December 2007 - EC - lists.bikelover.org

Re: [EC] Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals
by Barbara Fallon 19 Dec '07

19 Dec '07

I am on this... ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> To: WV Chapter Energy Committee <EC(a)osenergy.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:06:26 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals fyi, paul probably need to look at TRAILco work in 2008, and whatever else you can think of... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Hamilton <Dave.Hamilton(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 17, 2007 9:34 AM … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: Anyone know if Sierra Club is working on coalbed methane extraction in WV?
by Paul Wilson 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

Anyone of the Energy Committee know of anyone working on this in WV?? thanks, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 18, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Anyone know if Sierra Club is working on coalbed methane extraction in WV? To: Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org, bruce_nilles(a)prodigy.net, Virginia.Cramer(a)sierraclub.org, pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Partnerships received an inquiry and I would like to connect them directly with the right person. … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals
by Paul Wilson 18 Dec '07

18 Dec '07

fyi, paul probably need to look at TRAILco work in 2008, and whatever else you can think of... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Hamilton <Dave.Hamilton(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 17, 2007 9:34 AM Subject: Smart Energy Solutions CIC, Request for 2008 Proposals To: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org The Smart Energy Solutions Conservation Initiative Committee is pleased to request letters of interest for funding 2008 projects. Please look carefully at the … [View More]

1 0

AEP IGCC Plant in Mason County
by James Kotcon 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Evidentiary hearings are underway for AEP's proposed IGCC plant in Mason County. The Chapter has not yet, to my knowledge, filed any comments on this facility. The major issue being debated is the cost of the facility, as it is considerably more expensive than any plant ever built by AEP, and AEP is asking the ratepayers to pay for it. The issue is difficult because IGCC plants have much lower emissions of SO2 and PM than pulverized coal boilers like Longview or Western Greenbrier. In … [View More]

3 2

Fwd: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs (fwd)
by Paul Wilson 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Not a real pressing issue, but some on the committee may want to look this over. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Heimann <heimann(a)theworld.com> Date: Dec 11, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs (fwd) To: CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hello Everyone, Steve Crowley, who heads the Smart Energy Solutions CIC, asked me to forward this message on CFL lightbulbs to the Chapter Chairs list. He is … [View More]inviting comments from all chapters on a proposed guidance on the distribution of CFLs and other environmentally preferred lightbulbs. You can see the draft document at the Clubhouse URL Steve mentions below, and send any comments either to the comments area there or to Eric Uram (see e-mail address below). Thanks, and have a wonderful set of holidays! Regards, David Heimann Massachusetts Chapter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:59:01 -0500 From: Stephen Crowley <scrow(a)sover.net> Reply-To: Energy Forum <CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG> To: CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs To all, An ad hoc working group of representatives from the Sierra Club Global Warming & Energy, Smart Energy Solutions, Zero Waste, and Toxics committees has developed Guidelines for Selecting and Distributing Environmentally Preferable Light Bulbs. The purpose of the Guidelines is to help Sierra Club chapters, groups and members increase net environmental benefits when they select and distribute CFLs and other energy-efficient light bulbs in their communities. The Guidelines seek to balance and advance the Sierra Club's goals of climate protection, toxics reduction and zero waste, and to support the Club's policies of encouraging conservation of both energy and materials. The Guidance is posted for your review at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/conservation/policy/cfl-guidance.aspx Comments on this guidance document may be posted and reviewed at http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/comment/cfl/, or emailed directly to Eric Uram at <Eric.Uram(a)Headwater.US>. The deadline for comments is Thursday, January 10, 2008. Please forward this to all potentially interested individuals and entities. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-ENERGY-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG For help in managing your subscription, or questions/comments about the Energy Forum, contact Ned.Ford(a)Sierraclub.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off the CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM list, send email to LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CCL-CHAPTER-CHAIRS-FORUM -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: Third newsletter submission
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Third submission from...........Duane **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

1 0

Fwd: Sierra Club newsletter
by Duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

First Newsletter submission from............Duane **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

1 0

Second newsletter submission
by duane330＠aol.com 12 Dec '07

12 Dec '07

Sally. Here is the second submission. Duane ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

