October 2009 - EC - lists.bikelover.org

FW: NYT (Friedman -- While Detroit Slept)
by James Kotcon 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

From my father-in-law. JBK >>> "Bob Elliott" <rdelliott(a)socal.rr.com> 12/12/2008 7:29 AM >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> _____ December 10, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist While Detroit Slept By <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/tho maslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As I think about our bailing out Detroit, I can't help but reflect on what, in my view, is the most important rule of business in today's integrated and digitized global market, where knowledge and innovation tools are so widely distributed. It's this: Whatever can be done, will be done. The only question is will it be done by you or to you. Just don't think it won't be done. If you have an idea in Detroit or Tennessee, promise me that you'll pursue it, because someone in Denmark or Tel Aviv will do so a second later. Why do I bring this up? Because someone in the mobility business in Denmark and Tel Aviv is already developing a real-world alternative to Detroit's business model. I don't know if this alternative to gasoline-powered cars will work, but I do know that it can be done - and Detroit isn't doing it. And therefore it will be done, and eventually, I bet, it will be done profitably. And when it is, our bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into a book-store chain on the eve of the birth of Amazon.com and the Kindle. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the Internet. What business model am I talking about? It is Shai Agassi's electric car network company, called Better Place. Just last week, the company, based in Palo Alto, Calif., announced a partnership with the state of Hawaii to road test its business plan there after already inking similar deals with Israel, Australia, the San Francisco Bay area and, yes, Denmark. The Better Place electric car charging system involves generating electrons from as much renewable energy - such as wind and solar - as possible and then feeding those clean electrons into a national electric car charging infrastructure. This consists of electricity charging spots with plug-in outlets - the first pilots were opened in Israel this week - plus battery-exchange stations all over the respective country. The whole system is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the billing. Under the Better Place model, consumers can either buy or lease an electric car from the French automaker Renault or Japanese companies like Nissan (General Motors snubbed Agassi) and then buy miles on their electric car batteries from Better Place the way you now buy an Apple cellphone and the minutes from AT&T. That way Better Place, or any car company that partners with it, benefits from each mile you drive. G.M. sells cars. Better Place is selling mobility miles. The first Renault and Nissan electric cars are scheduled to hit Denmark and Israel in 2011, when the whole system should be up and running. On Tuesday, Japan's Ministry of Environment invited Better Place to join the first government-led electric car project along with Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru. Better Place was the only foreign company invited to participate, working with Japan's leading auto companies, to build a battery swap station for electric cars in Yokohama, the Detroit of Japan. What I find exciting about Better Place is that it is building a car company off the new industrial platform of the 21st century, not the one from the 20th - the exact same way that Steve Jobs did to overturn the music business. What did Apple understand first? One, that today's technology platform would allow anyone with a computer to record music. Two, that the Internet and MP3 players would allow anyone to transfer music in digital form to anyone else. You wouldn't need CDs or record companies anymore. Apple simply took all those innovations and integrated them into a single music-generating, purchasing and listening system that completely disrupted the music business. What Agassi, the founder of Better Place, is saying is that there is a new way to generate mobility, not just music, using the same platform. It just takes the right kind of auto battery - the iPod in this story - and the right kind of national plug-in network - the iTunes store - to make the business model work for electric cars at six cents a mile. The average American is paying today around 12 cents a mile for gasoline transportation, which also adds to global warming and strengthens petro-dictators. Do not expect this innovation to come out of Detroit. Remember, in 1908, the Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, G.M. and Chrysler models made in 2008. But don't be surprised when it comes out of somewhere else. It can be done. It will be done. If we miss the chance to win the race for Car 2.0 because we keep mindlessly bailing out Car 1.0, there will be no one to blame more than Detroit's new shareholders: we the taxpayers. _____ Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try <http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000 010> it now.

3 2

Fwd: Click on your state below to find out what the Beyond Coal campaign is doing near you.
by Paul Wilson 30 Oct '09

30 Oct '09

click on the link below. pretty cool. paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <baumling(a)aol.com> Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM Subject: Click on your state below to find out what the Beyond Coal campaign is doing near you. To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM(a)lists.sierraclub.org Please check out and circulate this really cool new feature on our homepage: state based beyond coal information. http://sierraclub.org/coal/ Verena - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Re: [EC] new film on gas drilling
by Paul Wilson 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

BullFrog Films just announced the release of the film "Split Estate" which maps a tragedy in the making as citizens in the path of a new drilling boom in the West struggle against the erosion of their civil liberties. You can find more info at their website: www.bullfrogfilms.com cheers, paul -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

2 1

Staff files to ask PSC to reject PATH
by James Kotcon 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

Earlier today, I got a call from a reporter asking for response to the above filing. The PSC Staff has filed a motion asking the PSC to dismiss the PATH application because the Maryland terminus is now in doubt, and we would be asked to evaluate an incomplete proposal. I told the reporter that I think the PSC got it right and I would be consulting our attorneys about supporting the Staff Motion to Dismiss. Whaddya Tink? JBK

4 5

Re: [EC] Fw: NEWS: Experts Raise Concerns About New Transmission Line from Coal Country to Eastern Grid
by Jim Sconyers 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Tue, 10/27/09, Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: Fw: NEWS: Experts Raise Concerns About New Transmission Line from Coal Country to Eastern Grid To: CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 1:39 PM Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax) ----- Forwarded by Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub on 10/27/2009 10:39 AM ----- Brian Smith <bsmith(a)earthjustice.org> 10/27/2009 10:27 AM To "'Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org'" <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org>, Abigail Dillen <adillen(a)earthjustice.org>, Virginia Cramer <virginia.cramer(a)sierraclub.org> cc Subject NEWS: Experts Raise Concerns About New Transmission Line from Coal Country to Eastern Grid FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 27, 2009 Contact: Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club 804-225-9113 x 102 Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice 212-791-1881 x221 Experts Raise Concerns About New Transmission Line from Coal Country to Eastern Grid PATH would make grid less reliable, increase air pollution RICHMOND, VA -- In the latest of a series of setbacks for the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH), engineering, air and electric experts submitted testimony finding that (contrary to developer claims) the line would actually make the eastern grid less reliable and lead to increased air pollution. Proposed by American Electric Power (AEP) and Allegheny Power, PATH is a high-voltage transmission line which would be constructed through West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland, at a cost of more than $1.8 billion to ratepayers. The experts, testifying on behalf of the Sierra Club, include George Loehr and Hyde Merrill, nationally renowned electric experts, Chris James of Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (a former EPA employee and Director of Air Planning for Connecticut), and Robert Fagan, also of Synapse, a mechanical engineer and energy economics expert. Their testimony concludes that the line is not needed; that cheaper, simpler alternatives are available; and that “[r]ather than increase reliability, PATH would actually make it worse.” “It’s like running an extension cord down the block to plug your toaster into a neighbor’s outlet rather than plugging it into an outlet in your own kitchen,” said George Loehr. If PATH is constructed, he testified, “major East Coast cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington and Richmond would become more vulnerable to interruptions and blackouts, either from natural phenomena or from terrorist attacks” on transmission lines. The expert testimony also validated concerns raised by environmental and community groups about increased pollution from coal-fired power plants. Chris James, an expert with over 20 years of experience in state and federal air programs, determined that air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions would increase as a result of PATH, making it more difficult for Virginia, Washington D.C., and Baltimore to meet air quality standards, and contributing to eastern smog and haze. He explained that because electricity garners a higher price on the east coast, PATH would provide an incentive-- and an opportunity-- for coal-fired power plants in West Virginia and the Midwest to increase their output and sell more electricity to east coast cities. Increased pollution would follow. “PATH is a boondoggle for ratepayers and a gift to coal companies,” said Abigail Dillen of Earthjustice. “We urgently need a smart electric grid that supports wind power and other clean energy projects, but AEP and Allegheny Energy are trying to sell us on lines that will only help dirty old coal plants to ramp up profits – and pollution.” “We keep hearing from AEP and Allegheny the mantra that this line will shore up our electrical grid and is desperately needed to keep the lights on. Now we have a clear, documented explanation of why that’s not true,” said Elena Saxonhouse, with the Sierra Club. The expert testimony was submitted by the Sierra Club as part of formal proceedings before the Virginia State Corporation Commission. The Commission has the authority to approve or deny PATH in the state. The Commission is accepting public comment until January 12, 2010, hearings begin January 19, and a decision is expected sometime before May 2010. Sierra Club is represented in the Virginia PATH proceedings by the non-profit law firm, Earthjustice. The Club is also a party in the Maryland and West Virginia PATH proceedings and expects to submit similar expert testimony in those states. Additional Materials: Proposed PATH route http://www.pathtransmission.com/maps/pdf/WV_Publication_Map_3-30.pdf Full testimony George Loehr http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/loehr-testimony.pdf Hyde Merrill http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/merrill-testimony.pdf Chris James http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/james-testimony.pdf Robert Fagan http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/fagan-testimony.pdf

1 0

POWERSHIFT 2009, MARSHALL'S GREEN FEE AND PROGRAMS...and an idea for future Ex Comm meetings
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

