack and Chu will hold a town hall meeting at Buddy Mayhew's farm on Carter Lodge Road in Blairs.
The town hall meeting, which is open to the public, will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"We're expecting a large crowd," said Freddie Wydner, the county's agricultural director.
A large tent will be set up and there will be seating for around 200 people.
"If you want a seat, you'd better arrive early," Wydner said.
Info on:Name : Windy Acres Nursery Inc
DIRECTIONS
Windy Acres Nursery
1105 Cotton Patch Rd
Gretna, VA.
From Danville: Highway 29 North to Gretna. After passing Chatham exits look for a closed Shell station on the right. At the top of the hill take a left on Cotton Patch Rd (look for sign). Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building.
From Lynchburg: Highway 29 South to Gretna. Pass both Gretna exits and go approximately 2 more miles, take next right Cotton Patch Rd. (look for sign) Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building.
From Roanoke: 220 South to Rocky Mount. Take 2nd Rocky Mount Exit to route 40 east. Go approx. 40 minutes to Highway 29 south to Danville. Once on Hwy 29 south go approximately 2 miles and take next right onto Cotton Patch Rd. (look for sign) Windy Acres Nursery is 1 mile on the left. Watch for sign to energy building
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/15/chatham/news/news53.txt
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Virginia Summit On Energy Opportunity
by: Dan Sullivan
Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:21:02 PM EDT
(This article is cross-posted at BlueVirginia.. - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)
Senator Mark Warner was joined by Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman to lead off what started as a conference and grew to a summit attended by a wide consortium of constituencies.
Poneman stole the day early by announcing Virginia will immediately receive $37 million in funding for weatherization (some 8600 homes) under the stimulus plan.
Some 500 attendees crowded into the Hampton University venue, far exceeding the anticipated seating requirements. In addition, hundreds more participated online.
Dr. William Harvey, President of the University introduced the conference and welcomed the summit participants.
The summit featured three sessions: stimulus funding for low income household weatherization; stimulus funding for state and local governments; and funding for innovative projects such as smart grid.
Senator Warner emphasized his role as a self proclaimed bipartisan radical centrist member of the Congress, pointing out that energy does not have not a Democratic or Republican solution, there is an American solution. He called for innovation and cooperation.
Warner outlined five reasons for the summit. Possibly primarily, America is not positioned to take advantage of the opportunities for growth associated with alternative energy; we are losing our competitive advantage in the global economy.
Secondly, changing our energy mix is a national security issue. It goes beyond dependency on foreign oil: it extends to a reliance that places us in a position of supporting regimes around the world that are anti-American.
Third reason: We have to take on the very real challenge of climate change and carbon emissions. Next, it plays into the President's effort to kick start the economy: the stimulus program's focus on long term infrastructure to include broadband, health care information technology, high speed rail, and energy.
We have to ensure that Virginia is in a position to take advantage of these opportunities; we have to make sure Virginia gets its fair share of the funding sources.
This plays into the fifth reason: if we are going to get it right we need the financial resources. We will need a partnership between government and the private entrepreneurial base.
He suggests we look forward to the day that when people think about energy requirements, they think of Virginia as a leader in green energy the way we today think about Silicon Valley in relation to computer technology.
Video of the entire conference is to be available on Senator Warner's website.
http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/diary/905/virginia-summit-on-energy-opportunity
Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:21:02 PM EDT
(This article is cross-posted at BlueVirginia.. - promoted by KathyinBlacksburg)
Senator Mark Warner was joined by Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman to lead off what started as a conference and grew to a summit attended by a wide consortium of constituencies.
Poneman stole the day early by announcing Virginia will immediately receive $37 million in funding for weatherization (some 8600 homes) under the stimulus plan.
Some 500 attendees crowded into the Hampton University venue, far exceeding the anticipated seating requirements. In addition, hundreds more participated online.
Dr. William Harvey, President of the University introduced the conference and welcomed the summit participants.
The summit featured three sessions: stimulus funding for low income household weatherization; stimulus funding for state and local governments; and funding for innovative projects such as smart grid.
Senator Warner emphasized his role as a self proclaimed bipartisan radical centrist member of the Congress, pointing out that energy does not have not a Democratic or Republican solution, there is an American solution. He called for innovation and cooperation.
Warner outlined five reasons for the summit. Possibly primarily, America is not positioned to take advantage of the opportunities for growth associated with alternative energy; we are losing our competitive advantage in the global economy.
Secondly, changing our energy mix is a national security issue. It goes beyond dependency on foreign oil: it extends to a reliance that places us in a position of supporting regimes around the world that are anti-American.
Third reason: We have to take on the very real challenge of climate change and carbon emissions. Next, it plays into the President's effort to kick start the economy: the stimulus program's focus on long term infrastructure to include broadband, health care information technology, high speed rail, and energy.
We have to ensure that Virginia is in a position to take advantage of these opportunities; we have to make sure Virginia gets its fair share of the funding sources.
This plays into the fifth reason: if we are going to get it right we need the financial resources. We will need a partnership between government and the private entrepreneurial base.
He suggests we look forward to the day that when people think about energy requirements, they think of Virginia as a leader in green energy the way we today think about Silicon Valley in relation to computer technology.
Video of the entire conference is to be available on Senator Warner's website.
http://www.bluecommonwealth.com/diary/905/virginia-summit-on-energy-opportunity
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
COMPARING IMPACTS OF NEW ENERGY AND OLD ENERGY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region
March 2009 (Environmental Bioindictors Foundation and Pandion Systems)
SUMMARY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region, from the New York State Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), shows that while electricity generation inevitably causes adverse effects on the environment in general and on wildlife and wildlife habitat in particular, the effects and levels of risk vary importantly between generation sources.
The study assessed data on the New York and New England region and its conclusions are specifically applicable only there but it is readily generalizable.
Of the major sources of electricity generation used in the region specifically (and in the U.S. generally), the study showed clearly that wind power, hydroelectric power and natural gas are far preferable in terms of their environmental impacts to coal, oil and nuclear energy.
Because impacts occur throughout the lifecycles of the generation sources, the NYSERDA study made a thorough comparative assessment of each energy source’s lifecycle.
Some examples of impacts throughout energy source lifecycles:
(1) coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear energy are aggressively extracted from the ground and then transported with much energy consumption and emission spew to power plants sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(2) Hydroelectric power engages and alters a source of flowing water.
(3) Wind energy installations are built into remote sites where there are reliable wind flow patterns.
(4) Most electricity is generated remotely for consumption in population centers and therefore requires a vast built transmission and distribution system.
The NYSERDSA study classified the impacts of electricity generation sources on wildlife by (1) direct and/or indirect impacts, (2) acute or chronic impacts, (3) individual or cumulative impacts and (4) local, regional, or global impacts.
The study used 3 key factors to define the well-being of wildlife populations: (1) birth rate, (2) death rate, and (3) availability of habitat. Any change in any of these factors will cause changes in wildlife populations.
Effects and risks can be injury or mortality of individuals or habitat loss and decline of entire species. The degree and extent of harm to individuals and to populations varies according to the energy generation source, although some harmful effects are perpetrated across the spectrum of sources.
The study carefully differentiated generation source harms as acute and immediate effects versus chronic, cumulative, and long-term effects.
It identified (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation and (3) climate change as the 3 most significant and widespread stressors on wildlife and habitat.
It addressed the very troublesome issue of bird and bat population impacts with wind turbines but points out there are equally problematic impacts on bird and bat populations from collisions with and electrocutions by the transmission and distribution lines necessary for every generation source. Birds and bats are also seriously harmed by collisions with oil and natural gas offshore drilling platforms, coal plant smoke and steam stacks and nuclear plant cooling towers. The paper included a consideration of impacts on varying species according to their ranges, flight patterns, and migratory behaviors.
It also included a consideration of what kinds of further assessments are needed and suggests, in particular, a study to rank the recovery potentials allowed by the different generation sources from the harms they inflict on populations and habitats. The recovery possible from local impacts such as bird and bat collisions is completely different from the recovery possible from alteration of complete habitats by a change in air or water quality or of the alteration of reproductive potential by toxic depositions such as acids or mercury.
Finally, the paper suggested there is a need for a state-by-state analysis of energy generation potential risks.