1 0

PSC Staff oppose TrailCo
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

I found out this evening at a Monongalia Clear Air Coalition meeting that there was a WV Public Radio broadcast this morning announcing that the PSC Staff opposes the TrailCo Power Line after their study: You can listen to broadcast here: http://wvpubcast.org/audio/news/1211wvm1.mp3 -Jonathan

1 0

FW: [CH] Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs
by Grubb, Karen 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

-----Original Message----- From: Sierra Club Chapter and RCC Conservation Chairs [mailto:CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Stephen Crowley Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:03 PM To: CONS-CHAPTER-CONS-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [CH] Comments invited on Guidance of Distribution of CFLs To all, An ad hoc working group of representatives from the Sierra Club Global Warming & Energy, Smart Energy Solutions, Zero Waste, and Toxics committees has … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: Final WVNS usage report for Proposed Power Line Could “Zap” WV With More Pollution
by Paul Wilson 11 Dec '07

11 Dec '07

Here is the Usage Report from WV Public News Service. Good quote from Jim. This is what we want to see next year when we are paying for this on our nickel. I fed them another story on private land disturbance/abuse from an Allegheny powerline ROW and that will air with quotes from the Landowner and Duane Nichols. best,paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> Date: Dec 11, 2007 1:25 PM Subject: Final WVNS usage report for … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: Opinion Article by Manchin
by James Kotcon 08 Dec '07

08 Dec '07

Attached is the Weekly column from Gov. Manchin for Dec. 7, 2007. We really need to call him on the hypocrisy, because as he is callling for "Clean Coal", the WV Development Office last month provided over $60 million in bonding for dirty old ratholes like Longview and Western Greenbrier. Is his call for "Clean Coal" simply a smokescreen to keep just building more coal plants, no matter what? (DUH!) Can more expensive Clean Coal plants compete if they have to compete with subsidized old … [View More]

1 0

Fwd: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS: approval
by Paul Wilson 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sierra Club LISTSERV Server (14.5) <LISTSERV(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Date: Dec 7, 2007 5:27 PM Subject: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS: approval required (056AA8EE) To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> This message was originally submitted by Andy.Bessler(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG to the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG. You can approve it using the "OK" mechanism (click on the link below), ignore it, or repost an edited copy. The … [View More]message will expire automatically and you do not need to do anything if you just want to discard it. Please refer to the list owner's guide if you are not familiar with the "OK" mechanism; these instructions are being kept purposefully short for your convenience in processing large numbers of messages. To APPROVE the message: http://LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?OK=056AA8EE&L=COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALER… ELECTRICITY: Carbon capture would double coal plants' water consumption -- report (12/07/2007) Katherine Ling, Greenwire reporter Power plants' consumption of water will nearly double by 2030 if coal-burning generators must install carbon-capture technology to combat global warming, the Energy Department said yesterday. Carbon capture would increase power plants' water consumption by about 2 billion gallons per day, a 90 percent increase over current rates, the report by DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory says. The additional water would be used to create steam to drive turbines that generate electricity and capture the carbon gas, the lab says. Otherwise, withdrawals of cooling water from power plants is expected to decline by 3.5 percent over the next two decades. Power plants are the second largest U.S. water users behind agriculture, but plants don't consume all of the water they withdraw. Most is used for cooling and is released back into water bodies. A typical 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant uses more than 12 million gallons per hour of water for cooling the steam, the report noted. Nuclear power plants use more, and natural gas plants use less. Water bodies are being strained by drought and population growth in many regions. A few power plant proposals have been rejected or put in doubt because of water concerns in Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota and Wisconsin (Greenwire, Oct. 4). The report drew its averages from five different case studies involving different portfolios of once-through, wet recirculating, dry and hybrid cooling mechanisms. Each type of cooling system uses a different amount of water but also has a different amount of energy efficiency. Regional differences Power plants' water usage also varies by region, the report said. The Northeast is expected to withdraw 42 percent more freshwater, while the Rocky Mountain and Southwest desert region will see a 24 percent decline. While the report concludes the whole nation will increase consumption, some states will be hit harder. California and Florida will see a more than 250 percent increase in consumption -- New York more than 350 percent, the report said. State officials are aware of the issue. An NETL poll of officials in 33 states found 58 percent of them saw water availability as a concern. Another 12 percent said water resources had recently become "more critical." . Click here to view the report. ****************** see: www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/NETL_Water_Paper_Final_Oct. 2005.pdf and www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/IEP_Power_Plant_Water_R&D_F inal_1.pdf Andy Bessler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 [View Less]