This is a spin off of Sierrafest, which I still consider the most successful event the SC has held since I've been on the Ex Comm, admittedly not very long. Kevin Fooce and I met Erin Chalmers and Danny Chiotos at Sierra Fest. Erin is the person presently in charge of the Sierra Student U at Marshall. She led the effort to adopt a "green" fee -- $5 tacked on to each student's tuition and the initial effort to get the greening process going. Danny Chiotos is located in Charleston and works with the Student Energy Action Coalition. At Sierra Fest, both Erin and Danny invited Kevin and me to come to "Powershift 2009" <http://appalachia.powershift09.org/> which is/was (good faith effort to intuit here) a three-day set of workshops covering a whole range of stuff, but energy efficiency and the environment pervaded them all. It was located in Huntington but was the Appalachian regional event of what has in the past apparently been a national event focused on Washington, DC. As an Appalachian event it attracted presenters and attendees from WV, KY, TN and environs. Kevin brought a pile of Sierra Club material, and I paid an artist on site 20 bucks to make a "Sierra Club" sign to put on a table, forwhich we paid a hundred bucks. At that table or later we met students active in environmental groups at Marshall, Wheeling Jesuit, WV State Univ, and Shepherdstown. One idea that emerged from the day was to use the Marshall "greening" exercise as a model for other schools, and as a bridge to merging the efforts at those schools with our efforts generally. THE "MARSHALL TEMPLATE" Lauren Kemp is the current leader of the SSU at Marshall. She related that the $5 green fee has generated a green budget that funds 12+/- jobs on campus, 9 of which are student jobs. In addition to the $5 green fee, Marshall's SSU apparently applied for and got a $60,000 grant from WV's much (and deservedly) maligned DEP...to buy recycling units that are just now being distributed all over the campus, and for a series of "hydration stations" -- free filtered water that is also distributed over the campus. The 9 students with green jobs collect the contents of the recycling bins daily at a central compactor where it is picked up once a month. Trash collection for the school has dropped from 2 X per week to once every two weeks. The hydration stations aren't up and running yet but they are coming shortly. While Lauren was explaining this to Kevin at the Sierra table, Sarah Elliott from WV State was telling me about the difficulty she and others experienced at State getting the campus people to even listen to them about recycling. When I brought up the idea of creating a web page to "capture" the Marshall experience for other schools she made the point that they need to do it simply to pass on to next year's and the year after's students the institutional memory of what had already happened at Marshall, so they could go forward. At lunch Bri Clark of Wheeling Jesuit also explained that they had had great difficulty getting recycling listened to by the administration there. She was more than receptive to the idea of a "model" to follow, like at Marshall. Calvin Smith of WVU -- to date our model of a great student group led by some guy named Coatsun, or something weird, -- said WVU needed to learn how to get a green fee adopted also. Anis Elkharroupi of Sheperdstown was interested in pursuing it also, with a slightly optimitic view of passing a $75 green fee, exactly equal to the athletic fee there. I've asked about have a dozen or so of these students to come to the Nov 7 ex comm meeting in Lewisburg. I don't know if any or all will, but it strikes me that there is more than a kernel of an idea here, and it follows: 1. Capture the Marshall "green" fee and program experience on line. Make it available to schools throughout the state for sure, but also make it a WIKI-like page that can be edited by users to capture and share the greening experiences at schools elsewhere. 2. Continue to make connections with the student leaders/participants in SSU 3. Help finance the efforts of SSU's to start a greening program at their campus, possibly with funds from the Longview settlement) 4. Start holding our Ex Comm meetings on campuses in order to engage students. This would require that we: A. Greatly reduce the amount of time we spend on administrative matters and reading reports we've already distributed B. Move the locations of Ex Comm meetings from homes of members to campuses across the state, hopefully greatly diversifying our reach C. Maybe increase meetings to every other month to make it possible to get to more schools, like Marshall, WV State, Sheperdstown, West Virginia Wesleyan, Wheeling Jesuit, Concord SEE LIST OF <http://www.wvicu.org/member.cfm>SCHOOLS AND LINKS TO THEIR WEB PAGES HERE<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_West_Virg…> D. Accepting the real prospect of change in the way we go about our business and where we spend out time and effort -- to accommodate the interests of students which are not always going to be in sync with our own --- altho there is just as much opportunity to influence their interests. 5. The ultimate objective would be to greatly expand our numbers and effect state-wide. In essence, we will be erasing the line between "us" (old farts with whiter hair who've gone square in the head and round in the belly) and "them" (young whipper snappers who think they know it all and have had life handed to them on a silver platter only because the ever brilliant "we" did all the heavy lifting decades ago - PLEASE NOTE POSITION OF TONGUE -- YEAH -- IN MOUTH) 6. We've talked about increasing membership exponentially...I see no better opportunity to do that than the low hanging fruit right in front of our eyes. 7. I'd like this item - *RESTRUCTURING AND RELOCATING EX COMM MEETINGS* -- to be added to the Agenda for our Nov 7 meeting. Bill -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

3 2

WSJ.com - Obama to Name 'Smart Grid' Projects
by william.depaulo＠gmail.com 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

*Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. You have received the following link from william.depaulo(a)gmail.com ******************** If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email. Title: WSJ.com - Obama to Name 'Smart Grid' Projects This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed. Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMail… Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link: http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFromE… Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMailT… ******************** Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the EMAIL THIS button to your browser, copy and paste the following into your Web browser: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserButtons&…" ********************* Instructions: ----------------------------------------- If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web addresses: 1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address above. Be sure to highlight the entire Web address, even if it spans more than one line in your email. 2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of your screen. 3. Launch your Web browser. 4. Paste the address into your Web browser by selecting Paste from the Edit menu. 5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your keyboard. ********************

1 0

SIERRA TESTIMONY IN VA PATH CASE
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 24 Oct '09

24 Oct '09

Attached is the testimony from the Sierra Club electric experts filed in VA SCC (PSC equivalent) Friday. The Loehr document is 52 pages, Fagan's is 259. More will follow. The testimony is, frankly, brilliant and any fair reader would conclude that PATH is totally unnecessary for any legitimate electric need. Bill -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email. -- 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 This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this email.

1 0

Re: [EC] TransGas Public Notice
by James Kotcon 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

A draft permit for the Mingo County Coal-To-Liquids facility was issued by WV-DEP. Public comments on the draft are due Nov. 30. JBK >>> <Andrea.Issod(a)sierraclub.org> 10/22/2009 2:39 PM >>> Mingo draft permit has issued, comments are due Nov. 30th. We're working on it. "Kessler, Joseph R" <Joseph.R.Kessler(a)wv.gov> 10/22/2009 11:29 AM To <andrea.issod(a)sierraclub.org> cc Subject TransGas Public Notice Andrea, please see attached letter (hardcopy will follow). The information can be found here ( http://www.wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=8&ss1id=980 ). Thanks Joe Kessler, PE Engineer West Virginia Division of Air Quality 601-57th St., SE Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0499 x1219 Fax: (304) 926-0478 Joseph.r.kessler(a)wv.gov

1 0

Fw: TAKE ACTION: Suspend Illegal Rubber Stamping of Mountaintop Removal Permits
by Jim Sconyers 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

This is the "nationwide" permit that gives the coal companies new permits with little or no evaluation/analysis. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Earthjustice Alerts <action(a)earthjustice.org> wrote: From: Earthjustice Alerts <action(a)earthjustice.org> Subject: TAKE ACTION: Suspend Illegal Rubber Stamping of Mountaintop Removal Permits To: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 6:32 PM Tell Army Corps of Engineers: Suspend Illegal Rubber Stamping of Mountaintop Removal Permits Tell Army Corps of Engineers: Suspend Illegal Rubber Stamping of Mountaintop Removal Permits The Army Corps of Engineers needs to hear from you by Monday, Oct. 26 to close a loophole that is devastating Appalachia. Submit your comment at Regulations.gov! Dear Jim, For decades, mountaintop removal mining has devastated local communities, the economy, and the streams and headwaters of Appalachia. Entire mountain ranges have been razed as coal companies found loopholes in the law to streamline their destructive mountaintop removal mining permits. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers is finally considering that "Nationwide Permits"—a streamlined approval process—are not intended to authorize the devastation happening at mountaintop removal sites. The Corps' plan to suspend and modify "Nationwide Permit 21" will stop the rubber stamping of mountaintop removal permits and lead to better scrutiny of the environmental impacts of this mining practice. Strong public support—your support—is needed now to eliminate the NWP 21 loophole. Just last week, coal companies and their cronies shut out coalfield residents in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia from public hearings on the Army Corps' plan. Violence and threats kept many people from even having a chance to speak. You only have until Monday, Oct. 26 to tell the Army Corps that its plan to repeal the one-size-fits-all approach of NWP 21 is good news for the people, streams, and mountains of Appalachia. Please act today. Tell the Army Corps that its plan to stop using NWP 21 is the right move. Let them know you support stronger environmental protections for the mountains, rivers, streams and people of Appalachia: How to Take Action You must submit your comment on the Army Corps of Engineers' plan at Regulations.gov, the official source for U.S. government regulations and related documents. Click on the button below to access the Army Corps of Engineers' comment form. Or, copy and paste this link into your browser: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480… Fill in the comment form. If you don't see the form, search for the Army Corps of Engineers' notice using document ID "COE-2009-0032-0346". Here is a sample letter you can use: Your proposal to modify and suspend Nationwide Permit 21 is a good step towards protecting the waters, mountains, and communities of Appalachia. I agree with your assessment that NWP 21 "has been used to authorize surface coal mining activities that involve discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States that have resulted in adverse environmental impacts that may be more than minimal on a cumulative basis." The proposed modification would enhance environmental protection by requiring surface coal mining projects to apply for individual permits under the Clean Water Act. This will allow for increased public and agency involvement, including public comment periods. I also support the proposed suspension to NWP 21 to allow comments to be reviewed and evaluated. Ultimately, the use of NWP 21 to permit valley fills and stream destruction must end completely. The impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining are significant and permanent. The Army Corps should not issue any additional authorizations under NWP 21, and past authorizations should be reviewed under the Clean Water Act. Please modify and suspend NWP 21 to protect Appalachia's environment and community. Click on the "Submit" button at the bottom of the form, and your comment will be delivered. Thank you for taking the time to make sure that your voice is heard! Drop us a note to let us know that you took action! To get started, click on the button below: — Earthjustice Because the earth needs a good lawyer ©2009 Earthjustice | 426 17th Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510-550-6700 | action(a)earthjustice.org Alert Tools Photo Credit: Top left: Mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. (Credit: Vivian Stockman/OVEC) Bottom: Mountaintop removal operations at Kayford Mountain, West Virgina. (Credit: Mark Schmerling) View online: Having trouble viewing this email? View it in a browser. Links: If you cannot click on the links in this email, copy this link to your browser to access the comment form: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480… This email was delivered to you by Earthjustice. Update your personal information or remove your email address from Earthjustice's email list through your Subscription Management Page or by emailing Earthjustice. Powered by:

