EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines
by Paul Wilson 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM Subject: Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *For Immediate Release **January 18, 2012*** *Contact: *Sean Sarah, Sierra Club, 202-548-4589 sean.sarah(a)sierraclub.org Jim Sconyers, Sierra Club, 304-698-9628, jimscon(a)gmail.com Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, 304-924-5802, clrank2(a)gmail.com Dianne Bady, OVEC, 304-360-2072, dbady.ovec(a)gmail.com Joe Lovett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304-645-9006, jlovett(a)appalmad.org Derek Teaney, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304-793-9007, dteaney(a)appalmad.org *Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines **Settlement Requires Patriot Coal to Install Treatment Facilities and Pay Penalties* * * *Charleston**, **WV** – *Today, a coalition of conservation and environmental groups completed a legal settlement with Patriot Coal Corporation over high levels of selenium output at several of the company’s West Virginia coal mines. The settlement requires that the coal mining company and its subsidiaries treat selenium pollution at 43 outlets, including outlets previously thought to be untreatable. In a 2010 order resolving a separate action brought by the groups against Patriot, a federal judge ordered the company to treat selenium at four outlets. The company has estimated the cost of treatment at just those four outlets to be nearly $100 million. The suit resolved by today’s settlement was brought by the Sierra Club, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Several years ago, the coal industry said that there was no way to treat selenium pollution from their mines,” said Jim Sconyers, Chair of the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “But now they’re agreeing to treat that pollution. This settlement, and other recent actions against Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, shows that mining companies can do far more than they admit to clean up their pollution. Water is life. Keep it clean.” The settlement requires Patriot to install treatment technology on a set schedule to bring selenium discharges within acceptable levels. In addition, the company will pay penalties of $7.5 million, with the vast majority of those funds directed to the West Virginia Land Trust. Patriot will be subject to significant additional penalties for any violations that occur after the compliance date for each source of pollution. The company has also agreed to abandon its permits for the 8.5 million ton Callisto Surface Mine in Boone County. “West Virginia coal mines are finally starting to address their legacy of selenium pollution,” said Dianne Bady with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Mine operators and regulators in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia need to follow suit.” “Although treatment may be sufficient to address these existing selenium problems, ultimately the industry and regulators need to recognize that it’s not appropriate to mine coal where disturbing selenium laden rock strata will release harmful amounts of pollution,” said Cindy Rank with the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.** Selenium, a toxic element that causes reproductive failure and deformities in fish and other forms of aquatic life, is discharged from many surface coal-mining operations across Appalachia. At very high levels, selenium can pose a threat to human health, causing hair and fingernail loss, kidney and liver damage, and damage to the nervous and circulatory systems. The settlement was lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The U.S. government will have an opportunity to review the settlement before its terms take effect. *The coalition was represented by Joe Lovett and Derek Teaney with the Appalachian Mountain Advocates. For more information on selenium visit * www.sierraclub.org/seleniumfacts**** *###* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

SLATE.COM ARTICLE ON MARCELLUS
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

What the Frack? Is there really 100 years’ worth of natural gas beneath the United States? By Chris Nelder <http://www.slate.com/authors.chris_nelder.html>|Posted Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011, at 6:37 AM ET [image: Shale gas.] A shale-gas drilling rig Christopher Furlong/Getty Images. The recent press about the potential of shale gas would have you believe that America is now sitting on a 100-year supply of natural gas. It's a " game-changer<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.h…>." A "golden age of gas<http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf>" awaits, one in which the United States will be energy independent, even exporting gas to the rest of the world, upending our current energy-importing situation. The data, however, tell a very different story. Between the demonstrable gas reserves, and the potential resources blared in the headlines, lies an enormous gulf of uncertainty. The claim of a 100-year supply originated with a report released in April 2011 by the Potential Gas Committee, an organization of petroleum engineers and geoscientists. President and Chairman Larry Gring works with Third Day Energy LLC, a company based in Austin, Texas, that is engaged in acquiring and exploiting oil and gas properties along the Texas Gulf Coast.