1 0

FW: [energy activists] We won!!!! energy bill passes House 235-181
by Grubb, Karen 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

We should thank Rahall and Mollohan. ________________________________ From: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org [mailto:Allison.Forbes@sierraclub.org] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:06 PM To: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org Subject: [energy activists] We won!!!! energy bill passes House 235-181 Yes, we won again in the House! This time, the House passed not only a renewable electricity standard, energy efficiency standards and a great tax package, but they voted to raise fuel … [View More]economy standards!!! A historic achievement. Congrats to everyone. Our press release is attached. Media materials and record of votes to follow... and on to the Senate :) FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 1140 (Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined) H R 6 YEA-AND-NAY 6-Dec-2007 3:31 PM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendments with Amendments BILL TITLE: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act Yeas <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#Y> Nays <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#N> PRES NV <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1140.xml#NV> Democratic 221 7 5 Republican 14 174 11 Independent TOTALS 235 181 16 ---- YEAS 235 --- Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baldwin Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bono Boswell Boucher Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Castle Castor Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Lincoln DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly Doyle Edwards Ellison Ellsworth Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Gerlach Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Gordon Green, Al Grijalva Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hayes Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kirk Klein (FL) Kucinich LaHood Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Mahoney (FL) Maloney (NY) Markey Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McIntyre McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Pomeroy Price (NC) Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reichert Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Space Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Tsongas Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walden (OR) Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth ---- NAYS 181 --- Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachmann Bachus Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Boozman Boren Boustany Boyd (FL) Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Chabot Coble Conaway Crenshaw Culberson Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson English (PA) Everett Fallin Ferguson Flake Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Graves Green, Gene Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Hulshof Hunter Inglis (SC) Issa Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jordan Keller King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kline (MN) Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McHugh McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Porter Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Regula Rehberg Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Sali Saxton Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Souder Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walberg Walsh (NY) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (FL) ---- NOT VOTING 16 --- Baird Carson Cole (OK) Cubin Feeney Gilchrest Granger Gutierrez Hooley Jindal Lucas Miller, Gary Nunes Ortiz Paul Young (AK) Allison Forbes National Conservation Organizer Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program (202) 548-6583 [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: CATO: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power.
by James Kotcon 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

Enjoy. JBK From: Eric Epstein <ericepstein(a)comcast.net> Date: December 6, 2007 5:10:40 PM EST To: Eric Epstein <ericepstein(a)comcast.net> Subject: CATO: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power. Hooked on Subsidies by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren This article appeared Forbes on November 26, 2007. Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power. When it comes to politics, we don't often find … [View More]ourselves in agreement with Bonnie Raitt or Graham Nash. But now that they are campaigning against new nuclear plants, they're our friends. Raitt, Nash, the Indigo Girls and other vocal rockers are attacking a provision in pending Senate legislation that would award what they call "massively expensive loan guarantees--potentially a virtual blank check from taxpayers" for nuclear power plant construction. Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is also editor of Cato's Regulation magazine. Even without the new legislation there's plenty of federal money being doled out. In September NRG Energy, an energy wholesaler in Princeton, N.J., applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a two-reactor nuclear plant near Bay City, Tex. The NRC is expecting 19 similar applications in the next 18 months. If approved, they will be eligible for loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero. A cold-blooded examination of the industry's numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone's tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively). Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal- or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a small gas-fired turbine. What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing. A nuclear plant's costs are not only higher but more uncertain. Investors have to worry that completion will take place late--or never (witness the abandonment of the reactor at Shoreham, N.Y.). Accordingly, nuclear power would have to be substantially cheaper than coal- or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market. So why does NRG want to build a nuclear plant in Texas? Two factors are in play. First, the license costs a relatively small amount compared with the cost of construction. Second, the federal government would guarantee up to 100% of the $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion NRG might borrow from capital markets (as long as it doesn't exceed 80% of the project cost). Without such guarantees no investor would lend significant amounts of capital to NRG. How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors. The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal. What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear's economic problems? Absolutely nothing. There is no more to the right-wing case for nuclear subsidies than there is to the left-wing case for solar subsidies. If the permitting process is broken, then by all means fix it. If plant safety regulations are excessive, then by all means reform them. If greenhouse gas emissions prove to be a problem, then impose a reasonable carbon tax across the board. But once those tasks are complete, the role for government ends. We like nuclear power as much as anyone else on the right. But friends don't let friends get hooked on subsidies. We're glad to see Raitt and her rocker compadres agree. [View Less]