1 0

Fwd: Re: Mingo Co. Waste Wood Power Plant
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 23 Oct '09

23 Oct '09

1 0

Fw: VA SCC staff moves to dismiss application
by James Kotcon 21 Oct '09

21 Oct '09

To summarize, on Sept. 9, the Maryland PSC dismissed the PATH application in Maryland, ruling that PATH was not an electric company under Maryland state law. They gave Allegheny's subsidiary in Maryland, Potomac Edison, 30 days to re-file with an appropriate application. On Oct. 9, Potomac Edison responded by saying they were still reviewing their options with regard to a new plan for an eastern terminus to PATH, essentially declining to respond to the Maryland PSC. On Oct. 19, the Staff from the Virginia State Corporations Commission filed the attached motion asking the Virginia SCCC to dismiss the application, because there was no eastern terminus and no clear way to analyze a route without knowing where it would end. The WV PSC Staff attorney has said that the WV proceedings are "still right on track". Would it make sense to file a motion asking the WV-PSC to "toll" the proceedings until an eastern terminus is identified? We are entering a very expensive portion of the proceedings, and it seems unfair to ask intervenors to hire experts to analyze a route, then have PATH switch routes at the last second. Alternatively, would this be an argument for PATH to pay the expert witness fees for intervenors? PATH will have unlimited resources from ratepayers, plus 14 % on everything they spend, while intervenors are now being bled dry before we even know where the line will go. Whaddya Tink? Jim Kotcon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Young" <fyoung(a)mountain.net> Maybe the PATH companies figure that the way to break up the opposition is to have them spend their resources on a case that might be withdrawn, or thrown out by the WV PSC, then re-file later after the spirit (and the bank accounts) of the opposition are broken. And either way PATH still gets that 14 percent profit on their costs- win or lose. “Heads we win; tails you lose.” ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy S. Williams ( mailto:nancyswms@suddenlink.net ) To: s channell ( mailto:rchannell@verizon.net ) Cc: WVaPATH ( mailto:WVaPATH@yahoogroups.com ) Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [WVaPATH] message to intervenors It is big news, but as Joe Watkins with the WV-PSC said today,"We are still right on track." --- On Mon, 10/19/09, Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: VA SCC staff moves to dismiss application To: CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 3:35 PM Big news in Virginia (see below). The staff attorney filing the motion also stated: Please note that the filing of our motion does not alter the procedural schedule. All events remain scheduled until the hearing examiner or the Commission alter the schedule by entry of an order or ruling. While we have requested expedited consideration, I cannot predict when the motion will be addressed. ----- Forwarded by Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub on 10/19/2009 12:32 PM ----- A major development -- the Staff has just moved to dismiss the pATH application in VA on grounds that it is unclear where the line will end given the status of the Maryland proceedings. Abigail Dillen Staff Attorney* Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10038 (212) 791-1881 ext. 221 Fax: (212) 918-1556 *Admitted in California and Montana. Not admitted in New York - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