The study put several important limitations on itself: (1) It did not consider risks according to the size of individual generating facilities. (2) It did not consider low-likelihood catastrophic events like nuclear reactor incidents or hydroelectric dam breaches. (3) It considered only terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate wildlife and
their habitats. (4) It focused on total wildlife impacts and risks without consideration of recovery potentials. (5) In the absence of definitive data, it was necessary to estimate the effects of some impacts.
COMMENTARY
All electricity generation sources have “adverse” risks to wildlife (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and habitat.
The effects and risks can be: (1) injury and mortality of individuals and (2) habitat loss and decline in species.
The effects and risks can also be in (1) immediacy of response, (2) level of impact, (3) lifecycle stage effects and (4) spatial extent of response.
There can be acute and immediate effects like (a) the toxicity of an oil spill, (b) exposure to acid mine drainage, (c) collisions with infrastructure, or (d) electrocution by transmission lines.
There can also be chronic, cumulative, latent, and long-term effects like (a) biomagnification of mercury and other toxins in the food and water chain, leading to alterations of reproductive dysfunction or disease resistance; (b) acidification of soils from deposition, leading to forest decline; and (c) climate change, leading to reproduction habit changes, migration pattern disruption, or altered ranging of species.
There are 2 levels of impact: (1) individual risks, considered in the report to be Lowest to Moderate Potential risks, and (2) population-level risks, considered Higher and Highest Potential risks and more likely to come from extraction and generation than other lifecycle stages.
Electricity generation lifecycle stage effects can be (1) local, like the impacts of coal mining in West Virginia, (2) regional, like acid deposition across the Northeast from coal plant emissions, or (3) global, like climate change.
The 3 most significant and widespread wildlife impacts are (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation, and (3) climate change. They come from fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. They create Moderate to Highest Potential risks.
Acidic deposition is from coal, oil, and (less) natural gas generation. Acidification of forests, streams, and lakes has widespread effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.
Mercury bioaccumulation comes from coal, oil, and hydroelectric generation. It is a major risk to wildlife, especially fish, birds, and mammals, but its effects can be reversible, as shown by measurements of sources and deposits of mercury emissions and biotic uptake following controls were instituted in the late 1980s.
Climate change is global and most impactful on fish, wildlife and habitat. Some impacts may not be reversible. Coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric generation contribute (unequally).
Risks are relative but generation is presently affecting a wide variety of species, some more than others.
Generation types also vary in the magnitude of their impacts at different stages of their lifecycles.
The transmission and delivery stages of all forms of generation are of Moderate Potential risk to birds and bats from collisions. During generation, birds and bats collide with offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms and wind turbines, coal and gas plant smoke and steam stacks, and nuclear plant cooling towers.
Oil and natural gas extraction creates High Potential risks to local and regional wildlife.
Coal is “by far” the biggest contributor to acidic deposition, mercury bioaccumulation, and climate change through its higher sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg) emissions.
Old Energy generation sources, especially coal and oil, have higher potential risks than New Energies like hydroelectric power and wind power.
1) Coal risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Highest Potential risks come with extraction by strip and mountain top mining. Highest Potential risks also come during generation from acidification and mercury bioaccumulation caused by combustion.
(2) Oil risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Extraction and transport cause Highest Potential risks because of spills. Generation causes acidification, a Highest Potential risk.
(3) Natural gas risks go from Lowest to Higher Potential risks. Generation risks are similar to oil generation risks but magnitudes are lower. Moderate Potential risks come from natural gas greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) rather than the Higher Potential risks associated with oil GhGs.
(4) Nuclear risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Although nuclear shares emissions-free generation with the New Energies, its risks include the collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. It also impacts the local marine habitats of adjacent water bodies used to cool plants. And there is the conundrum of radioactive leakage and waste.
(5) Hydroelectric power risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Construction, generation and decommissioning has impacts in land and water habitat upstream and
downstream from dams, which also cause somewhat mitigated disruptions to fish migration.
(6) Wind risks go from Lowest to Moderate Potential. Bird and bat collisions with turbines are a risk. Bird population-level risks have not been observed. Bat population-level impacts were indeterminate at the time of the study and have since been mitigated.
The construction, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning stages generally have lesser wildlife impacts. The exception is the construction, operation, and decommissioning of hydroelectric dams.
Single Net Takeaway: Choice of generation source determines impacts. Pick cancer, lung disease and the ravaging of ecosystems (coal, oil nuclear) or pick mitigatable local and specific disruptions to local fish and wildlife and their habitats (hydroelectric, wind).
QUOTES
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “Electricity generation causes adverse effects
on both people and the environment, including wildlife and wildlife habitat.
SUMMARY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region, from the New York State Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), shows that while electricity generation inevitably causes adverse effects on the environment in general and on wildlife and wildlife habitat in particular, the effects and levels of risk vary importantly between generation sources.
The study assessed data on the New York and New England region and its conclusions are specifically applicable only there but it is readily generalizable.
Of the major sources of electricity generation used in the region specifically (and in the U.S. generally), the study showed clearly that wind power, hydroelectric power and natural gas are far preferable in terms of their environmental impacts to coal, oil and nuclear energy.
Because impacts occur throughout the lifecycles of the generation sources, the NYSERDA study made a thorough comparative assessment of each energy source’s lifecycle.
Some examples of impacts throughout energy source lifecycles:
(1) coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear energy are aggressively extracted from the ground and then transported with much energy consumption and emission spew to power plants sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(2) Hydroelectric power engages and alters a source of flowing water.
(3) Wind energy installations are built into remote sites where there are reliable wind flow patterns.
(4) Most electricity is generated remotely for consumption in population centers and therefore requires a vast built transmission and distribution system.
The NYSERDSA study classified the impacts of electricity generation sources on wildlife by (1) direct and/or indirect impacts, (2) acute or chronic impacts, (3) individual or cumulative impacts and (4) local, regional, or global impacts.
The study used 3 key factors to define the well-being of wildlife populations: (1) birth rate, (2) death rate, and (3) availability of habitat. Any change in any of these factors will cause changes in wildlife populations.
Effects and risks can be injury or mortality of individuals or habitat loss and decline of entire species. The degree and extent of harm to individuals and to populations varies according to the energy generation source, although some harmful effects are perpetrated across the spectrum of sources.
The study carefully differentiated generation source harms as acute and immediate effects versus chronic, cumulative, and long-term effects.
It identified (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation and (3) climate change as the 3 most significant and widespread stressors on wildlife and habitat.
It addressed the very troublesome issue of bird and bat population impacts with wind turbines but points out there are equally problematic impacts on bird and bat populations from collisions with and electrocutions by the transmission and distribution lines necessary for every generation source. Birds and bats are also seriously harmed by collisions with oil and natural gas offshore drilling platforms, coal plant smoke and steam stacks and nuclear plant cooling towers. The paper included a consideration of impacts on varying species according to their ranges, flight patterns, and migratory behaviors.
It also included a consideration of what kinds of further assessments are needed and suggests, in particular, a study to rank the recovery potentials allowed by the different generation sources from the harms they inflict on populations and habitats. The recovery possible from local impacts such as bird and bat collisions is completely different from the recovery possible from alteration of complete habitats by a change in air or water quality or of the alteration of reproductive potential by toxic depositions such as acids or mercury.
Finally, the paper suggested there is a need for a state-by-state analysis of energy generation potential risks.
The study put several important limitations on itself: (1) It did not consider risks according to the size of individual generating facilities. (2) It did not consider low-likelihood catastrophic events like nuclear reactor incidents or hydroelectric dam breaches. (3) It considered only terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate wildlife and
their habitats. (4) It focused on total wildlife impacts and risks without consideration of recovery potentials. (5) In the absence of definitive data, it was necessary to estimate the effects of some impacts.
COMMENTARY
All electricity generation sources have “adverse” risks to wildlife (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and habitat.
The effects and risks can be: (1) injury and mortality of individuals and (2) habitat loss and decline in species.
The effects and risks can also be in (1) immediacy of response, (2) level of impact, (3) lifecycle stage effects and (4) spatial extent of response.
There can be acute and immediate effects like (a) the toxicity of an oil spill, (b) exposure to acid mine drainage, (c) collisions with infrastructure, or (d) electrocution by transmission lines.