1 0

Fwd: Fw: PacifiCorp drops plans for new coal plants
by Paul Wilson 07 Dec '07

07 Dec '07

fyi, some good comments on the strategy of future carbon taxes. paul ----- Forwarded by Pat Gallagher/Sierraclub on 12/06/2007 03:07 PM ----- The NW Energy Coalition Energy Matters Update Vol. 4, No. 8 - December 6, 2007 PacifiCorp drops coal plant plans! Western clean-energy advocates score major victory PacifiCorp, the Northwest's largest … [View More]utility, has abandoned plans to build two new pulverized coal plants. The company's decision, delivered to both the Oregon and Utah utility commissions, is the product of years of efforts by NW Energy Coalition staff, member organizations and other allies. Advocates and customers should applaud PacifiCorp's turnaround. It can be extremely difficult for a large utility to change direction, especially when it's owned by Warren Buffett's coal-heavy Mid-American Corp. The decision took some courage and illustrates the company's openness to the evidence presented by its customers, regulators and advocates. Background In its 2004 and 2007 long-term plans for securing adequate power resources (called integrated resource plans or IRPs) and its 2006-7 requests for bids to provide power, PacifiCorp called for construction of up to seven new pulverized coal plants. As reported in previous issues of The Transformer (Oct. 29, 2007, and Nov. 19, 2007), the six-state utility's coal plans were stopped short in Oregon, where the spirited opposition from consumer and clean-energy advocates was strongly supported by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) and its staff. The OPUC is the state agency that reviews long-term plans and rate requests from investor-owned utilities in Oregon. Repeatedly rejected by Oregon regulators, the utility evidently did some serious rethinking. In a letter to the Utah Public Service Commission (PDF file) and in a filing before the Oregon PUC (PDF file), the company this week announced that conventional coal plants "are no longer viable options …." PacifiCorp cites several reasons for its decision, including: 1. Potential federal regulation of carbon emissions. The company expects Congress to "enact some restriction upon carbon emissions," but can't predict the cost of complying with as-yet unknown regulations. That means development of a proposed Wyoming coal plant (Bridger 5), "is no longer a viable option for 2014." 2. Public and regulatory commissions' climate-change concerns. PacifiCorp notes that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners recently passed its first resolution acknowledging the inevitability of climate-change legislation. "Within the last few months," the company writes, "most of the planned coal plants in the United States have been cancelled, denied permits, or been involved in protracted litigation." That means that in addition to the proposed Wyoming coal plant (and its alternative incarnation as a coal-gasification plant), PacifiCorp will cease to pursue another planned coal plant in Utah. PacifiCorp isn't excluding new coal plants from its 20-year considerations. But for its near-term (10-year) planning, the company says it cannot determine "whether new coal generation ownership will satisfy the least cost, least risk standards that would enable us to consider it as a viable option" (Utah Docket No. 05-035-47, Notice of Withdrawal, p. 3]. In other words, PacifiCorp acknowledged just what we've been saying all along: Looming regulation of carbon to address global warming makes coal a very risky investment for utilities and especially their customers who would bear the steeply increased costs and environmental impacts. What now? PacifiCorp agreed to modify its 2007 long-term resource plan for Oregon along the lines proposed by the Coalition and other clean-energy advocates, which included removing the coal plants and acquiring more conservation. In addition, in future resource planning, the company agreed to: Better analyze how conservation will reduce risks and costs Consider building coal-gasification (IGCC) plants that capture their carbon emissions Evaluate shorter-term resource purchases to keep its options open Consider the impact of forced early retirements of existing coal plants, or the need to retrofit them to capture CO2 Design a plan that meets Oregon's new CO2 emissions goals Include the estimated future costs of carbon emissions when figuring the price of its market transactions PacifiCorp's decision represents a monumental shift in American energy priorities. Throughout the United States, regulators, legislatures, consumers and advocates are repelling coal plants and winning new investments in clean energy. Credit for this great victory goes to all our partners and allies in Oregon -- Citizens' Utility Board, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Renewable Northwest Project, Oregon Department of Energy, OPUC commissioners and staff – and our allies in Utah, including Western Resource Advocates. The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of more than 100 environmental, civic and human service organizations, progressive utilities and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and British Columbia. We promote development of renewable energy and energy conservation, consumer protection, low-income energy assistance, and fish and wildlife restoration on the Columbia and Snake rivers. www.nwenergy.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TimeoutforCoal" group. To post to this group, send email to timeoutforcoal(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to timeoutforcoal-unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/timeoutforcoal?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- You are subscribed to this list as rcavanagh(a)nrdc.org. Click here to unsubscribe, or send email to unsubscribe.219510.178909149.4643214875594844173-rcavanagh_nrdc.org(a)en.groundspring.org . Our postal address is 811 1st Ave, #305 Seattle, Washington 98104 United States Phone: (206) 621-0094 Email: nwec(a)nwenergy.org Web: www.nwenergy.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 [View Less]