3 2

Re: [EC] Dunkard Creek, Mon Water quality
by Beth Little 20 Oct '09

20 Oct '09

Jim, At the Water Resources Committee meeting in Charleston last Thursday listening to Mandirola and Frank Jernejcic (sp?) and seeing their presentation about Dunkard Creek with maps of the mine pools underlying the region of southwestern PA and northwestern WV, I was struck with a thought that no one has mentioned. Actually it occurred to me on the way home. They did not seem inclined to pursue where the algae came from or how it got in Dunkard Creek; they said we may never know. And that may be true. But this is where my thoughts ran. The mine pools underlying this entire area are connected - not only by seeps, but they are actually being pumped from one to another. They also have seeps into the creeks and rivers in the area. Instead of the original suspicion that the algae got into Dunkard with wastewater from well drilling by Texas companies that contaminated the water with their drilling equipment from Texas, suppose the algae was introduced into the mine pools from wells drilled through them. In this case, every body of water in the area is at extreme risk, and control may be virtually impossible. Mandirola and/or Frank also talked about the conditions that the algae need to survive. Besides TDS, Ph is a big one, but I don't remember the specifics. I have emailed Frank for the details. My suggestion for how to proceed would be that all streams that are remotely threatened be brought to conditions that would prevent survival of the golden algae. Frank talked about how the normal green algae would out compete the golden algae in "normal" conditions for our area. So he would be a good resource. Of course, with drainage from the mine pools, controlling conditions in the threatened streams may not be possible. I wish I could be there. Keep me posted. You know this is starting to bump up against the group that is working on gas drilling, and you might want to be in on our calls. We have one coming up on Tues, and Dunkard Creek is one of our leading topics right now. Let me know if you want to be added to the call list. Jim S, Cindy Rank, Frank Jernejcic and about 30 others are on it, but 8 to 10 is about how many actually call in. _____ From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of James Kotcon Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:27 PM To: ec(a)osenergy.org Cc: aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org; dteaney(a)appalachian-center.org; Joe Lovett; Cindy RANK; Sandy Cress Subject: Re: [EC] Dunkard Creek, Mon Water quality Attached and below are some recent articles about the fish kill in Dunkard Creek. This is emerging as a major issue, and any suggestions for how to proceed would be welcome. Some local activists are meeting Monday at 11:45 at Zen Clay in Morgantown (join us if you can), but any ideas from anywhere would be appreciated. My initial perception is that the fish kill is simply a symptom of the long-running lack of enforcement by DEP, and the Club's current legal action is already addressing those issues. But those will take years, and we really need to be coming up with solutions before this stuff spreads. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> "Donald C. Strimbeck" <dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> 10/18/2009 9:03 AM >>> Later this week we will put out email re next MRR&CC meeting, and, next Water Quality Forum. Pasted below is today's Dominion Post article, which is also attached. Also attached is info from Duane Nichols re other news stories. Attachments are in MICROSOFT compatibility 97-2003 format. DUNKARD CREEK-DP-18OctY2K9 Front page Morgantown Dominion Post Sunday 18 October 2009: <http://olive.dominionpost.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RFBvc3QvMjAwOS8xMC8xOCN BcjAwMTAx&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom> http://olive.dominionpost.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=RFBvc3QvMjAwOS8xMC8xOCNB cjAwMTAx&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom 21 streams at risk for fish kill algae 7 Mon creeks on watch list BY DAVID BEARD The Dominion Post The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) fears 21 other state streams have conditions conducive for growth of the same Dunkard Creek fishkill algae. During an interim meeting last week, the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on State Water Resources also learned: The golden algae toxins killed the fish and mussels, but no one yet knows how the algae got there. Legislative action may be needed to control the conditions that could lead to future outbreaks. The puzzle has to be solved before fish can be returned to Dunkard Creek. As investigators learned what makes the algae thrive, particularly the total dissolved solids (organic and inorganic minerals, salts, metals and other matter), Scott Mandirola of the West Virginia DEP said, they began asking, "What other streams are potentially affected by this?" They compiled a list of 21 waterways of about 10 miles or more in length that had the right "conductivity," a measure of the flow of electric current that reflects TDS levels. "Those streams are now identified as being potentially at risk if these algae were allowed to spread," he said. Frank Jernejcic, District 1 fisheries biologist for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) identified seven of them, besides Dunkard, as being in this area - the Monongahela River drainage basin: Buffalo Creek, Elk Creek, Bingamon Creek, Paw Paw Creek, Pyles Fork, Indian Creek and Dents Run. Jernejcic told the commission that the algae outbreak has eliminated about 99 percent of the fish along the 30-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in West Virginia. The kill destroyed 18 species of fish and 14 species of mussels - all the mussels in the creek - he said. He didn't have information on the extent of the fish kill in the Pennsylvania portion of the creek. The Pennsylvania DEP referred questions to Eric Levis, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, who did not return calls placed over the course of two days. Investigators search for algae source Mandirola told the legislators that the golden algae, known as Prymnesium parvum, first appeared in Texas in 1985. It mainly kills fish and, unlike red tide, isn't harmful to humans. Experts analyzed some of the dead fish, he said, and confirmed algae toxins killed them - affecting the livers and gills most severely. Investigators know the algae likes brackish water, and that Dunkard has the conditions - the right acid levels and high total dissolved solids (TDS), including sulfates and chlorides (salt) - that favor golden algae growth. But, Jernejcic said, "why it's there, how it got there and what caused it to reach the levels ... that would have caused the fish kill" is still a mystery. The golden algae is a symptom - they haven't gotten to the cause. "We believe with confidence that it's golden algae toxins that are killing the fish," Mandirola said. "They like the environment that's there. We need to see what we can do about the environment. "They've not come up with a clean, easy way to get rid of it," he said. "The best approach is to learn how to live with it and learn how to control what it doesn't like. If you can make the environment unfavorable ... they won't be able to produce the toxin, they won't be able to bloom and they won't cause the problems." Helen Humphreys, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania DEP, said her agency is continuing to collect information so it can come to its own conclusion about the cause. "The algae needs a brackish, salty environment to thrive," she said. "Dunkard Creek is a freshwater stream, but high TDS levels have made it salty. So, where is it coming from?" Investigators said they think it may possibly be linked to mine drainage, which is associated with high TDS levels, especially during low flow times, when rainwater isn't diluting the discharge. Tests show high TDS levels in the Dunkard as far upstream as St. Leo, near the mouth of the South Fork tributary, southwest of Wadestown near the Marion County border. There is a mine drainage pool in this area, and at a point above a beaver dam, above the drainage pond, the algae cell count drops dramatically. And other mine pools drain into the Dunkard in both states. Legislation may be needed to get solids under control Getting TDS levels under control is part of the answer, and legislation may be needed, several people said. "How long are we going to keep going before we say, 'Let's draw a line in the sand?' " Jernejcic said after the meeting. Asked if it would require legislative action, he said, "I suspect." Dr. Duane Nichols, a water expert, retired WVU professor and member of the Upper Monongahela River Association, gave his opinion to the commission: "We have called for water quality standards. ... We need a statewide standard for total dissolved solids." Delegate Tim Manchin, D-Marion and co-chairman of the commission, said legislation may involve "a couple avenues." One could be adopting overall stream quality regulations regarding factors related to chlorides (salt) and TDS. Pennsylvania already has some TDS standards, he said. Another could involve implementing some treatment measures for mine drainage. "How much discharge do you allow?" he asked. Beyond that, he said, "At what point does this start having an impact on our economic community?" Right now, he said, commissioners are trying to bring themselves up to speed so they'll be ready if and when the DEP brings forth proposed legislation. Pennsylvania and West Virginia DEP officials have credited CONSOL Energy with being cooperative during the investigation. Consol has ceased discharges from mine pools along the creek while investigators study the cause. Humphreys said the Pennsylvania DEP believes discharge from the Blacksville No. 1 and Blacksville No. 2 mines could have contributed to the high TDS and chloride levels, according to a letter the department sent to CONSOL dated Oct. 7. In the letter, the Pennsylvania DEP requested information about the various mine pools in the Dunkard Creek watershed and how they are connected. The Pennsylvania DEP also requested copies of all of CONSOL's discharge monitoring reports for the Blacksville No. 2 mine and copies of the company's permits and permit applications, among other things. Humphreys said the Pennsylvania DEP would review the information from CONSOL, once the company sent it. The Pennsylvania DEP also sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this month, asking the agency to revoke an Underground Injection Control permit that allows CNX Gas Co. - a subsidiary of CONSOL - to inject wastewater into the Morris Run Borehole at the inactive Blacksville No. 1 mine. The permit allows CONSOL to dispose of up to 150,000 barrels per month of coal-bed methane wastewater, which contains up to? 25,000 milligrams per liter of TDS, according to the letter. EPA spokesman David Sternberg said the agency is evaluating the letter and is preparing a response to it. Sternberg said he did not know when the response would be mailed. CONSOL voluntarily stopped injecting the wastewater into the borehole Oct. 2. Donald C. Strimbeck, Sec/Treas Upper Mon River Assoc UpperMon.org Vice Chair, Mon River Rec & Comm Com MonRiverSummit.org 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Granville WV 26534-0519 304-599-7585 (fax 4131) dcsoinks(a)comcast.net No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2444 - Release Date: 10/18/09 09:04:00

4 4

King Coal Can't Intimidate Us
by Jim Sconyers 18 Oct '09

18 Oct '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Sun, 10/18/09, Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club <membership.services(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club <membership.services(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: King Coal Can't Intimidate Us To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Date: Sunday, October 18, 2009, 12:32 PM Sierra Club #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 .normal, #yiv1124586513 , #yiv1124586513 p, #yiv1124586513 td, #yiv1124586513 tr, #yiv1124586513 h1, #yiv1124586513 h2, #yiv1124586513 h3, #yiv1124586513 h4, #yiv1124586513 h5, #yiv1124586513 h6, #yiv1124586513 ul, #yiv1124586513 li, #yiv1124586513 div, #yiv1124586513 input, #yiv1124586513 textarea, #yiv1124586513 option, #yiv1124586513 select { font-family:verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-style:normal;} #yiv1124586513 .normal, #yiv1124586513 , #yiv1124586513 p, #yiv1124586513 td, #yiv1124586513 tr, #yiv1124586513 li, #yiv1124586513 div, #yiv1124586513 input, #yiv1124586513 textarea, #yiv1124586513 option, #yiv1124586513 select {font-size:12px;} #yiv1124586513 .normal {color:#000000;} #yiv1124586513 {background-color:#ffffff;} #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 a {color:#333366;} #yiv1124586513 a:visited {color:#666666;} #yiv1124586513 a:hover {color:#3333ff;} #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 .blackborder {border-color:#000000;} #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 .smalltext {font-size:10px;} #yiv1124586513 .verysmalltext {font-size:9px;} #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 H1, #yiv1124586513 .header { font-size:14px;color:#000000;font-weight:700;} #yiv1124586513 .issueheader { margin-bottom:5px;color:#669900;} #yiv1124586513 #yiv1124586513 H2, #yiv1124586513 .subtitle { font-size:12px;color:#669900;font-weight:700; } View a web version of this email. Dear Jim, Last Chance to Submit Comments Opposing Streamlined Permits for Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining! Last week the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) held 6 hearings on its proposal to end streamlined mountaintop removal coal mining permits in Appalachia. The clean energy proponents who turned out at the Kentucky and West Virginia hearings were verbally and physically threatened by the pro-coal faction and were removed before the hearing by police for "security reasons."1 We can’t let King Coal silence the opposition to mountaintop removal coal mining--send a comment to the Corps supporting an end to streamlined permits before the October 26th deadline. Coal companies are telling the people of Appalachia that projects polluting their water sources and destroying their mountains are critical to their economy. But the truth is that mountaintop removal coal mining costs state budgets more than it generates, and other types of mining already employ more Appalachian workers.2 It's time to end the lies. The Corps needs to hear the truth from you today. If you listen to the coal companies, then you might believe that mountaintop removal coal mining is critical to keeping energy prices low. The truth is that ending mountaintop removal would have a negligible effect on electricity prices in the eastern United States, where mountaintop removal coal is currently burned.3 Coal companies don’t just want to keep you in the dark about the abundance of cost-effective alternatives to mountaintop removal coal, they want to keep using this destructive practice that actually destroys the mountains and valleys necessary to develop clean energy sources like wind, small-scale hydropower, and solar.4 Turning to clean energy will benefit Appalachia's economy and protect its communities, and the first step is ending the streamlined permits for mountaintop removal coal mining projects that are standing in the way. Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment. Mary Anne Hitt Sierra Club Big Picture Campaign P.S. Please forward this message and help spread the word to your friends and family! [1] Check out Sierra Club Beyond Coal Director Bruce Nilles’ blog on the hearings and the video of clean energy activists being harassed outside of the West Virginia hearing. [2-4] Read more about how studies show mountaintop removal coal mining costs local economies more than it provides. (pdf) If you do not wish to receive future emails like this, click here to be removed from this type of email contact. Update My Profile | Manage My Email Preferences | Update My Interests Sierra Club 85 Second St. San Francisco, CA 94105