There can also be chronic, cumulative, latent, and long-term effects like (a) biomagnification of mercury and other toxins in the food and water chain, leading to alterations of reproductive dysfunction or disease resistance; (b) acidification of soils from deposition, leading to forest decline; and (c) climate change, leading to reproduction habit changes, migration pattern disruption, or altered ranging of species.
There are 2 levels of impact: (1) individual risks, considered in the report to be Lowest to Moderate Potential risks, and (2) population-level risks, considered Higher and Highest Potential risks and more likely to come from extraction and generation than other lifecycle stages.
Electricity generation lifecycle stage effects can be (1) local, like the impacts of coal mining in West Virginia, (2) regional, like acid deposition across the Northeast from coal plant emissions, or (3) global, like climate change.
The 3 most significant and widespread wildlife impacts are (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation, and (3) climate change. They come from fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. They create Moderate to Highest Potential risks.
Acidic deposition is from coal, oil, and (less) natural gas generation. Acidification of forests, streams, and lakes has widespread effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.
Mercury bioaccumulation comes from coal, oil, and hydroelectric generation. It is a major risk to wildlife, especially fish, birds, and mammals, but its effects can be reversible, as shown by measurements of sources and deposits of mercury emissions and biotic uptake following controls were instituted in the late 1980s.
Climate change is global and most impactful on fish, wildlife and habitat. Some impacts may not be reversible. Coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric generation contribute (unequally).
Risks are relative but generation is presently affecting a wide variety of species, some more than others.
Generation types also vary in the magnitude of their impacts at different stages of their lifecycles.
The transmission and delivery stages of all forms of generation are of Moderate Potential risk to birds and bats from collisions. During generation, birds and bats collide with offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms and wind turbines, coal and gas plant smoke and steam stacks, and nuclear plant cooling towers.
Oil and natural gas extraction creates High Potential risks to local and regional wildlife.
Coal is “by far” the biggest contributor to acidic deposition, mercury bioaccumulation, and climate change through its higher sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg) emissions.
Old Energy generation sources, especially coal and oil, have higher potential risks than New Energies like hydroelectric power and wind power.
1) Coal risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Highest Potential risks come with extraction by strip and mountain top mining. Highest Potential risks also come during generation from acidification and mercury bioaccumulation caused by combustion.
(2) Oil risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Extraction and transport cause Highest Potential risks because of spills. Generation causes acidification, a Highest Potential risk.
(3) Natural gas risks go from Lowest to Higher Potential risks. Generation risks are similar to oil generation risks but magnitudes are lower. Moderate Potential risks come from natural gas greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) rather than the Higher Potential risks associated with oil GhGs.
(4) Nuclear risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Although nuclear shares emissions-free generation with the New Energies, its risks include the collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. It also impacts the local marine habitats of adjacent water bodies used to cool plants. And there is the conundrum of radioactive leakage and waste.
(5) Hydroelectric power risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Construction, generation and decommissioning has impacts in land and water habitat upstream and
downstream from dams, which also cause somewhat mitigated disruptions to fish migration.
(6) Wind risks go from Lowest to Moderate Potential. Bird and bat collisions with turbines are a risk. Bird population-level risks have not been observed. Bat population-level impacts were indeterminate at the time of the study and have since been mitigated.
The construction, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning stages generally have lesser wildlife impacts. The exception is the construction, operation, and decommissioning of hydroelectric dams.
Single Net Takeaway: Choice of generation source determines impacts. Pick cancer, lung disease and the ravaging of ecosystems (coal, oil nuclear) or pick mitigatable local and specific disruptions to local fish and wildlife and their habitats (hydroelectric, wind).
QUOTES
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “Electricity generation causes adverse effects
on both people and the environment, including wildlife and wildlife habitat.
In recent years, concerns about global climate change, caused in part by fossil fuel combustion, have focused enhanced attention on these effects and the need to move toward a mix of electricity generation sources that will reduce adverse effects of all types on the environment.
The effects and relative levels of risk vary among the different electricity generation sources.”
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “To objectively compare adverse effects caused by different electricity generation source types, the total life cycle of electricity generation was examined.
The Life Cycle Assessment identified the stages of electricity generation: resource extraction, fuel transportation, construction of facility, power generation, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning of facility…Wildlife effects from exposure to stressors encountered at each life cycle stage were identified and compiled for each electricity generation source.”
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparing-impacts-of-new-energy-and-old.html
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparing-impacts-of-new-energy-and-old.html
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Secretaries Steven Chu and Tom Vilsack will travel to Ringgold, VA
Comment: We need to greet Mr. Chu with open arms and explain to him we against uranium mining and milling in Virginia!!
President Announces Rural Tour
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 30, 2009
President Obama Announces Rural Tour with Cabinet Secretaries and Administration Officials
WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, President Obama announced the launch of his Administration’s Rural Tour. This summer, over the course of the next few weeks and months, top Administration officials, including Cabinet Secretaries, will fan out across the nation to hold a series of discussions on how communities, states, and the federal government can work together to help strengthen rural America.
Vice President Joe Biden and Secretaries Gary Locke and Tom Vilsack will kick-off the Rural Tour on July 1st by visiting Wattsburg, Pennsylvania, to discuss the issue of rural broadband.
“A healthy American economy depends on a prosperous rural America,” President Obama said. “Rural America is vast and diverse, and different communities face different challenges and opportunities. That’s why we’re going out to hear directly from the people of rural America about their needs and concerns and what my Administration can do to support them.”
Administration officials participating in the Rural Tour will hear about the diverse set of challenges and opportunities facing the small towns and rural communities that are so integral to the fabric of American life. They will share some of the Administration’s ideas about how to nurture strong, robust, and vibrant rural communities. And, when they have heard from the people, they will report back to the President about the state of rural America, and what the Administration can do to strengthen it.
These events, involving multiple Cabinet secretaries, will serve as listening sessions to focus on such issues as broad-based rural health, economic development, infrastructure, education, energy, natural resources, and agriculture. Events will be held in Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. And, Secretary Vilsack will hold listening sessions in additional states with local and state elected officials.
The entire tour will provide an opportunity for the Obama Administration to listen to diverse voices throughout rural America, and to highlight its broader vision for growth and prosperity in these regions of the country.
Rural Tour events planned so far include:
JULY 1ST
Vice President Joe Biden and Secretaries Gary Locke and Tom Vilsack will travel to Wattsburg, PA, to discuss rural broadband.
JULY 16TH
Secretaries Ray LaHood and Tom Vilsack will travel to La Crosse, WI, to discuss rural economic development.
JULY 18TH
Secretaries Steven Chu and Tom Vilsack will travel to Ringgold, VA, to discuss green jobs and a new energy economy, with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.
JULY 20TH
Secretaries Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Shinseki, Hilda Solis and Tom Vilsack will travel to St. John’s Parish, LA, to discuss rural healthcare.
AUGUST 12TH
Secretaries Steven Chu, Shaun Donovan, Arne Duncan, Ken Salazar and Tom Vilsack will travel to Bethel, AK, to discuss rural infrastructure, green jobs and a new energy economy, as well as climate change.
AUGUST 16TH
Secretaries Ken Salazar and Tom Vilsack will travel to Zanesville, OH, to discuss green jobs and a new energy economy, with a focus on renewable energies.
AUGUST 17TH
Secretaries Arne Duncan and Tom Vilsack will travel to Hamlet, NC, to discuss rural education.
SEPTEMBER 28TH
Secretaries Ken Salazar and Tom Vilsack will travel to Scottsbluff, NE, to discuss production agriculture.
SEPTEMBER 30TH
Secretaries Shaun Donovan and Tom Vilsack will travel to Las Cruces, NM, to discuss rural infrastructure.
More details on the Rural Tour will be released as they become available.
http://www.ruralvotes.com/thebackforty/?p=1684
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Calif. Activists Ask Feds To Reject Nuclear Plants
Comment: The State of Virginia needs to follow the example of Sacramento, Nuke Power Plants make electricity higher, Nuke is not carbon free, uranium mining, and milling produces lots of carbon plus a lot of uranium milling uses coal. NO NUKE PLANTS, NO URANIUM MINING, AND MILLING!!!