*<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_th…>Chairman of the Board Darrell Pierce is a vice president of DCP Midstream LLC, a natural-gas production, processing, and marketing company based in Denver. The report's contributors are from the industry-supported Colorado School of Mines. In short, the Potential Gas Committee report is not an impartial assessment of resources. Advertisement Its website <http://www.potentialgas.org/>consists of a single press release announcing the April report, with a link to a brief summary slide deck. A more detailed slide deck<http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/PGC%20NARUC%20Committee%20on%20G…>issued by the committee presents some optimistic estimates of potential resources, including a "future gas supply" estimate of 2,170 trillion cubic feet (tcf). At the 2010 rate of American consumption—about 24 tcf per year—that would be a 95-year supply of gas, which apparently has been rounded up to 100 years. But what is that estimate based upon? Those details haven’t been made freely available to the public, but their summary breaks it down as follows here and in the graph below: 273 tcf are "proved reserves," meaning that it is believed to exist, and to be commercially producible at a 10 percent discount rate. That conforms with the data of the U.S. Energy Information Administration <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_dry_a_EPG0_r11_bcf_a.htm>. An additional 536.6 tcf are classified as "probable" from existing fields, meaning that they have some expectation that the gas exists in known formations, but it has not been proven to exist and is not certain to be technically recoverable. An additional 687.7 tcf is "possible" from new fields, meaning that the gas might exist in new fields that have not yet been discovered. A further 518.3 tcf are "speculative," which means exactly that. A final 176 tcf are claimed for coalbed gas, which is gas trapped in coal formations. (Note: The PGC reports the total for probable, possible, and speculative coalbed gas as 158.6 tcf, but adding up their numbers for each category, we find the correct total is 157.7 tcf. We haven't been able to reach the PGC to discuss the discrepancy. Adding the 18.6 tcf of proved coalbed gas reserves reported by the EIA in 2009—the most recent data it offers—to the 157.7 gives a total of 176.3 tcf for all categories of coalbed gas. [image: 111221_FUTURE_futureGasSupply] By the same logic, you can claim to be a multibillionaire, including all your "probable, possible, and speculative resources." Assuming that the United States continues to use about 24 tcf per annum, then, only an 11-year supply of natural gas is certain. The other 89 years' worth has not yet been shown to exist or to be recoverable. Even that comparably modest estimate of 11 years’ supply may be optimistic. Those 273 tcf are located in reserves that are undrilled, but are adjacent to drilled tracts where gas has been produced. Due to large lateral differences in the geology of shale plays, production can vary considerably from adjacent wells. The EIA uses a different methodology to arrive at its resource calculations, offering a range of estimates. In the most optimistic, "high shale resource case," it estimates there are 1,230 tcf in the “estimated unproved technically recoverable resource base.” It also offers several production forecasts through 2035, ranging from 827 tcf in their Reference case, to 423 tcf in their Low case—one-fourth the headline number. In the Low case, which certainly could be correct, the EIA says the United States could once again become a net natural-gas *importer* by 2035. [image: 111227_FUTURE_howLongWillItLast2] One complicating factor here is recoverability, because we are never able to extract all of an oil or gas resource. For oil, a 35 percent recovery factor is considered excellent. But recovery factors for shale gas are highly variable, due to the varied geology of the source rocks. Even if we assume a very optimistic 50 percent recovery factor for the 550 tcf of probable gas (536.6 tcf from shale gas plus 13.4 tcf from coalbed gas), that would still only amount to 225 tcf, or a 10-year supply. That plus the 11-year supply of proved reserves would last the United States just 21 years, at current rates of consumption. Natural-gas proponents aren't advocating current rates of consumption, however. They would like to see more than 2 million 18-wheelers converted to natural gas, in order to reduce our dependence on oil imports from unfriendly countries. They also advocate switching a substantial part of our power generation from coal to gas, in order to reduce carbon emissions. Were we to do those things, that 21-year supply could quickly shrink to a 10-year supply, yet those same advocates never adjust their years of supply estimates accordingly. The truly devilish details of supply forecasts, however, rest in the production models of shale-gas operators. Arthur Berman <http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com/>, a Houston-based petroleum geologist and energy sector consultant, along with petroleum engineer Lynn Pittinger, has long been skeptical of the claims about shale gas. Their detailed, independent work on the economics of shale-gas production <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212> suggests