1 0

Re: [EC] NY Times editorial Shale and Our Water
by Paul Wilson 18 Oct '09

18 Oct '09

October 17, 2009 New York Times Editorial Shale and Our Water New York State’s environmental regulators have proposed rules to govern drilling in the Marcellus Shale — a subterranean layer of rock curving northward from West Virginia through Ohio and Pennsylvania to New York’s southern tier. The shale contains enormous deposits of natural gas that could add to the region’s energy supplies and lift New York’s upstate economy. If done carefully — and in carefully selected places — drilling should cause minimal environmental harm. But regulators must amend the rules to bar drilling in the New York City watershed: a million acres of forests and farmlands whose streams supply the reservoirs that send drinking water to eight million people. Accidental leaks could threaten public health and require a filtration system the city can ill afford. Natural gas is vital to the nation’s energy needs and can be an important bridge between dirty coal and renewable alternatives. The process of extracting it, however, is not risk-free. Known as hydraulic fracturing, it involves shooting a mix of water, sand and chemicals — many of them highly toxic — into the ground at very high pressure to break down the rock formations and free the gas. The technique is used in 90 percent of the oil and gas operations in the United States. And while most drilling occurs without incident, “fracking” has been implicated in hundreds of cases of impaired or polluted drinking water supplies in states from Alabama to Wyoming. The dangers are particularly acute in the Marcellus Shale, which, unlike the relatively shallow formations found elsewhere, lies miles underground. Getting the gas out will require far more water and heavy doses of chemicals. While the rules would require drillers to take special precautions in the watershed, there are too many points — from the delivery of the fluid to the drilling site to the removal of spent fluid after it surfaces — where poisoned water could escape into the water supplies. Quarantining the watershed also makes economic sense. The shale contains only one-tenth of the gas in the southern tier. One big accident could undo everything the city and state have done — buying up property, creating buffer zones around the reservoirs — to protect the watershed from development and pollution. State officials worry that if they deny landowners the right to lease the mineral resources under their property — 70 percent of the watershed is privately owned — they will face expensive “takings” claims. But the state has a right and responsibility to prevent drilling that poses a clear danger to public health. The state insists it has made a good-faith effort to assess the hazards, and its 800-page report is replete with scientific analysis. But it is the state’s analysis. What the state has not done, and what it must do, is give those who have serious doubts about drilling in the watershed a fair chance to state their case. New York City’s acting environmental commissioner, Steven Lawitts, has warned of “chronic and acute impacts to water quality.” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the Manhattan borough president, Scott Stringer, have asked the state for extensive public hearings. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has commissioned an independent scientific study of the risks to the watershed. A fair review will not be possible unless the state’s absurdly quick Nov. 30 deadline for public comment is extended. The mayor’s study will not even be completed until mid-December. It is dangerously irresponsible to rush this decision. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

WV Lung Assoc. on PATH
by Frank Young 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

Blank"While it is understood that the electricity transmission network has deficiencies in terms of its stability and its capability for dealing with new major power sources such as wind and solar, the Board believes that there are serious questions about whether any need to upgrade the grid is being used more to favor the status quo of dirtier electric power sources rather than as an opportunity to help more intentionally and unreservedly transition to cleaner energy sources while simultaneously taking serious steps to reduce demand. In contrast to the American Lung Association's national policy of encouraging the transition of power plants from burning coal, it appears that a significant outcome of implementing PATH would be to assist the coal-fired mode of electricity generation to become even further entrenched. Indeed, in the words of Bill Raney, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, in a May 18, 2009 letter to the West Virginia Public Service Commission in support of PATH, "Enhanced transmission capacity helps increase the amount of low-cost, coal-fired generation dispatched into the regional grid. This helps preserve the future of existing power plants already on line, justifies additional investment in these plants and increases the likelihood that new, clean-coal electric fired generation will be constructed in the state." Despite Mr. Raney's claim for producing electricity using "clean-coal'' generation, it is the Board's observation that, on several counts, ranging from land degradation to water contamination to, of course, air pollution, the promise of “clean coal” has not come close to being achieved. Given the increased likelihood of new coal-fired electricity generation appearing along this transmission corridor, it is the burden of American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy to demonstrate that such a consequence of the implementation of their PATH proposal would in fact result in no deterioration of air quality. That this demonstration could be prepared seems unlikely to the Board." http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityI…

1 0

Fw: [fom] Randy Huffman and Enviironmental justice???
by Frank Young 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

This guy is a joke. Subject: [fom] Randy Huffman and Enviironmental justice??? http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/64482622.html

1 0

Mingo Co. Waste Wood Power Plant
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

*http://tinyurl.com/ygo3bgy* MINGO --- The president of American Clean Energy (ACE) announced today the company will build a $150 million alternative energy facility in Mingo County at the Harless Wood Products Industrial park. The West Virginia Economic Development Authority approved a resolution that will allow American Clean Energy to issue up to $100 million in tax-free bonds for the facility's construction. The plant will use waste material from wood products to create electricity. Tom Loehr, president of American Clean Energy, told the Daily News.

1 0

Wind in Keyser WV
by Frank Young 15 Oct '09

15 Oct '09

October 15, 2009 Two Mineral commissioners support proposed wind farm KEYSER, W.Va. -- The Mineral County Commission is backing a proposed $131 million wind farm on Green Mountain near Keyser. By The Associated Press Advertiser KEYSER, W.Va. -- The Mineral County Commission is backing a proposed $131 million wind farm on Green Mountain near Keyser. Pinnacle Wind Force is seeking approval from the state Public Service Commission to build 23 turbines that would generate about 55 megawatts of power. The County Commission voted 2-1 Tuesday to support the project. Commission President Wayne Spiggle opposed the motion, saying it was premature. He unsuccessfully sought to delay the vote until after the PSC holds an evidentiary hearing on the developer's application. The hearing is setCommissioners Cindy Pyles and Janice LaRue cited the jobs and tax revenue that the wind farm would create. Maria Gunnoe www.ohvec.org www.southwings.org www.goldmanprize.org

1 0

Fwd: Phone Parties on October 14th
by James Kotcon 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

To: WV Energy Committee: At SierraFest this weekend, we agreed to organize one of these call-in parties this Wednesday to support a strong climate protection bill. So plan on joining us Wednesday night from 6-9 PM, for a few minutes or as much time as you can spare. You can call from your home phone, with your computer in front of you, and this will allow you to talk to other Sierra Club members, to ask them to call their Senators. Best of all, if they agree (and most of them will), you will be able to patch them through to their Senator immediately, during that same call. No more worrying about whether they will actually follow through, and no more guilt on those who said they would but never get around to it. This is a GREAT system! JBK --- On Tue, 10/6/09, Christina & Nicole, Sierra Club <online.advocacy(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: From: Christina & Nicole, Sierra Club <online.advocacy(a)sierraclub.org> Subject: Sorry - Phone Parties on October 14th To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 9:00 PM View a web version of this email. Jim, The National Call in day and phone parties will take place on Wednesday, October 14th. Thanks for leading the way, Nicole Ghio Sierra Club Online Organizing Join the National Call In Day for a Strong Climate Bill! Sign Up to Host a Phone Party on October 14th. Last Wednesday Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act in the Senate, a historic bill that will create more jobs, less pollution and greater security, but polluters like Big Oil and Coal are doing all they can to stand in the way of progress. They're spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying for billions in giveaways, and they're fighting to get rid of the tools that hold them accountable--like EPA's authority to regulate global warming pollution. Spread the word! We can't let Big Oil and Coal weaken the Clean Energy Jobs Bill--host a phone party on October 14th. Hosting a party is easy! We have a guide with all the information you'll need. You and your friends can make calls from any touch tone phone or mobile phone, so ask everyone to bring their cell. Where: Your home, office, or venue! When: Wednesday October 14th from from 6-10pm ET / 3-7pm PT. Join for as long as you can, whether its a few hours or 30 minutes. Training: We'll hold 2 optional conference calls both days at 6:00 pm ET/3:00 pm PT and at 8:30pm ET/5:30pm PT. RSVP: http://action.sierraclub.org/climateleaders_octphone We'll be calling Sierra Club members in key states and patching them through to their Senator's voicemail so they can leave a message supporting a strong bill. Our goal is to fill up as many Senate voicemails as possible, and we'll keep you updated as we fill the boxes throughout the night! Sign up to host a national call in day phone party today! Here's what's coming up: Help Push Back Against Big Oil and Coal Misinformation Don't Let Polluter's Control the Story - join the Rapid Response Team! Our opponents will do anything to stop the Climate Bill - including spreading lies and misinformation through the media. You've seen the articles, espousing lies about costs, attacking the scientific consensus behind Global Warming, even forging letters to make their ill-informed points. Join our Rapid Response team and help write Letters to the Editor highlighting the truth - why moving America to clean energy will generate millions of clean jobs, break our dependence on oil and reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming. Make Calls for a Strong Climate Bill this Wednesday! Join this week's Winning Wednesday phone bank! You don't have to wait for the National Call in day to make calls for a strong Climate Bill! We are making calls every Wednesday night from 6-10pm ET, 3-7 pm PT. Join us for as long as you can, whether it's few hours or thirty minutes, as we use our cutting edge new phone banking tool that allows you to connect other Sierra Club activists directly to their member of Congress, all from the comfort of your own home. What: Call Sierra Club activists in key states and connect them directly to their Senator's office so they can leave a message. When: Every Wednesday night from 6-10pm ET, 3-7 pm PT. Join us for as long as you can, whether it's few hours or thirty minutes. Training: We'll do a training call at 6pm ET/3pm PT and again at 8:30pm ET/5:30pm PT on Wednesday so you can get familiar with the phone banking tool. Where: Your living room! RSVP: http://action.sierraclub.org/climateleaders_phone Thanks for leading the way, Christina Yagjian National Conservation Organizer Nicole Ghio Sierra Club Online Organizing If you do not wish to receive future emails like this, click here to be removed from this type of email contact. Update My Profile | Manage My Email Preferences | Update My Interests Sierra Club 85 Second St. San Francisco, CA 94105