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] YES!]
by Regina Hendrix 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

I wanted to be sure you saw this.

1 0

FOR THE WORLD'S LARGEST BIRTHDAY CAKE, AN UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF BAKING SODA....
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 06 Dec '07

06 Dec '07

Power Plant CO2 + Sodium Hydroxide = Baking Soda [image: Skyonic_logo]<http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized…>The Skyonic <http://skyonic.com/index.php> SkyMine™ process mineraizes CO2 as sodium carbonate (baking soda) for long-term storage as land or mine fill. It is a post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration technology that works with any large-scale stationary CO2 emitter (e.g.- fossil fueled power plants). The process removes heavy … [View More]metals and acid gasses as well as carbon dioxide from conditioned at-temperature flue gas. Sodium hydroxide, which is produced on site as a part of the SkyMine™ process is used to react with the CO2 to produce the sodium carbonate. The heat to drive the process is captured from the heat in the flue gas. The reaction to produce sodium hydroxide also produces hydrogen and chlorine as byproducts. These chemicals are also "green"; they are produced at low energy and without emitting CO2. >From a CNET report<http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-622012…> : (According to Joe Jones, inventor and founder of the company), because the system captures metals and acid gases, it can replace the $400 million scrubbers that power plants currently have to install. Skyonic's system will probably cost about the same amount as a scrubber. Although the capital budget will be equal, power plant owners will get a salable byproduct and avoid carbon taxes, which may be imposed in the future. A 500-megawatt power plant will produce approximately 338,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Multiply that weight by 1.9 and you get the number of tons of baking soda that the plant will produce. Skyonic claims that since the technology can be retrofitted to existing facilities or designed into new ones, it addresses both the current problem of climate change, and the future demand for cleaner energy to support development. They also claim that a SkyMine™ plant can be operated at a profit, because the hydrogen produced (as well as the chlorine and bicarbonates) have commercial value. SkyMine™ began as an idea scribbled on a cocktail napkin and experiments conducted in the garage. The inventor of the SkyMine™ process, Joe Jones, founded Skyonic in 2005. Skyonic also filed a technology-defining method patent on the SkyMine™ process in 2005. Skyonic performed research and laboratory-scale testing on the process at Southwest Research Institute in 2005 and 2006, and began field testing the process at a coal-burning power plant in Texas later that year. Currently, Skyonic is performing pilot-scale demonstration plant work at Luminant Energy's Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Fairfield, Texas, in real-world conditions. In the second quarter of 2005 the company raised $1.25M from about 10 investors in a Series A preferred stock offering. In 2006 the company concluded a Series B preferred stock offering, raising $3M from 5 investors. One of those investors was TXU Corp (now Energy Future Holdings Corp <http://www.energyfutureholdings.com/about/companies.php>, a private company). The agreement with and investment in Skyonic helped fund an extensive field-test of the technology at Luminant Energy (the generating division of Energy Future Holdings) Big Brown Steam Electric Station to further develop and evaluate Skyonic's SkyMine™ process. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com [View Less]