that not only are the reserves claims overstated, but that the productivity of the wells is, too. The problems begin with the historical production data, which is limited. The Barnett Shale in Texas is the only shale formation, or "play," with a significant history. The first vertical well was drilled in 1982, but it wasn't until the advent of horizontal drilling in 2003 that production really took off. By horizontally drilling and then "fracking" the rock with a pressurized slurry of water, chemicals, and "proppants" (particulates that hold open the fractures), operators kicked off the shale-gas revolution. Drilling exploded in the Barnett from about 3,000 wells in 2003 to more than 9,000 today. Thus we have a reasonably good data set for the Barnett. Data from the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas are also reasonably substantial, dating back to 2004 and including roughly 4,000 wells. The data on the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana are minimal, dating to late 2007 and including fewer than 2,000 wells. The historical data for the rest of the major shale-gas plays—the Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Woodford—along with a handful of other smaller plays, are too recent and sparse to permit accurate modeling of their production profiles. After mathematically modeling the actual production of thousands of wells in the Barnett, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shales, Berman found that operators had significantly exaggerated their claims. Reserves appear to be overstated by more than 100 percent Typically, the core 10 to 15 percent of a shale formation’s gas is commercially viable. The rest may or may not be—we don’t know at this point. Yet the industry has calculated the potentially recoverable gas as if 100 percent of the plays were equally productive. The claimed lifetime productivity, or estimated ultimate recovery, of individual wells was also overstated, Berman found. The production decline curves modeled by well operators predict that production will fall steeply at first, followed by a long, flattened tail of production. Berman's analysis found a better fit with a model in which production falls steeply for the first 10 to 15 months, followed by an more weakly hyperbolic decline. Shale-gas wells typically pay out over one-half their total lifetime production in the first year. So operators must keep drilling continuously to maintain a flat rate of overall production. [image: 111221_FUTURE_bermanLogic] Berman concludes that the average lifetime of a Barnett well might be as little as 12 years, instead of the 50 years claimed by operators, and the estimated ultimate recovery from individual wells might be one-half what is claimed. We will only know which models are correct after another five to 10 years for the Barnett, and more than a decade for the newer plays. Other issues Berman identified include artificially inflating the average well productivity numbers by dropping played-out wells from their calculations; improperly including production data from restimulated wells as if it owed to the initial well completions; and intermixing data from older and newer wells without aligning the data by vintage, giving the impression of significantly higher-than-actual production overall. Multiplying the error, operators seem to have applied their overly optimistic models of these older shale plays to newer plays, which may have radically different geological characteristics and might not be nearly as productive. For example, the lifetime output of Barnett wells may never be matched by wells in the Marcellus. The EIA makes reference to all of these issues in its assessment of the prospects for shale gas<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/IF_all.cfm#prospectshale>, noting that “there is a high degree of uncertainty around the projection, starting with the estimated size of the technically recoverable shale gas resource,” and that “the estimates embody many assumptions that might prove to be untrue in the long term.” Yet none of these issues are properly accounted for in the official financial statements of the operators. [image: 111222_FUTURE_recoveryMap] An example of how inflated initial resource claims can be, and how they can be sharply cut, presented itself in August with a new assessment of the Marcellus shale<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2893&from=rss_home>by the U.S. Geological Survey. It offered a range of estimates, from 43 tcf at 95 percent probability, to 84 tcf at 50 percent probability, to 114 tcf at 5 percent probability. (Not surprisingly, the 95 percent probable estimates have proven historically to be closest to the mark.) Only five months earlier, the EIA speculated in its *Annual Energy Outlook 2011<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf> * that the Marcellus might have an "estimated technically recoverable resource base of about 400 trillion cubic feet." The USGS reassessment had slashed the estimate for the Marcellus by 80 percent. Similar adjustments may be ahead for other shale plays. In addition to the uncertainty about shale gas resources and productivity, there are other lingering questions. For one thing, on an averaged annual basis, shale gas has been unprofitable since 2008. Wildcatters—those who explore and sink the first wells