Jun 5, 2009 8:05 pm US/Pacific
SACRAMENTO (AP) ―
In 1989, Sacramento voters agreed to shut down their utility's nuclear power plant, rejecting warnings that their electricity bills would skyrocket.
Twenty years later, the area has among the lowest electricity rates in California, even as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District considers a 13 percent increase.
That's a message former state lawmaker Tom Hayden and others involved in the 1989 campaign say the federal government should note.
Hayden held a news conference Friday in the capital to mark the 20th anniversary of the vote and urge the federal government to invest in conservation and renewable energy.
The U.S. Energy Department is evaluating loan guarantees to four companies planning new nuclear plants. The reactors being considered are in Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.
http://cbs13.com/local/Calif.Activists.Ask.2.1033859.html
Jun 5, 2009 8:05 pm US/Pacific
SACRAMENTO (AP) ―
In 1989, Sacramento voters agreed to shut down their utility's nuclear power plant, rejecting warnings that their electricity bills would skyrocket.
Twenty years later, the area has among the lowest electricity rates in California, even as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District considers a 13 percent increase.
That's a message former state lawmaker Tom Hayden and others involved in the 1989 campaign say the federal government should note.
Hayden held a news conference Friday in the capital to mark the 20th anniversary of the vote and urge the federal government to invest in conservation and renewable energy.
The U.S. Energy Department is evaluating loan guarantees to four companies planning new nuclear plants. The reactors being considered are in Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.
http://cbs13.com/local/Calif.Activists.Ask.2.1033859.html
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Ralph Nader Rips Obama For Not Phasing Out Nuclear Power
Comment: No Nuke Plants, No Uranium Mining!!!!
Jay YarowMay. 11, 2009, 6:09 PM
America's curmudgeonly consumer advocate Ralph Nader took a few swings at Obama today in the New York Times' Green Inc. blog.
He's disappointed in the direction of the energy policy. Nader thinks Obama is trying to be all things to all people, saying "There’s no priority to his scheme."
NYT: If you were in Obama’s shoes, what’s something you would have done already that he has not?
Nader: I would have said no more loan guarantees to nuclear plants in the appropriations bills, and no more subsidies from the executive branch. We’re going to phase nuclear plants out and replace them with energy efficiency, which is far more megawatts than nuclear.
I would also declare a national solar energy mission — solar energy including waves, wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal and passive solar architecture. Open up the whole frontier and make that the priority as we convert our country to renewables.
Nader also says he's "astonished" by the cap and trade bill, and doesn't understand why there's no carbon tax instead.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ralph-nader-rips-obama-for-not-phasing-out-nuclear-power-2009-5
Monday, April 27, 2009
Energy versus Water: Solving Both Crises Together
Comment: Water is gold now!! Nuke Power & mining & milling uses huge amount of water!!
Water is needed to generate energy. Energy is needed to deliver water. Both resources are limiting the other—and both may be running short. Is there a way out?
By Michael E. Webbe
In June the state of Florida made an unusual announcement: it would sue the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the corps’s plan to reduce water flow from reservoirs in Georgia into the Apalachicola River, which runs through Florida from the Georgia-Alabama border. Florida was concerned that the restricted flow would threaten certain endangered species. Alabama also objected, worried about another species: nuclear power plants, which use enormous quantities of water, usually drawn from rivers and lakes, to cool their big reactors. The reduced flow raised the specter that the Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Ala., would need to shut down.
Georgia wanted to keep its water for good reason: a year earlier various rivers dropped so low that the drought-stricken state was within a few weeks of shutting down its own nuclear plants. Conditions had become so dire that by this past January one of the state’s legislators suggested that Georgia move its upper border a mile farther north to annex freshwater resources in Tennessee, pointing to an allegedly faulty border survey from 1818. Throughout 2008 Georgia, Alabama and Florida have continued to battle; the corps, which is tasked by Congress to manage water resources, has been caught in the middle. Drought is only one cause. A rapidly growing population, especially in Atlanta, as well as overdevelopment and a notorious lack of water planning, is running the region’s rivers dry.
Water and energy are the two most fundamental ingredients of modern civilization. Without water, people die. Without energy, we cannot grow food, run computers, or power homes, schools or offices. As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, the demands for both resources are increasing faster than ever.
Woefully underappreciated, however, is the reality that each of these precious commodities might soon cripple our use of the other. We consume massive quantities of water to generate energy, and we consume massive quantities of energy to deliver clean water. Many people are concerned about the perils of peak oil—running out of cheap oil. A few are voicing concerns about peak water. But almost no one is addressing the tension between the two: water restrictions are hampering solutions for generating more energy, and energy problems, particularly rising prices, are curtailing efforts to supply more clean water.
The paradox is raising its ugly head in many of our own backyards. In January, Lake Norman near Charlotte, N.C., dropped to 93.7 feet, less than a foot above the minimum allowed level for Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station. Outside Las Vegas, Lake Mead, fed by the Colorado River, is now routinely 100 feet lower than historic levels. If it dropped another 50 feet, the city would have to ration water use, and the huge hydroelectric turbines inside Hoover Dam on the lake would provide little or no power, potentially putting the booming desert metropolis in the dark.
Research scientist Gregory J. McCabe of the U.S. Geological Survey reiterated the message to Congress in June. He noted that an increase in average temperature of even 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit across the Southwest as the result of climate change could compromise the Colorado River’s ability to meet the water demands of Nevada and six other states, as well as that of the Hoover Dam. Earlier this year scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., declared that Lake Mead could become dry by 2021 if the climate changes as expected and future water use is not curtailed.
Conversely, San Diego, which desperately needs more drinking water, now wants to build a desalination plant up the coast, but local activists are fighting the facility because it would consume so much energy and the power supply is thin. The mayor of London denied a proposed desalination plant in 2006 for the same reason, only to have his successor later rescind that denial. Cities in Uruguay must choose whether they want the water in their reservoirs to be used for drinking or for electricity. Saudi Arabia is wrestling with whether to sell all its oil and gas at record prices or to hold more of those resources to generate what it doesn’t have: freshwater for its people and its cities.
We cannot build more power plants without realizing that they impinge on our freshwater supplies. And we cannot build more water delivery and cleaning facilities without driving up energy demand. Solving the dilemma requires new national policies that integrate energy and water solutions and innovative technologies that help to boost one resource without draining the other.
Vicious Cycle
The earth holds about eight million cubic miles of freshwater—tens of thousands of times more than humans’ annual consumption. Unfortunately, most of it is imprisoned in underground reservoirs and in permanent ice and snow cover; relatively little is stored in easily accessible and replenishable lakes and rivers.
Furthermore, the available water is often not clean or not located close to population centers. Phoenix gets a large share of its freshwater via a 336-mile aqueduct from, of course, the Colorado River. Municipal supplies are also often contaminated by industry, agriculture and wastewater effluents. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 2.4 billion people live in highly water-stressed areas. Two primary solutions—shipping in water over long distances or cleaning nearby but dirty supplies—both require large amounts of energy, which is soaring in price.
Nationwide, the two greatest users of freshwater are agriculture and power plants. Thermal power plants—those that consume coal, oil, natural gas or —generate more than 90 percent of U.S. electricity, and they are water hogs. The sheer amount required to cool the plants impacts the available supply to everyone else. And although a considerable portion of the water is eventually returned to the source (some evaporates), when it is emitted it is at a different temperature and has a different biological content than the source, threatening the environment. Whether this effluent should be processed is contentious; the Supreme Court is set to hear a consolidation of cases about the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements that power plants retrofit their systems to minimize impact on local water supplies and aquatic life.
At the same time, we use a lot of energy to move and treat water, sometimes across vast distances. The California Aqueduct, which transports snowmelt across two mountain ranges to the thirsty coastal cities, is the biggest electricity consumer in the state. As convenient resources become tapped out, providers must dig deeper and reach farther. Countries that have large populations but isolated water sources are considering daunting megaprojects. China, for example, wants to transport water from three river basins in the water-rich south over thousands of miles to the water-poor north, consuming vast energy supplies. Old-guard investors such as T. Boone Pickens who made their billions from oil and natural gas are now putting their money into water, including one project to pipe it across Texas. Cities such as El Paso are also trying to develop desalination plants positioned above salty aquifers, which require remarkable amounts of energy—and money.