1 0

WSJ: Emission Caps Hit Snags
by duane330＠aol.com 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

Kyoto's Caps on Emissions Hit Snag in Marketplace U.N. Mulls How to Fix Pollution-Credit System; 'Expecting Too Much' By JEFFREY BALL. Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2007; Page A1 The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to harness market forces to solve global warming. It slapped caps on greenhouse-gas emissions and set up a complex market for companies to trade permits to pollute. But it hasn't yet ignited the green-energy revolution its architects were expecting. The cap-and-trade … [View More]system has brought about useful projects targeting a few especially potent greenhouse gases. It hasn't, however, forced the industrialized world to meaningfully curb what scientists say is the biggest problem of all -- the growing consumption of fossil fuels. Today, diplomats at a big United Nations global-warming conference in Bali, Indonesia, will begin looking for a fix as they open debate on a new global-warming agreement. Also this week, a Senate committee in Washington is scheduled to debate a proposed cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases in the U.S., which opted not to ratify the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty requires the industrialized countries that ratified it to reduce their overall emissions by 5% from 1990 levels. The caps, which expire in 2012, will not go into effect until next year. But participating nations have spent several years scrambling to get ready. The European Union has already instituted caps on its member nations. This has fueled a nascent carbon-permit trading system: Countries and companies that can't meet the new requirements can buy emissions permits from others that can. Trading in permits hit $30 billion last year, according to the World Bank. Yet problems with the system loom large. The world's two biggest energy users, the U.S. and China, aren't subject to emissions caps. Countries that face the caps have been reluctant to push their industries too hard. And industry itself has proved adept at fulfilling its obligations without cutting down much on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. It is doing this largely by funding projects in the developing world that destroy potent but uncommon greenhouse gases. "What has happened is, markets work as markets will do, to find the lowest-cost alternative," says Michael Zammit Cutajar, a Maltese diplomat who during the Kyoto talks was head of the U.N. body that gave birth to the carbon market. The cap-and-trade system was "a brilliant idea," he says, but implementing it has exposed the "tension between the market approach and the sustainable approach." The big question now is how to structure a carbon-trading system that's palatable to the U.S. and to developing countries such as China. The U.S. and China together account for about 40% of emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion, which scientists say is the most common source of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions. That alone dwarfs the 28% share from the countries that did sign up for Kyoto caps, among them Canada, Japan and the nations of the EU, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. The politicians face a dilemma: They want emissions constraints to be tough enough to matter, but loose enough to persuade the U.S. and China to play greater roles. European nations have expressed a willingness to cut emissions deeply, but only if the U.S. does too. The U.S. and China are calling on one another to play ball. The broader question is whether a cap-and-trade system targeting industry is enough to meaningfully curb greenhouse gases. Some favor the introduction of carbon-emission taxes, such as an added tax on gasoline, saying that would push consumers to trim their energy use. Others say even blunter tools are needed, such as tougher government rules on the energy-efficiency of cars and buildings. Industry long has resisted such steps. The current carbon-trading system is producing modest environmental benefits. In Europe and Japan, where the Kyoto emissions caps are set to kick in next year, some companies have begun changing their operations as the effective cost of burning fossil fuel rises. If governments toughen emission caps in coming years, as is expected, the cost will rise further. But progress has been much slower than Kyoto's architects hoped for. Japan's emissions are rising, Canada has backed away from its target, and the EU says it will meet its goal only if member nations get tougher. Scientists say far bigger cuts than those called for in the treaty are needed. But global energy use is expected to rise by 50% by 2030. The U.S. pioneered the concept of harnessing markets to solve environmental problems. In 1995, it imposed a cap-and-trade program to curb power-plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, a pollutant that causes acid rain. Under that program, the federal government gives power plants yearly allocations of permits to emit sulfur dioxide. Power plants that are over the limit have a choice: cut their emissions or buy pollution permits from plants that don't need their entire allocations. The system has reduced U.S. sulfur-dioxide emissions from power plants by about 