1 0

Fwd: Public News Service-WVNS story for October 12, 2009 Climate Change As An Issue Of
by James Kotcon 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

The Air Force considered using airplane fuel made from coal, but McGinn says it didn't work because of cost and technical issues. "The notion of coal to liquid, when you first take a look at it seems appealing, but when you look at some of the technical difficulties in actually doing it, it's pretty much a non-starter." "Wow" says Jim Kotcon. See article below. JBK >>> "Public News Service" <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> 10/12/2009 9:40 AM >>> Public News Service-WV October 12, 2009 Climate Change As An Issue Of National Security CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Because of the importance of the coal industry in West Virginia, climate change is usually a domestic, economic issue in that state. However, according to a dozen three- and four-star retired military officers, climate change is a serious U.S. national security threat. Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn says people in failed states such as Afghanistan and Somalia often turn to extremism. And he says natural disasters like floods, droughts or hurricanes, which some people have linked to climate change, can push weak nations over the edge. "Imagine, around the world, fault lines along religious, ethnic, economic and political lines. Put a big magnifying glass on top of those fault lines, increase them in frequency and intensity, and that's what the climate change dynamic will do." McGinn says the military is moving strongly towards energy conservation and alternative fuels. He says the Department of Defense wants to save money and protect the country from the possible security threats ensuing from its dependence on imported oil, and that one possible solution is domestic, renewable energy. "The Navy is investigating use of algae-based oils for ship and airborne use. In fact they're planning on flying an F-18 Super Hornet next year, using algae-based oil." The Air Force considered using airplane fuel made from coal, but McGinn says it didn't work because of cost and technical issues. "The notion of coal to liquid, when you first take a look at it seems appealing, but when you look at some of the technical difficulties in actually doing it, it's pretty much a non-starter." Some coal executives, including Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, have disputed whether industrial activity is having an impact on the climate. McGinn says it's already causing important water problems in parts of Central and South Asia. The U.S. Senate is now debating a bill on climate change. A report written by the CNA Military Advisory Board, which includes Admiral McGinn, is available online at www.cna.org Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/10887-1 --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Re: [EC] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project
by Jim Sconyers 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Very nice analysis. Two thoughts: Offshore wind is politically more palatable than onshore. There are plenty of existing examples, just not in the US. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> wrote: From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:28 AM In order to be precise, each specific project must be evaluated, and then it doesn't always turn out as expected. The industry seems to have an average cost of about ten cents per KWH from new state of the art plants in good locations. I believe but cannot parse the data from where I sit, that this includes the production tax credit, which effectively reduces the capital cost even though it is applied to specific KWH's generated. Offshore wind is generally thought to cost about four cents more, of which maybe two cents is recaptured due to the better wind thought to be available. There are very few existing offshore projects, and I don't know when the ones that are under construction are going to be completed, or when the industry will publicize useful information. 12 miles is a specific measure. You would have to look at the coastal maps and see how much shallow coast in good wind areas there is. I would think that in most places 12 miles offshore would be very deep, and pointless to try to do. The more important point here is that onshore wind is presently slightly cheaper than new coal without CCS, and that when you add the price of CCS new coal becomes about as expensive as nuclear power or solar PV. CCS is unlikely to become economic at any point in time. (Solar PV, by contrast, has a large potential to reduce prices substantially - the difference is that with solar we can see where research may help, and with CCS, there isn't much about it that isn't already pretty well defined, especially the energy requirements of compression and pumping). These projects represent $3.4 billion being spent on behalf of three major industries which collectively take in about a trillion dollars a year (the petroleum and gas markets are so volatile that if you want a more specific dollar amount you need to specify the year). The research projects which inject post-combustion CO2 to enhance fossil fuel recovery are NOT CCS projects, and it is good to see them included here because it illustrates the lack of credibility that the entire group of projects have. The more responsible projects here are ones such as the C6 project which is injecting into a deep saline formation. That doesn't mean it will work, and it doesn't mean it has a greater likelihood of being economically viable. It just means it isn't obvious in the course of a summary paragraph that it is going to fail the test of keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere for ten thousand years, destroy any water tables or move toxic aromatics to the surface. I think we have enough onshore wind to do most of what wind can do for us. Efficiency is the heavy lifter in the next decade. We can triple current levels by spending $9 billion per year, which is about half of what we spent on wind last year. Doing that will triple the energy savings of last year's wind, which was nearly identical to last year's efficiency. That level of efficiency spending can be sustained for several decades. We can triple it again, if we really think it matters, in which case we might run out of efficiency potential in less than twenty years (this level of spending will eliminate electric sector CO2 in about 25 years). I advocate spending as much as we can on efficiency, because each dollar saves three. Any rate increase to fund efficiency pays for sustained efficiency for as long as we want to keep on saving more money. Part of the saving should be used to fund more wind, and if we're good investors in about five years or so we should have solar that is cheap enough to pick up the major action that wind presently has. Once that happens we get to eliminate just about all CO2. There are some concerns about how to get power in the middle of the night, and while solar thermal answers that best in my mind, there are other solutions. But figuring that out is much less important than recognizing that it doesn't matter how many coal plants there are if we are cutting total use with efficiency, and building as many renewables as we can afford to. We've already achieved our first year of net reductions, partly due to the recession but partly due to efficiency and renewables. We can keep it up, and we do that best by concentrating on the right levels of investment in efficiency and renewables. CCS will never compete in that sort of an environment. - Ned Dolph Honicker wrote: Has anyone done a study on how much it would cost to put windmills 12 miles off our coast?. A recent you tube video by a Sierra Club representative detailed how they could supply all the electricity the U.S. needs, and quickly. Capturing CO2 from coal fired plants does not address the problem of mountain top removal. I suggest that we compare the costs of off shore windmills, the time it will take to bring them on line in a big way, and calculate how much CO2 can be eliminated as an alternative to this program. Has there been an eis? There should be, as this is a major federal action. Alternatives must be examined in all eis's. If we are serious about global warming, we will immediately act to solve the problem. We don't have 50 years to wait. This is another massive subsidy for the petroleum and coal industries Jeannine Honicker Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:58:57 -0700 From: doris(a)CELLARIUS.ORG Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass h2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass h3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass a:link, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass a:visited, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxHeading3Char {font-family:'Cambria', 'serif';color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxHeading2Char {font-family:'Cambria', 'serif';color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle21 {font-family:'Calibri', 'sans-serif';color:#1F497D;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1686792534 {} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass div.ecxSection1 {} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0in;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass ul {margin-bottom:0in;} .. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture .Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. “ DOE Makes First Awards from $1.4B for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects 3 October 2009 The US Department of Energy (DOE) has selected 12 projects for the first round of funding from $1.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of these projects will include $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million. The remaining Recovery Act funding will be awarded to the most promising projects during a competitive phase two selection process. Projects selected include large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources—such as cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, and manufacturing facilities—and store the carbon dioxide in deep saline formations=2 0and other geologic systems. -- The initial duration of each project selected is approximately seven months. Projects will be subject to further competitive evaluation in 2010 after successful comp letion of their Phase 1 activities. Projects that best demonstrate the ability to address their mission needs will be in the final portfolio that will receive additional funding for design, construction, and operation. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture Energy Secretary Steven Chu wrote an editorial for the 25 September 2009 special issue of the journal Science on carbon capture, in which he addressed the magnitude of the challenge. Noting that coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. Chu said that it was highly unlikely that the US, Russia, China and India, which account for two-thirds of the coal reserves, “will turn their back on coal anytime soon .” ...for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued. ...The scale of CCS needed to make a sign ificant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO2. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO2 per year. At geological storage densities of CO2 (0.6 kg/m3), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km3/year. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity. ...We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants (such as coal gasification, burning coal in an oxygen atmosphere, or post-combustion capture) to determine the most cost-effective approach to burn fuel and reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. No matter which technology ultimately proves best for new plants, we will still need to retrofit existing plants and new plants that will be built before CCS is routinely deployed. Each new 1-gigawatt coal plant is a billion-dollar investment and, once built, will be used for decades. ...Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. —Dr. Steven Chu, Science Large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage selections (by amount of DOE award) include: ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips will demonstrate new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems at a petcoke-based 683-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant adjacent to its existing refinery in Sweeny, Texas. About 85% of the CO2 from the process stream will be captured and over 5 million tons sequestered into a depleted oil or gas field. (DOE Share: $3,014,666) C6 Resources. Objective is to capture and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of CO2 streams from facilities located in the Bay Area, Calif., to be injected more than 2 miles underground into a saline formation. C6 Resources, an affiliate of Shell Oil Company, will conduct the project in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Shell Chemical Capital Company. The objective of this project is to capture, condition, and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of by-product and off-gas CO2 streams from facilities located along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans for geologic storage. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc. Investigators will demonstrate advanced amines and additives supplied by Hitachi and Dow to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 per year. Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative will be building a 600-megawatt circulating fluidized bed power plant near Rogers City, Mich. (DOE Share: $2,723,512) University of Utah. More than 1 million tons of CO2 per year will be captured from various industrial sources, compressed, and transported via two new intra-state pipelines for CO2 enhanced oil recovery and deep saline sequestration research in Kansas. Beneath each enhanced oil recovery target, a major saline aquifer spanning most of the State of Kansas will be used for CO2 injection. (DOE Share: $2,696,556) Praxair Inc. Praxair will partner with BP Products North America, Denbury Resources, and Gulf Coast Carbon Center to demonstrate capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions from an existing hydrogen-production facility in an oil refinery into underground formations for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. This demonstration will be performed at the BP refinery, and a lateral pipeline will be built to connect to Denbury’s Green Pipeline to transport 1 million tons of CO2 per year. (DOE Share: $1,719,464) Archer Daniels Midland Corporation. Archer Daniels Midland Company, a member of DOE’s Midwes t Geological Sequestration Consortium, will partner with other research organizations to demonstrate Dow ALSTOM’s advanced amine process to capture CO2 from industrial flue gases and sequester the CO2 in the Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir. (DOE Share: $1,480,656) CEMEX Inc. CEMEX USA will partner with RTI International to demonstrate a dry sorbent CO2 capture technology at one of its cement plants in the United States. CEMEX will design and construct a dry sorbent CO2 capture and compression system, pipeline (if necessary), and injection station. This commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project will remove up to 1 million tons of CO2. (DOE Share: $1,137,885) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. A system to concentrate CO2 from two steam methane reformer waste streams will be designed, constructed, and demonstrated at Port Arthur, Texas. More than 1 million tons of CO2 will be delivered per year via pipeline for sequestration into the Oyster Bayou oilfield for enhanced oil recovery by Denbury Onshore LLC. (DOE Share: $961,499) Leucadia Energy LLC. Leucadia Energy and Denbury Onshore will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester CO2 emissions from an industrial source. Mississippi Gasification LLC, a Leucadia affiliate, is building a petcoke-to-substitute natural gas plant in Moss Point, Miss., to demo nstrate large-scale recovery, purification and compression of 4 million tons per year of CO2. (DOE Share: $840,000) Leucadia Energy LLC. Partnered with Denbury Onshore, Leucadia Energy will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 4 million tons of CO2 emissions at the Lake Charles co-generation petroleum coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project to be located near Lake Charles, La. The project will transport compressed CO2 through a 12-mile pipeline that connects to Denbury’s Green Line pipeline system in Louisiana so that it can be used for enhanced oil recovery in the Hastings and Oyster Bayou oilfields in Texas. (DOE Share: $540,000) Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Battelle researchers will partner with Boise White Paper LLC and Fluor Corporation to demonstrate geologic CO2 storage in deep flood basalt formations in the State of Washington. Fluor Corporation will design a customized version of its Econamine Plus carbon capture technology for operation with the specialized chemical composition of exhaust gases produced from combustion of black liquor fuels. (DOE Share: $500,00 0) Additionally, the Department has also made conditional selections of 16 projects that demonstrate innovative concepts for beneficial carbon dioxide use. These conditional selections are subject to additional merit reviews and technical evaluation. Resources Science special issue on carbon capture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