In addition, local municipalities have to clean incoming water and treat outgoing water, which together consume about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity. Health standards typically get stricter with time, too, so the degree of energy that needs to be spent per gallon will only increase.
From Imported Oil to Domestic Water
The strains between the resources manifest themselves in tough choices at the local level—especially in land- and water-locked regions such as the desert Southwest. Is it better for a city to import freshwater or to import electricity to desalinate brackish water in deep aquifers below? Or is it better yet to move the people to where the water is? With infinite energy, freshwater can be reached, but even if the public coffers were unlimited, policymakers are under pressure to limit carbon emissions. And with climate change possibly altering the cycles of droughts, floods and rainfall, burning more energy to get more water might be doubly dire. The challenges get even tougher because the U.S. has finally conceded that the best way to fix its energy and security problems is to break its dependence on imported oil. This new view is reflected in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and other legislation. Because the transportation sector is a major oil consumer—and a major carbon emitter—it is on the short list of targets for radical change by policymakers, innovators and entrepreneurs. The two most popular choices to replace gasoline appear to be electricity for plug-in vehicles and biofuels. Both paths have merits, but both are more water-intensive than our current system.
Plug-in vehicles are particularly appealing because it is easier to manage the emissions from 1,500 power plants than from hundreds of millions of tailpipes. The electrical infrastructure is already in place. But the power sector swallows water. Compared with producing gasoline for a car, generating electricity for a plug-in hybrid-electric or all-electric vehicle withdraws 10 times as much water and consumes up to three times as much water per mile, according to studies done at the University of Texas at Austin.
Biofuels are worse. Recent analyses indicate that the entire production cycle—from growing irrigated crops on a farm to pumping biofuel into a car—can consume 20 or more times as much water for every mile traveled than the production of gasoline. When scaling up to the 2.7 trillion miles that U.S. passenger vehicles travel a year, water could well become a limiting factor. Municipalities are already fighting over water supplies with the booming biofuels industry: citizens in the Illinois towns of Champaign and Urbana recently opposed a local ethanol plant’s petition to withdraw two million gallons a day from the local aquifer to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. Resistance will grow as ranchers’ wells run dry.
Whether proponents realize it or not, any plan to switch from gasoline to electricity or biofuels is a strategic decision to switch our dependence from foreign oil to domestic water. Although that choice might seem more appealing than reducing energy consumption, we would be wise to first make sure we have the necessary water.
New Mind-set Needed, Too
Regardless of which energy source the U.S., or the world, might favor, water is ultimately more important than oil because it is more immediately crucial for life, and there is no substitute. And it seems we are approaching an era of peak water—the lack of cheap water. The situation should already be considered a crisis, but the public has not grasped the urgency.
The public has indeed become more open-minded about the risks of peak oil, which vary from the dire (mass starvation and resource wars) to the blasé (markets bring forth new technologies that save the day). Supply shortages and skyrocketing prices have ratcheted up confidence in the claims of the “peakers.” Policy levers and market forces are being deployed to find a substitute for affordable oil.
What will it take for us to make the leap for water and, better yet, to consider both issues as one? When the projections for declining oil production are overlaid with the increasing demand for water, the risks become severe. Because water is increasingly energy-intensive to produce, we will likely be relying on fossil fuels for pumping water from deeper aquifers or for moving it through longer pipelines. Any peak in oil production could force a peak in water production. Peak oil might cause some human suffering, but peak water would have more extreme consequences: millions already die every year from limited access to freshwater, and the number could grow by an order of magnitude.
Perhaps signposts will wake our collective minds. Kansas lost a lawsuit to Missouri recently over interstate water use, causing Kansan farmers to reconfigure how they will grow their crops. Rationing should certainly put society on notice, and it is beginning. My hometown of Austin, Tex., now imposes strict lawn-watering restrictions. California, suffering record low snowfalls, has issued statewide requirements for municipal water conservation and rationing of water that are reminiscent of gasoline controls in the 1970s.
Someday we might look back with a curious nostalgia at the days when profligate homeowners wastefully sprayed their lawns with liquid gold to make the grass grow, just so they could then burn black gold to cut it down on the weekends. Our children and grandchildren will wonder why we were so dumb.
Forcing Solutions
The rising tension between water and energy is troubling, but it also presents an opportunity. We can tackle the problem. The first step is to integrate U.S. policymaking processes. Although the two resources are highly interdependent, energy and water regulators operate separately, with different funding streams, accountability mechanisms, government oversight and legislative committees. Instead of water planners assuming they will have all the energy they need and energy planners assuming they will have all the water they need, we must get them in the same room to make decisions.
The federal government has long had a Department of Energy but does not have a Department of Water. The EPA oversees water quality, and the U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for collecting data and monitoring supply, but no federal agency ensures the effective use of water. Congress should create a single overseer, possibly in the Department of the Interior (because of water’s environmental importance) or the Department of Commerce (because of its role in the economy). Partly because water has historically been produced locally, most regulatory responsibility has been pushed down to the state and municipal levels. Local policies can readily fail, however, when aquifers, rivers and watersheds span multiple cities or states. What happens when another city takes your water?
Federal energy and water agencies should then develop a plan for integrated policy making. For example, when power plant owners seek building permits for a given site they must show that the new installations will meet EPA air-quality standards; similar requirements from a new agency should have to be met for water usage. Energy planners should be in the room when their counterparts debate issuing water permits, to raise concerns about greater electricity demand. When siting and permitting are considered for power plants, water experts should be there to comment on any potentially elevated risk of scarcity. These interactions can take the form of simple
collaborations.
The same cross talk should inform climate change legislation. In May, Michael Arceneaux, deputy executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, began a one-person campaign to educate Congress that high-profile bills under consideration, notably those involving carbon cap-and-trade systems, had serious effects on water supplies that were not being considered.
As the U.S. better coordinates policy making, innovative technologies can reduce the amount of freshwater that society extracts and consumes. Agriculture is the place to start. Drip irrigation (instead of spraying water onto fields, allowing much of it to evaporate) requires much less water and delivers it directly to a crop’s roots. Farmers in the high plains due east of the Colorado River should switch to drip irrigation for their own good. Nearly all of them tap the Ogallala aquifer, the largest in the U.S., and it is being depleted at a rate of 15 billion cubic yards a year—much more than the rainfall and runoff that reaches it to recharge it. Irrigation now accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater used in the entire region.
Consumption by power plants can be significantly reduced by switching from water cooling to air cooling or at least hybrid air-water cooling. Although air systems are more expensive and are less efficient during operation, they virtually eliminate water withdrawal.
Reusing municipal and industrial wastewater will also save supplies and reduce energy consumed to transport them. Although many people cringe at the thought of “toilet to tap” cycles that convert wastewater to drinking water, astronauts onboard the space station and residents in Singapore readily drink treated wastewater every day with no ill effects. Even if that option remains unpalatable to many consumers, municipalities can certainly use reclaimed water for agriculture and industry and, indeed, for cooling power plants.
Engineering advances can also make water treatment much less energy-intensive. For example, Stonybrook Purification in Stony Brook, N.Y., is developing advanced membranes that more efficiently clean wastewater and desalinate saltwater. The inventor who discovered a way to purify water using minimal energy could become the world’s richest person and be forever enshrined.
Intelligent monitors can reduce residential and commercial waste. It is not uncommon to see sprinkler systems spraying lawns at full force in the heat of the afternoon—when evaporation is maximized and irrigation effects are minimized—and in the middle of a rainstorm. Companies such as Accuwater in Austin combine sensors, smart software and Internet connectivity for real-time weather information to better control such systems.
Residents can also spare the energy spent to heat water by widely implementing solar water heating. The simple technology is affordable, reliable, time-tested and pays for itself. But perhaps because the technology doesn’t seem cutting-edge and doesn’t have much backing from the federal government, its market penetration remains small.
We may have to make social choices, too. Conserving energy and water means we might need to give up our young love affair with corn-based ethanol.
More than anything, however, we need to value water. We must move away from a long-standing expectation that water should be free or cheap. If we think water is important, we should put a realistic price on it. Without that, we send a confusing signal that everyone can be blasé about wasting water.