40% from 1990 levels. It's widely viewed as an environmental and economic success. In the talks leading to the Kyoto treaty, the U.S. argued successfully for using the cap-and-trade model to fight greenhouse gases. But because global warming involves many countries and many gases, solving the problem is far more complicated than addressing acid rain. The Kyoto treaty sets emissions limits for industrialized countries and for the EU, which decided itself how to divide the burden among member countries. Developing nations face no caps. Diplomats decided that it wasn't fair to burden their economies right away with pollution controls, given that the industrialized world had faced no restrictions during decades of growth. It's up to each participating nation to determine which companies to slap restrictions on. After a government sets an emissions limit for a company, it gives that company just enough permits to cover it. Companies that reduce emissions below their caps can sell excess credits to companies that don't have enough. Each company must decide how much to cut emissions and how many permits to buy from others. The EU's cap-and-trade system has been in effect since 2005. It's a dry run for the Kyoto treaty's emissions caps, which go into effect next year and run through 2012. Holcim Ltd., a Swiss cement maker, faces caps. In 2005 and 2006, it didn't need all its permits, so it sold a total of about one million of them for an average of about €11, or about $16, apiece, says Bruno Vanderborght, Holcim's vice president for environmental strategy. This year, Holcim increased cement production and needed to buy about 100,000 permits. Mr. Vanderborght says the company has improved its energy efficiency "slightly" and is looking to improve further. It has also been buying permits from another source: developing nations. The treaty includes a unique mechanism for involving the developing world in the process. Carbon-reduction projects in developing nations generate emissions permits, or credits, which can be sold to companies in industrialized nations facing emissions caps. In effect, these companies can fulfill some of their emission-reduction obligations by financing pollution-control projects in the developing world. The troubles with the system began even before it went into effect. In 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution urging President Clinton not to embrace the Kyoto treaty, and soon after President Bush took office in 2001, he announced he wouldn't support emissions caps because they would be too costly for the economy. That made it tougher for the EU to force stringent emissions caps on its industry. Tough caps would make it harder for European companies to compete against American ones. In 2005, when Europe introduced its first round of caps, it kept them soft. As an added shock absorber, governments and companies began looking hard in the developing world for cheap emissions credits. Kyoto's architects now say they didn't anticipate how the projects in the developing world would suppress efforts to cut back on fossil-fuel use. Under the treaty, projects targeting more potent gases generate more credits than projects targeting carbon dioxide. The treaty covers six kinds of greenhouse gases. At one end of the spectrum is carbon dioxide. It accounts for 77% of all man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, the U.N. says, but it's also the weakest. At the other end is HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of a common refrigerant. Every ton of it is 11,700 times as damaging to the atmosphere as a ton of carbon dioxide, according to the U.N. But despite its high potency, the gas accounts for less than 1% of the effect of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, the U.N. says. Under the Kyoto trading system, each credit represents one "carbon-dioxide-equivalent" ton of avoided emissions. So a project that eliminates one ton of carbon-dioxide emissions generates one sellable credit. A project that gets rid of one ton of HFC-23 emissions generates 11,700. Installing machinery on a refrigerant plant to incinerate HFC-23 is cheap. According to the World Bank, generating one carbon credit through an HFC-23 project typically costs less than $1. Generating a credit from a renewable-energy project -- erecting a wind turbine or a solar panel -- can cost $5 to $10, the World Bank says. Such credits currently sell for as much as €17, or about $25. So the economic incentives to undertake HFC-23 projects have far exceeded those for fossil-fuel reduction projects. During the Kyoto talks, there wasn't much discussion about whether such disparities might focus too much activity on eliminating gases that aren't a big part of the overall problem, according to Mr. Cutajar, the Maltese diplomat who headed the U.N. body. The provision that allows industrialized countries to obtain credits in the developing world was "an add-on" late in the talks, he notes. "The general impression was that low-carbon development was about clean energy," Mr. Cutajar says. "It sounded good. It smelled good. It was only later that the details got worked out." Between 2002, when credits generated in developing countries began trading, and the end of last year, HFC-23 projects accounted for 46% of all developing-world credits traded -- by far the