2 1

Fw: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project
by Jim Sconyers 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, ROBERT KELLER <rkeller49(a)VERIZON.NET> wrote: From: ROBERT KELLER <rkeller49(a)VERIZON.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 2:16 PM FYI - Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (VCERC) has studied the engineering feasibility, cost, and economic development potential of Virginia’s offshore wind resource. These studies indicate that multi-megawatt wind turbines placed beyond sight of Virginia’s beaches could provide more than enough energy to meet 25% of the state’s electricity needs by 2025, creating thousands of new jobs throughout the state, with a cost of energy less than that from a new coal-fired generating plant. George Hagerman is the Senior Research Associate at the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute in Arlington and VCERC Director of Research. Members of the Virginia Chapter have met and talked with Hagerman who has been working on the project for about five years. He has estimated, conservatively, that if Virginia had the will there could be wind turbines off the coast of Norfolk in six years (the Navy is looking at a wind turbine project in the area to help it meet its mandatory RPS). A link for reference information - http://www.eesi.org/071709_offshore Rick Keller Energy Chair, Mount Vernon Group, Virginia Chapter rkeller49(a)verison.net ----- Original Message ----- From: F.J. Morris To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project Also, 90% of the US population lives within 50 miles of the coast, and the near constant sea breezes are a very reliable source of energy. Off shore turbines would probably would put electricity where the population is. Of course, efficiency first. fm From: Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Jim Sconyers Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:13 AM To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project Very nice analysis. Two thoughts: Offshore wind is politically more palatable than onshore. There are plenty of existing examples, just not in the US . Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> wrote: From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:28 AM In order to be precise, each specific project must be evaluated, and then it doesn't always turn out as expected. The industry seems to have an average cost of about ten cents per KWH from new state of the art plants in good locations. I believe but cannot parse the data from where I sit, that this includes the production tax credit, which effectively reduces the capital cost even though it is applied to specific KWH's generated. Offshore wind is generally thought to cost about four cents more, of which maybe two cents is recaptured due to the better wind thought to be available. There are very few existing offshore projects, and I don't know when the ones that are under construction are going to be completed, or when the industry will publicize useful information. 12 miles is a specific measure. You would have to look at the coastal maps and see how much shallow coast in good wind areas there is. I would think that in most places 12 miles offshore would be very deep, and pointless to try to do. The more important point here is that onshore wind is presently slightly cheaper than new coal without CCS, and that when you add the price of CCS new coal becomes about as expensive as nuclear power or solar PV. CCS is unlikely to become economic at any point in time. (Solar PV, by contrast, has a large potential to reduce prices substantially - the difference is that with solar we can see where research may help, and with CCS, there isn't much about it that isn't already pretty well defined, especially the energy requirements of compression and pumping). These projects represent $3.4 billion being spent on behalf of three major industries which collectively take in about a trillion dollars a year (the petroleum and gas markets are so volatile that if you want a more specific dollar amount you need to specify the year). The research projects which inject post-combustion CO2 to enhance fossil fuel recovery are NOT CCS projects, and it is good to see them included here because it illustrates the lack of credibility that the entire group of projects have. The more responsible projects here are ones such as the C6 project which is injecting into a deep saline formation. That doesn't mean it will work, and it doesn't mean it has a greater likelihood of being economically viable. It just means it isn't obvious in the course of a summary paragraph that it is going to fail the test of keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere for ten thousand years, destroy any water tables or move toxic aromatics to the surface. I think we have enough onshore wind to do most of what wind can do for us. Efficiency is the heavy lifter in the next decade. We can triple current levels by spending $9 billion per year, which is about half of what we spent on wind last year. Doing that will triple the energy savings of last year's wind, which was nearly identical to last year's efficiency. That level of efficiency spending can be sustained for several decades. We can triple it again, if we really think it matters, in which case we might run out of efficiency potential in less than twenty years (this level of spending will eliminate electric sector CO2 in about 25 years). I advocate spending as much as we can on efficiency, because each dollar saves three. Any rate increase to fund efficiency pays for sustained efficiency for as long as we want to keep on saving more money. Part of the saving should be used to fund more wind, and if we're good investors in about five years or so we should have solar that is cheap enough to pick up the major action that wind presently has. Once that happens we get to eliminate just about all CO2. There are some concerns about how to get power in the middle of the night, and while solar thermal answers that best in my mind, there are other solutions. But figuring that out is much less important than recognizing that it doesn't matter how many coal plants there are if we are cutting total use with efficiency, and building as many renewables as we can afford to. We've already achieved our first year of net reductions, partly due to the recession but partly due to efficiency and renewables. We can keep it up, and we do that best by concentrating on the right levels of investment in efficiency and renewables. CCS will never compete in that sort of an environment. - Ned Dolph Honicker wrote: Has anyone done a study on how much it would cost to put windmills 12 miles off our coast?. A recent you tube video by a Sierra Club representative detailed how they could supply all the electricity the U.S. needs, and quickly. Capturing CO2 from coal fired plants does not address the problem of mountain top removal. I suggest that we compare the costs of off shore windmills, the time it will take to bring them on line in a big way, and calculate how much CO2 can be eliminated as an alternative to this program. Has there been an eis? There should be, as this is a major federal action. Alternatives must be examined in all eis's. If we are serious about global warming, we will immediately act to solve the problem. We don't have 50 years to wait. This is another massive subsidy for the petroleum and coal industries Jeannine Honicker Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:58:57 -0700 From: doris(a)CELLARIUS.ORG Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG .. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture .Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. “ DOE Makes First Awards from $1.4B for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects 3 October 2009 The US Department of Energy (DOE) has selected 12 projects for the first round of funding from $1.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of these projects will include $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million. The remaining Recovery Act funding will be awarded to the most promising projects during a competitive phase two selection process. Projects selected include large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources—such as cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, and manufacturing facilities—and store the carbon dioxide in deep saline formations=2 0and other geologic systems. -- The initial duration of each project selected is approximately seven months. Projects will be subject to further competitive evaluation in 2010 after successful comp letion of their Phase 1 activities. Projects that best demonstrate the ability to address their mission needs will be in the final portfolio that will receive additional funding for design, construction, and operation. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture Energy Secretary Steven Chu wrote an editorial for the 25 September 2009 special issue of the journal Science on carbon capture, in which he addressed the magnitude of the challenge. Noting that coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. Chu said that it was highly unlikely that the US, Russia , China and India , which account for two-thirds of the coal reserves, “will turn their back on coal anytime soon .” ...for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued. ...The scale of CCS needed to make a sign ificant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO2. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO2 per year. At geological storage densities of CO2 (0.6 kg/m3), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km3/year. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity. ...We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants (such as coal gasification, burning coal in an oxygen atmosphere, or post-combustion capture) to determine the most cost-effective approach to burn fuel and reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. No matter which technology ultimately proves best for new plants, we will still need to retrofit existing plants and new plants that will be built before CCS is routinely deployed. Each new 1-gigawatt coal plant is a billion-dollar investment and, once built, will be used for decades. ...Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. —Dr. Steven Chu, Science Large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage selections (by amount of DOE award) include: ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips will demonstrate new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems at a petcoke-based 683-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant adjacent to its existing refinery in Sweeny , Texas . About 85% of the CO2 from the process stream will be captured and over 5 million tons sequestered into a depleted oil or gas field. (DOE Share: $3,014,666) C6 Resources. Objective is to capture and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of CO2 streams from facilities located in the Bay Area, Calif. , to be injected more than 2 miles underground into a saline formation. C6 Resources, an affiliate of Shell Oil Company, will conduct the project in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Shell Chemical Capital Company. The objective of this project is to capture, condition, and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of by-product and off-gas CO2 streams from facilities located along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans for geologic storage. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc. Investigators will demonstrate advanced amines and additives supplied by Hitachi and Dow to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 per year. Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative will be building a 600-megawatt circulating fluidized bed power plant near Rogers City, Mich. (DOE Share: $2,723,512) University of Utah. More than 1 million tons of CO2 per year will be captured from various industrial sources, compressed, and transported via two new intra-state pipelines for CO2 enhanced oil recovery and deep saline sequestration research in Kansas . Beneath each enhanced oil recovery target, a major saline aquifer spanning most of the State of Kansas will be used for CO2 injection. (DOE Share: $2,696,556) Praxair Inc. Praxair will partner with BP Products North America, Denbury Resources, and Gulf Coast Carbon Center to demonstrate capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions from an existing hydrogen-production facility in an oil refinery into underground formations for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. This demonstration will be performed at the BP refinery, and a lateral pipeline will be built to connect to Denbury’s Green Pipeline to transport 1 million tons of CO2 per year. (DOE Share: $1,719,464) Archer Daniels Midland Corporation. Archer Daniels Midland Company, a member of DOE’s Midwes t Geological Sequestration Consortium, will partner with other research organizations to demonstrate Dow ALSTOM’s advanced amine process to capture CO2 from industrial flue gases and sequester the CO2 in the Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir. (DOE Share: $1,480,656) CEMEX Inc. CEMEX USA will partner with RTI International to demonstrate a dry sorbent CO2 capture technology at one of its cement plants in the United States . CEMEX will design and construct a dry sorbent CO2 capture and compression system, pipeline (if necessary), and injection station. This commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project will remove up to 1 million tons of CO2. (DOE Share: $1,137,885) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. A system to concentrate CO2 from two steam methane reformer waste streams will be designed, constructed, and demonstrated at Port Arthur , Texas . More than 1 million tons of CO2 will be delivered per year via pipeline for sequestration into the Oyster Bayou oilfield for enhanced oil recovery by Denbury Onshore LLC. (DOE Share: $961,499) Leucadia Energy LLC. Leucadia Energy and Denbury Onshore will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester CO2 emissions from an industrial source. Mississippi Gasification LLC, a Leucadia affiliate, is building a petcoke-to-substitute natural gas plant in Moss Point , Miss. , to demo nstrate large-scale recovery, purification and compression of 4 million tons per year of CO2. (DOE Share: $840,000) Leucadia Energy LLC. Partnered with Denbury Onshore, Leucadia Energy will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 4 million tons of CO2 emissions at the Lake Charles co-generation petroleum coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project to be located near Lake Charles , La. The project will transport compressed CO2 through a 12-mile pipeline that connects to Denbury’s Green Line pipeline system in Louisiana so that it can be used for enhanced oil recovery in the Hastings and Oyster Bayou oilfields in Texas . (DOE Share: $540,000) Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Battelle researchers will partner with Boise White Paper LLC and Fluor Corporation to demonstrate geologic CO2 storage in deep flood basalt formations in the State of Washington . Fluor Corporation will design a customized version of its Econamine Plus carbon capture technology for operation with the specialized chemical composition of exhaust gases produced from combustion of black liquor fuels. (DOE Share: $500,00 0) Additionally, the Department has also made conditional selections of 16 projects that demonstrate innovative concepts for beneficial carbon dioxide use. These conditional selections are subject to additional merit reviews and technical evaluation. Resources Science special issue on carbon capture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: Chapter position on proposed change to national Sierra Club policy on drilling for natural gas
by James Kotcon 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

Ross: I am forwarding this message to the rest of our Chapter Energy Committee for comment. We are also quite concerned about Marcellus shale gas, as West Virginia has weaker regulation and enforcement than many surrounding states. We are experiencing problems with brine disposal, fracing fluids, and more, not to mention the unscrupulous land agents that are now engaged in a land rush to buy up mineral rights from surface property owners. We through the West Virginia Environmental Council) are including a "Surface Owners Bill of Rights" on our legislative agenda in the state capitol because the problems are so widespread. We also have widespread problems with coal-bed methane, although the issue of mountaintop removal mining for coal remains our top coal-related priority. Thanks for bringing your position to our attention, as I am sure the Chapter will want to comment on this. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Ross Gould <rgouldesq(a)gmail.com> 10/4/2009 11:55 PM >>> Fellow Sierran: My name is Ross Gould.I am a representative from the Atlantic Chapter's Natural Gas Task Force and I have been asked to contact chapter leaders on this important issue.I am reaching out to you because the national club is suggesting a major change in Sierra Club’s 2006 Energy Resources Policyand to implement a new Sierra Club policy regarding unconventional sources of natural gas, namely “deep shale gas” as a transitional fuel. The conclusion, that “gas from shales and tight sandstones is an acceptable transitional fuel if produced using best practices to limit environmental damage” represents a major shift in policy from the Sierra Club’s 2006Energy Resources Policywhere “new onshore natural gas” was specifically categorized as “resources opposed by the Sierra Club.” The previous policy only condoned the use of natural gas from existing fieldsas an acceptable transitional fuel. The Club's proposed policy can be found at: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/conservation/policy/unconventional-natural-… The comment period on this proposed policy ends on October 10, 2009. The Atlantic Chapter takes this change seriously, as the rush to produce in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations threatens to transform as much as a third of New York State into a grid work of pipelines and well pads. We have yet to see evidence that this type of extraction can be executed in a manner that is sufficiently protective of our air, water, and remaining wild places. In the past year the chapter has successfully campaigned against the expansion of natural gas extraction resulting in the State mandated environmental review the process, which has also served as a de facto moratorium for new well permits since July of 2008. We are concerned that this change in national Sierra Club policy will undermine our credibility with grass roots activists through out the state who do not share the sentiment that their water, air and landscape should be sacrificed for the advancement of a transitional fuel. Our Chapter is against this proposed policy change. We are reaching out to other chapters around the country to get a feel for their position. I have attached a copy of our Chapter's recent resolution relating to Shale Gas drilling. I have also attached an article from Scientific American which outlines water pollution and other threats related to drilling for natural gas. We look forward to your response, your comments and discovering your chapter's position on this significant policy change. Please note that the comment period on this proposed serious policy change ends on October 10, 2009.We are reaching out to ask for your support in our proposed policy and for your chapter to submit comments opposing this significant change in policy. Thank you,Ross -- Ross H. Gould 10 Park Ave, 5L New York, NY 10016 T: 917-658-7144 E: rgouldesq(a)gmail.com ~ Think green. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail ~

1 0

Fwd: A new month and a new chance to get your story out
by Paul Wilson 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: West Virginia News Service WVNS <wvnsnews(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM Subject: A new month and a new chance to get your story out To: Hi Friends, October is suddenly on us and I'm looking for stories. Let me know if you have anything that you want to get out... drh -- West Virginia News Service (WVNS) Toll Free: 1-800-317-6705 Fax: 540-301-0801 E-mail: wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC October 2009