Once true pricing is in place, the U.S. can perhaps go further and show consumers and regulators how much the price of water raises the price of energy and how much the price of energy raises the price of water. These two metrics will bring us face to face with the dilemma of conserving both resources, prompting effective solutions.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-fuel&page=2
Water is needed to generate energy. Energy is needed to deliver water. Both resources are limiting the other—and both may be running short. Is there a way out?
By Michael E. Webbe
In June the state of Florida made an unusual announcement: it would sue the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the corps’s plan to reduce water flow from reservoirs in Georgia into the Apalachicola River, which runs through Florida from the Georgia-Alabama border. Florida was concerned that the restricted flow would threaten certain endangered species. Alabama also objected, worried about another species: nuclear power plants, which use enormous quantities of water, usually drawn from rivers and lakes, to cool their big reactors. The reduced flow raised the specter that the Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Ala., would need to shut down.
Georgia wanted to keep its water for good reason: a year earlier various rivers dropped so low that the drought-stricken state was within a few weeks of shutting down its own nuclear plants. Conditions had become so dire that by this past January one of the state’s legislators suggested that Georgia move its upper border a mile farther north to annex freshwater resources in Tennessee, pointing to an allegedly faulty border survey from 1818. Throughout 2008 Georgia, Alabama and Florida have continued to battle; the corps, which is tasked by Congress to manage water resources, has been caught in the middle. Drought is only one cause. A rapidly growing population, especially in Atlanta, as well as overdevelopment and a notorious lack of water planning, is running the region’s rivers dry.
Water and energy are the two most fundamental ingredients of modern civilization. Without water, people die. Without energy, we cannot grow food, run computers, or power homes, schools or offices. As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, the demands for both resources are increasing faster than ever.
Woefully underappreciated, however, is the reality that each of these precious commodities might soon cripple our use of the other. We consume massive quantities of water to generate energy, and we consume massive quantities of energy to deliver clean water. Many people are concerned about the perils of peak oil—running out of cheap oil. A few are voicing concerns about peak water. But almost no one is addressing the tension between the two: water restrictions are hampering solutions for generating more energy, and energy problems, particularly rising prices, are curtailing efforts to supply more clean water.
The paradox is raising its ugly head in many of our own backyards. In January, Lake Norman near Charlotte, N.C., dropped to 93.7 feet, less than a foot above the minimum allowed level for Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear Station. Outside Las Vegas, Lake Mead, fed by the Colorado River, is now routinely 100 feet lower than historic levels. If it dropped another 50 feet, the city would have to ration water use, and the huge hydroelectric turbines inside Hoover Dam on the lake would provide little or no power, potentially putting the booming desert metropolis in the dark.
Research scientist Gregory J. McCabe of the U.S. Geological Survey reiterated the message to Congress in June. He noted that an increase in average temperature of even 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit across the Southwest as the result of climate change could compromise the Colorado River’s ability to meet the water demands of Nevada and six other states, as well as that of the Hoover Dam. Earlier this year scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., declared that Lake Mead could become dry by 2021 if the climate changes as expected and future water use is not curtailed.
Conversely, San Diego, which desperately needs more drinking water, now wants to build a desalination plant up the coast, but local activists are fighting the facility because it would consume so much energy and the power supply is thin. The mayor of London denied a proposed desalination plant in 2006 for the same reason, only to have his successor later rescind that denial. Cities in Uruguay must choose whether they want the water in their reservoirs to be used for drinking or for electricity. Saudi Arabia is wrestling with whether to sell all its oil and gas at record prices or to hold more of those resources to generate what it doesn’t have: freshwater for its people and its cities.
We cannot build more power plants without realizing that they impinge on our freshwater supplies. And we cannot build more water delivery and cleaning facilities without driving up energy demand. Solving the dilemma requires new national policies that integrate energy and water solutions and innovative technologies that help to boost one resource without draining the other.
Vicious Cycle
The earth holds about eight million cubic miles of freshwater—tens of thousands of times more than humans’ annual consumption. Unfortunately, most of it is imprisoned in underground reservoirs and in permanent ice and snow cover; relatively little is stored in easily accessible and replenishable lakes and rivers.
Furthermore, the available water is often not clean or not located close to population centers. Phoenix gets a large share of its freshwater via a 336-mile aqueduct from, of course, the Colorado River. Municipal supplies are also often contaminated by industry, agriculture and wastewater effluents. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 2.4 billion people live in highly water-stressed areas. Two primary solutions—shipping in water over long distances or cleaning nearby but dirty supplies—both require large amounts of energy, which is soaring in price.
Nationwide, the two greatest users of freshwater are agriculture and power plants. Thermal power plants—those that consume coal, oil, natural gas or —generate more than 90 percent of U.S. electricity, and they are water hogs. The sheer amount required to cool the plants impacts the available supply to everyone else. And although a considerable portion of the water is eventually returned to the source (some evaporates), when it is emitted it is at a different temperature and has a different biological content than the source, threatening the environment. Whether this effluent should be processed is contentious; the Supreme Court is set to hear a consolidation of cases about the Environmental Protection Agency’s requirements that power plants retrofit their systems to minimize impact on local water supplies and aquatic life.
At the same time, we use a lot of energy to move and treat water, sometimes across vast distances. The California Aqueduct, which transports snowmelt across two mountain ranges to the thirsty coastal cities, is the biggest electricity consumer in the state. As convenient resources become tapped out, providers must dig deeper and reach farther. Countries that have large populations but isolated water sources are considering daunting megaprojects. China, for example, wants to transport water from three river basins in the water-rich south over thousands of miles to the water-poor north, consuming vast energy supplies. Old-guard investors such as T. Boone Pickens who made their billions from oil and natural gas are now putting their money into water, including one project to pipe it across Texas. Cities such as El Paso are also trying to develop desalination plants positioned above salty aquifers, which require remarkable amounts of energy—and money.
In addition, local municipalities have to clean incoming water and treat outgoing water, which together consume about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity. Health standards typically get stricter with time, too, so the degree of energy that needs to be spent per gallon will only increase.
From Imported Oil to Domestic Water
The strains between the resources manifest themselves in tough choices at the local level—especially in land- and water-locked regions such as the desert Southwest. Is it better for a city to import freshwater or to import electricity to desalinate brackish water in deep aquifers below? Or is it better yet to move the people to where the water is? With infinite energy, freshwater can be reached, but even if the public coffers were unlimited, policymakers are under pressure to limit carbon emissions. And with climate change possibly altering the cycles of droughts, floods and rainfall, burning more energy to get more water might be doubly dire. The challenges get even tougher because the U.S. has finally conceded that the best way to fix its energy and security problems is to break its dependence on imported oil. This new view is reflected in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and other legislation. Because the transportation sector is a major oil consumer—and a major carbon emitter—it is on the short list of targets for radical change by policymakers, innovators and entrepreneurs. The two most popular choices to replace gasoline appear to be electricity for plug-in vehicles and biofuels. Both paths have merits, but both are more water-intensive than our current system.
Plug-in vehicles are particularly appealing because it is easier to manage the emissions from 1,500 power plants than from hundreds of millions of tailpipes. The electrical infrastructure is already in place. But the power sector swallows water. Compared with producing gasoline for a car, generating electricity for a plug-in hybrid-electric or all-electric vehicle withdraws 10 times as much water and consumes up to three times as much water per mile, according to studies done at the University of Texas at Austin.
Biofuels are worse. Recent analyses indicate that the entire production cycle—from growing irrigated crops on a farm to pumping biofuel into a car—can consume 20 or more times as much water for every mile traveled than the production of gasoline. When scaling up to the 2.7 trillion miles that U.S. passenger vehicles travel a year, water could well become a limiting factor. Municipalities are already fighting over water supplies with the booming biofuels industry: citizens in the Illinois towns of Champaign and Urbana recently opposed a local ethanol plant’s petition to withdraw two million gallons a day from the local aquifer to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. Resistance will grow as ranchers’ wells run dry.
Whether proponents realize it or not, any plan to switch from gasoline to electricity or biofuels is a strategic decision to switch our dependence from foreign oil to domestic water. Although that choice might seem more appealing than reducing energy consumption, we would be wise to first make sure we have the necessary water.