biggest chunk of that market, according to the World Bank. All told, at least 70% of developing-world credits traded during that market's first five years came from projects targeting gases other than carbon dioxide, the World Bank says. At present, most eligible plants that emit HFC-23 have been signed up for carbon-credit projects. As a result, projects targeting less-potent gases are getting more funding. One such gas is methane. It's emitted when animal dung decomposes on farms and when trash rots at landfills. Ton for ton, it's 21 times more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, the U.N. says. That's provided an incentive for two types of popular carbon-credit projects: putting tarps over animal-waste lagoons, and putting pipes in landfills to tap and burn off the methane. Burning methane produces less-potent carbon dioxide. Programs to reduce the burning of fossil fuels -- a far bigger environmental problem -- accounted for less than one-third of the developing-world credits traded between 2002 and last year, the World Bank says. But they have begun getting more attention. The trading system has given birth to an industry of middlemen who arrange projects in developing countries to produce credits. Natsource LLC, a New York-based asset-management firm, manages a roughly $700 million investment fund through which companies, including many Japanese and European utilities, buy carbon credits. Most come from projects targeting the potent but ancillary gases such as HFC-23 and nitrous oxide, a byproduct of nylon production. "Of course the market is going to do the cheaper thing first," says Jack Cogen, Natsource's chief executive officer. "That's what markets do." The World Bank has put together some of the biggest emissions-reduction projects. Karan Capoor, a senior financial specialist at the World Bank, says "it's expecting too much" to think the Kyoto treaty could significantly curb fossil-fuel consumption without long-term caps and the participation of big countries such as the U.S. Some investors in the carbon market cite another reason for the scarcity of clean-energy projects: a panel of U.N.-sanctioned officials who meet periodically in Bonn, Germany, and decide which proposed carbon-reduction projects will get to sell credits. The panel approves only environmental projects it determines wouldn't happen without the sale of the credits. Clearing that bar can be difficult for clean-energy projects. Those related to potent gases such as HFC-23 and methane have an easier time, because they rarely make economic sense without the carbon-credit revenue. U.N. officials say that to keep the system honest, it's important not to subsidize projects that would happen anyway. In 2006, the European Commission, the EU's governing body, reported that the European industry ended 2005 with more permits than it needed to meet caps under the EU's system. That caused the price of European credits to plummet. The commission now is pressuring member governments to tighten their emissions caps, which has pushed prices back up. Eight countries have sued or threatened to sue, arguing the commission is being too stringent. At the U.N. conference in Bali, the price issue is likely to color debate over whether to award carbon credits to projects that preserve forests, which consume carbon dioxide. Kyoto's architects authorized credits for planting new trees. But they declined to allow credits for preserving existing trees. They worried, among other things, that nations might seek credits to preserve trees they have no intention of destroying. Heavily forested nations such as Indonesia and Brazil want to reverse that decision. On Capitol Hill, companies anticipating a U.S. carbon cap are gunning to make it as loose as possible. Duke Energy Corp., the nation's third-biggest coal burner, is one. In October, Duke joined the heads of other big emitters in writing to the head of a Senate committee on the environment. Their letter declared it "critically important" for any cap-and-trade system to set an upper limit on the market price of a carbon permit. That ceiling would rise over time. A system without price controls might force utilities to switch to fuels that are cleaner but costlier than coal. "While a lot of people started down the road romanticizing" the use of emissions caps to fight global warming, says Duke's chief executive, James Rogers, in an interview, they're "now coming to grips with the cold reality of the economics." ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=ao… [View Less]

1 0

FW: DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing for Report and Orders Designating NIETCs
by Grubb, Karen 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

-----Original Message----- From: nietcwebmaster(a)anl.gov [mailto:nietcwebmaster@anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:08 AM To: Grubb, Karen Subject: DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing for Report and Orders Designating NIETCs ************************************************************ National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors ************************************************************ DOE Issues Orders Granting Requests for Rehearing The U.S. Department of … [View More]

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC December 2007