New Mind-set Needed, Too
Regardless of which energy source the U.S., or the world, might favor, water is ultimately more important than oil because it is more immediately crucial for life, and there is no substitute. And it seems we are approaching an era of peak water—the lack of cheap water. The situation should already be considered a crisis, but the public has not grasped the urgency.
The public has indeed become more open-minded about the risks of peak oil, which vary from the dire (mass starvation and resource wars) to the blasé (markets bring forth new technologies that save the day). Supply shortages and skyrocketing prices have ratcheted up confidence in the claims of the “peakers.” Policy levers and market forces are being deployed to find a substitute for affordable oil.
What will it take for us to make the leap for water and, better yet, to consider both issues as one? When the projections for declining oil production are overlaid with the increasing demand for water, the risks become severe. Because water is increasingly energy-intensive to produce, we will likely be relying on fossil fuels for pumping water from deeper aquifers or for moving it through longer pipelines. Any peak in oil production could force a peak in water production. Peak oil might cause some human suffering, but peak water would have more extreme consequences: millions already die every year from limited access to freshwater, and the number could grow by an order of magnitude.
Perhaps signposts will wake our collective minds. Kansas lost a lawsuit to Missouri recently over interstate water use, causing Kansan farmers to reconfigure how they will grow their crops. Rationing should certainly put society on notice, and it is beginning. My hometown of Austin, Tex., now imposes strict lawn-watering restrictions. California, suffering record low snowfalls, has issued statewide requirements for municipal water conservation and rationing of water that are reminiscent of gasoline controls in the 1970s.
Someday we might look back with a curious nostalgia at the days when profligate homeowners wastefully sprayed their lawns with liquid gold to make the grass grow, just so they could then burn black gold to cut it down on the weekends. Our children and grandchildren will wonder why we were so dumb.
Forcing Solutions
The rising tension between water and energy is troubling, but it also presents an opportunity. We can tackle the problem. The first step is to integrate U.S. policymaking processes. Although the two resources are highly interdependent, energy and water regulators operate separately, with different funding streams, accountability mechanisms, government oversight and legislative committees. Instead of water planners assuming they will have all the energy they need and energy planners assuming they will have all the water they need, we must get them in the same room to make decisions.
The federal government has long had a Department of Energy but does not have a Department of Water. The EPA oversees water quality, and the U.S. Geological Survey is responsible for collecting data and monitoring supply, but no federal agency ensures the effective use of water. Congress should create a single overseer, possibly in the Department of the Interior (because of water’s environmental importance) or the Department of Commerce (because of its role in the economy). Partly because water has historically been produced locally, most regulatory responsibility has been pushed down to the state and municipal levels. Local policies can readily fail, however, when aquifers, rivers and watersheds span multiple cities or states. What happens when another city takes your water?
Federal energy and water agencies should then develop a plan for integrated policy making. For example, when power plant owners seek building permits for a given site they must show that the new installations will meet EPA air-quality standards; similar requirements from a new agency should have to be met for water usage. Energy planners should be in the room when their counterparts debate issuing water permits, to raise concerns about greater electricity demand. When siting and permitting are considered for power plants, water experts should be there to comment on any potentially elevated risk of scarcity. These interactions can take the form of simple
collaborations.
The same cross talk should inform climate change legislation. In May, Michael Arceneaux, deputy executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, began a one-person campaign to educate Congress that high-profile bills under consideration, notably those involving carbon cap-and-trade systems, had serious effects on water supplies that were not being considered.
As the U.S. better coordinates policy making, innovative technologies can reduce the amount of freshwater that society extracts and consumes. Agriculture is the place to start. Drip irrigation (instead of spraying water onto fields, allowing much of it to evaporate) requires much less water and delivers it directly to a crop’s roots. Farmers in the high plains due east of the Colorado River should switch to drip irrigation for their own good. Nearly all of them tap the Ogallala aquifer, the largest in the U.S., and it is being depleted at a rate of 15 billion cubic yards a year—much more than the rainfall and runoff that reaches it to recharge it. Irrigation now accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater used in the entire region.
Consumption by power plants can be significantly reduced by switching from water cooling to air cooling or at least hybrid air-water cooling. Although air systems are more expensive and are less efficient during operation, they virtually eliminate water withdrawal.
Reusing municipal and industrial wastewater will also save supplies and reduce energy consumed to transport them. Although many people cringe at the thought of “toilet to tap” cycles that convert wastewater to drinking water, astronauts onboard the space station and residents in Singapore readily drink treated wastewater every day with no ill effects. Even if that option remains unpalatable to many consumers, municipalities can certainly use reclaimed water for agriculture and industry and, indeed, for cooling power plants.
Engineering advances can also make water treatment much less energy-intensive. For example, Stonybrook Purification in Stony Brook, N.Y., is developing advanced membranes that more efficiently clean wastewater and desalinate saltwater. The inventor who discovered a way to purify water using minimal energy could become the world’s richest person and be forever enshrined.
Intelligent monitors can reduce residential and commercial waste. It is not uncommon to see sprinkler systems spraying lawns at full force in the heat of the afternoon—when evaporation is maximized and irrigation effects are minimized—and in the middle of a rainstorm. Companies such as Accuwater in Austin combine sensors, smart software and Internet connectivity for real-time weather information to better control such systems.
Residents can also spare the energy spent to heat water by widely implementing solar water heating. The simple technology is affordable, reliable, time-tested and pays for itself. But perhaps because the technology doesn’t seem cutting-edge and doesn’t have much backing from the federal government, its market penetration remains small.
We may have to make social choices, too. Conserving energy and water means we might need to give up our young love affair with corn-based ethanol.
More than anything, however, we need to value water. We must move away from a long-standing expectation that water should be free or cheap. If we think water is important, we should put a realistic price on it. Without that, we send a confusing signal that everyone can be blasé about wasting water.
Once true pricing is in place, the U.S. can perhaps go further and show consumers and regulators how much the price of water raises the price of energy and how much the price of energy raises the price of water. These two metrics will bring us face to face with the dilemma of conserving both resources, prompting effective solutions.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-fuel&page=2
Friday, April 17, 2009
Water and Energy: How Congress Can Solve Two Problems at Once
Comment: Yes, we all need to conserve our water but Corps use most of our water supply!!! Remember Uranium Mining and milling use a huge amount of water. Water in the future will be scearce!
By Tom Kenworthy and Kari Manlove, Climate Progress
Posted on April 10, 2009, Printed on April 17, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/135506/
Congress now has several opportunities to further our understanding of the nexus between water and energy use and to promote water conservation efforts that can also achieve significant energy savings. A recently introduced energy and water bill combined with financial incentives in the omnibus energy bill due later this year could help the entire country enjoy the savings some states are already seeing from reductions in water use -- with a potential for job creation through water-efficient home retrofits.
In California, Santa Clara County’s experience underscores this important but often overlooked link. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Santa Clara Valley Water District got serious about water conservation. The district, which serves some 1.8 million residents and includes Silicon Valley and the city of San Jose, developed programs that encouraged residents, businesses, industries, and agricultural producers to use water more efficiently.
The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).
But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.
“It has become increasingly clear that the water savings from water use efficiency programs results in significant energy savings and air quality benefits, including reductions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,” wrote Santa Clara Valley Water District CEO Stanley M. Williams in his introduction to “From Watts to Water,” the district’s recent report on its water conservation and energy savings efforts.
The relationship between energy and water use is beginning to get more attention as U.S. policymakers grapple with measures to transition from heavy dependence on fossil fuels and to attack global climate change by capping carbon emissions.
In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.
In his testimony on the bill, Pacific Institute President Dr. Peter H. Gleick said: “Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production uses and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of energy. Moreover, the reality of climate change affects national policies in both areas. Limits to the availability of both energy and water are beginning to affect the other, and these limits have direct implications for U.S. economic and security interests. Yet energy and water issues are rarely integrated in policy.”
As it develops an omnibus energy bill for consideration later this year, Congress also has an opportunity to include financial incentives for consumers, businesses, and water providers to conserve water and thereby reduce energy consumption. Preliminary discussions are underway according to Senate staff.
The federal government already provides a wide array of tax credits for consumers for energy efficient home improvements including windows, doors, insulation, and water heaters. Credits are also available for renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind systems, and geothermal heat pumps. Tax deductions are available to owners and designers of energy efficient commercial buildings.
No such program exists, however, for water conservation efforts, such as installing high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, and water-conserving clothes washers, though some water utilities provide consumers rebates for purchases of those items.
In Santa Clara County, for example, residents can get a $125 rebate for a high-efficiency toilet, up to $200 for water-efficient clothes washers, up to $1,000 for new landscape irrigation hardware, and up to $1,000 for replacing water-intensive landscaping such as turf grass with plants that use low amounts of water. The county’s Water Wise House Call Program provides experts to inspect homes and install new appliances and fixtures.
At every stage of its cycle, the water we use consumes energy. It takes power to move water, to treat it, to heat it in our homes so we can shower, and wash clothes and dishes, and then to treat our wastewater. According to the Department of Energy, residential water heating alone accounts for about 9 percent of residential electricity use in the United States and the distribution and treatment of water uses about 4 percent of total U.S. electricity use. In states like California, where water is moved over great distances, the energy embedded in water can be much higher. The California Energy Commission estimated in a 2005 report that “water-related energy uses annually account for roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, one-third of nonpower plant natural gas consumption, and about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption.”
In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water -- especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers -- consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.
Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.
Dr. Gleick of the Pacific Institute came to a similar conclusion: “There are a lot of inexpensive investments that can save both water and energy, particularly in residential end use.”
Compared to more expensive energy-saving measures such as installing home solar panels or even adding home insulation, the initial cost of many water-saving measures can be relatively modest and the payback period relatively quick.
In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.
In 2006, the EPA launched its WaterSense Program, which is similar to the agency’s older Energy Star program and is designed to help consumers make smarter choices when purchasing products such as showerheads and toilets. Expanding the WaterSense labeling program to appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers would make sense, as would a labeling system that tells consumers not just the direct energy used by those appliances but also the energy consumed by the water they use.
Mandatory federal water efficiency standards have also lagged behind energy standards. While standards were adopted in 1992 for toilets, showerheads, faucets, and urinals, it was not until 2007 that Congress required federal standards for clothes washers and dishwashers, and they will not go into effect until 2011 and 2010 respectively.
More aggressive federal steps to improve water efficiency have the potential to not only save energy but also provide a significant economic boost and create jobs. With the federal government now embarking on a $5 billion expansion of the home weatherization program that will send a small army of workers out to retrofit homes to achieve energy savings, it would be negligent to not retrofit those homes with more water-efficient appliances and fixtures.
Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.
The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in February gives some recognition to the need for greater water efficiency. Of the $6 billion allocated for states’ revolving water funds, at least 20 percent must go to “projects that address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities.”
But because the legislation sets such tight time frames and gives states latitude in determining what is “green,” some states “are reinterpreting the existing projects on their lists as ‘green’ and not allowing new applications for funding,” says Mary Ann Dickinson, executive director of the Alliance. “It has been a big disappointment for us.”
Even if states are missing the boat, there’s still time for Congress to raise public awareness of the opportunities and create incentives that will promote both water and energy conservation.
Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Kari Manlove is a Research Associate at CAP. The authors thank energy opportunity team intern Derrick Golla for his research assistance
By Tom Kenworthy and Kari Manlove, Climate Progress
Posted on April 10, 2009, Printed on April 17, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/135506/
Congress now has several opportunities to further our understanding of the nexus between water and energy use and to promote water conservation efforts that can also achieve significant energy savings. A recently introduced energy and water bill combined with financial incentives in the omnibus energy bill due later this year could help the entire country enjoy the savings some states are already seeing from reductions in water use -- with a potential for job creation through water-efficient home retrofits.
In California, Santa Clara County’s experience underscores this important but often overlooked link. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Santa Clara Valley Water District got serious about water conservation. The district, which serves some 1.8 million residents and includes Silicon Valley and the city of San Jose, developed programs that encouraged residents, businesses, industries, and agricultural producers to use water more efficiently.
The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).
But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.
“It has become increasingly clear that the water savings from water use efficiency programs results in significant energy savings and air quality benefits, including reductions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,” wrote Santa Clara Valley Water District CEO Stanley M. Williams in his introduction to “From Watts to Water,” the district’s recent report on its water conservation and energy savings efforts.
The relationship between energy and water use is beginning to get more attention as U.S. policymakers grapple with measures to transition from heavy dependence on fossil fuels and to attack global climate change by capping carbon emissions.
In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.
In his testimony on the bill, Pacific Institute President Dr. Peter H. Gleick said: “Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production uses and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of energy. Moreover, the reality of climate change affects national policies in both areas. Limits to the availability of both energy and water are beginning to affect the other, and these limits have direct implications for U.S. economic and security interests. Yet energy and water issues are rarely integrated in policy.”
As it develops an omnibus energy bill for consideration later this year, Congress also has an opportunity to include financial incentives for consumers, businesses, and water providers to conserve water and thereby reduce energy consumption. Preliminary discussions are underway according to Senate staff.
The federal government already provides a wide array of tax credits for consumers for energy efficient home improvements including windows, doors, insulation, and water heaters. Credits are also available for renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind systems, and geothermal heat pumps. Tax deductions are available to owners and designers of energy efficient commercial buildings.
No such program exists, however, for water conservation efforts, such as installing high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, and water-conserving clothes washers, though some water utilities provide consumers rebates for purchases of those items.
In Santa Clara County, for example, residents can get a $125 rebate for a high-efficiency toilet, up to $200 for water-efficient clothes washers, up to $1,000 for new landscape irrigation hardware, and up to $1,000 for replacing water-intensive landscaping such as turf grass with plants that use low amounts of water. The county’s Water Wise House Call Program provides experts to inspect homes and install new appliances and fixtures.
At every stage of its cycle, the water we use consumes energy. It takes power to move water, to treat it, to heat it in our homes so we can shower, and wash clothes and dishes, and then to treat our wastewater. According to the Department of Energy, residential water heating alone accounts for about 9 percent of residential electricity use in the United States and the distribution and treatment of water uses about 4 percent of total U.S. electricity use. In states like California, where water is moved over great distances, the energy embedded in water can be much higher. The California Energy Commission estimated in a 2005 report that “water-related energy uses annually account for roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, one-third of nonpower plant natural gas consumption, and about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption.”
In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water -- especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers -- consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.
Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.
Dr. Gleick of the Pacific Institute came to a similar conclusion: “There are a lot of inexpensive investments that can save both water and energy, particularly in residential end use.”
Compared to more expensive energy-saving measures such as installing home solar panels or even adding home insulation, the initial cost of many water-saving measures can be relatively modest and the payback period relatively quick.
In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.
In 2006, the EPA launched its WaterSense Program, which is similar to the agency’s older Energy Star program and is designed to help consumers make smarter choices when purchasing products such as showerheads and toilets. Expanding the WaterSense labeling program to appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers would make sense, as would a labeling system that tells consumers not just the direct energy used by those appliances but also the energy consumed by the water they use.
Mandatory federal water efficiency standards have also lagged behind energy standards. While standards were adopted in 1992 for toilets, showerheads, faucets, and urinals, it was not until 2007 that Congress required federal standards for clothes washers and dishwashers, and they will not go into effect until 2011 and 2010 respectively.
More aggressive federal steps to improve water efficiency have the potential to not only save energy but also provide a significant economic boost and create jobs. With the federal government now embarking on a $5 billion expansion of the home weatherization program that will send a small army of workers out to retrofit homes to achieve energy savings, it would be negligent to not retrofit those homes with more water-efficient appliances and fixtures.
Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.
The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in February gives some recognition to the need for greater water efficiency. Of the $6 billion allocated for states’ revolving water funds, at least 20 percent must go to “projects that address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities.”
But because the legislation sets such tight time frames and gives states latitude in determining what is “green,” some states “are reinterpreting the existing projects on their lists as ‘green’ and not allowing new applications for funding,” says Mary Ann Dickinson, executive director of the Alliance. “It has been a big disappointment for us.”
Even if states are missing the boat, there’s still time for Congress to raise public awareness of the opportunities and create incentives that will promote both water and energy conservation.
Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Kari Manlove is a Research Associate at CAP. The authors thank energy opportunity team intern Derrick Golla for his research assistance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