in a new location—have been taking on a great deal of debt and risk to discover the plays and produce them at a loss, in hopes that larger, well-funded players will buy them out later. It’s not clear that this gamble will ever pay off. The other major concern, of course, is about environmental contamination from fracking operations. It seems to me that the vast majority of shale-gas operations are as environmentally benign as the rest of the oil and gas industry's operations, although some bad actors have, through negligence or outright irresponsibility, caused actual contamination. For now, though, the jury is out on the overall safety of shale gas production. I am not anti-gas; neither is Berman. What concerns him, and me, are the overblown claims about the potential for shale gas and the poor quality of both technical and financial information about its production. We don't yet know how much of the estimated gas resources will be economically recoverable or whether the projected production rates for some wells might be off by a factor of 10. We might have a 100-year supply of gas, or we might have an 11-year supply. We might realize economic and environmental benefits by transitioning trucking and coal-fired power generation to natural gas, or we might do so only to find ourselves out on a limb far more economically dangerous than the current peak and impending decline of world oil supply. We simply don't know, and we may not know for years to come. *This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense.html>and the Future Tense home page <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense.html>. You can also follow us on Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/FutureTenseNow>.* *Correction, Jan. 3, 2012: This article originally misstated the name of Larry Gring’s energy company. It is Third Day Energy LLC, not Third Way Energy LLC. (Return<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_th…>to the corrected sentence.) * -- 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

1 0

What traits make the best environmental citizens?
by James Kotcon 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

This just came from my Michigan State University Alumni newsletter. JBK What traits make the best environmental citizens? EAST LANSING, Mich. — Patient, persistent and confident people are among those who make the best environmental citizens, according to two Michigan State University researchers who have pinpointed character traits of good problem solvers and deliberators. “In situations where people are talking about very tough issues, such as climate change and sustainability, there are certain virtues people have that help those deliberations go better,” said Kyle Whyte, assistant professor of philosophy. “The public will have to increasingly deal with such issues so it’s important the educational system is preparing people to participate well with those who have different views.” But that’s not a focus of most environmental education programs, found Whyte and co-researcher Matt Ferkany, visiting assistant professor of teacher education. Their study was published in the journal Philosophy of Education. While the researchers said their list of traits isn’t complete, the most successful deliberators possess virtues that make people feel included and engaged, while producing results. The top 14 traits: wit, friendliness, empathy, courage, temperance, sincerity, humility, self-confidence, persistence, attentiveness, dependability, fairness, generosity and patience. “These virtues are based on the nature of the problems we face – problems that are collaborative in nature and for which there is widespread disagreement about solutions,” Ferkany said. Take self-confidence. In many conversations, people don’t value their own contributions and worry others won’t respect their ideas, Ferkany said. But a good deliberator believes, without arrogance, that his or her contributions can advance the discussion. Or take friendliness. Congenial people are open to differing opinions. And temperate people can shut down an argument gone wrong without losing their cool. Teachers and schools can provide opportunities for exercising such virtues, Ferkany said. For example, if a school touts the importance of sustainability, it could include students in the planning of organic menus. To promote self-confidence, schools should make all students feel important by offering activities appealing to many interests. Another way: experiential education, in which students gain experience through actual dialog. This fall, Whyte participated in a Sustainable Michigan Endowed Project grant led by Dale Rozeboom, professor of animal science. The project brought together students from animal science and MSU’s Student Organic Farm to discuss “ethical farming and food practices.” At the end of the semester, after all students visited both the MSU swine farm and the organic farm, they met to discuss sustainable pork production. They came from different worlds – those training to run conventional agriculture businesses and those training to become organic farmers – but concluded that everyone wanted to produce a good product and earn a living, while protecting the health of the pig and the environment. “Because the problems are so complex,” Whyte said, “citizens need deliberative and collaborative skills to deal with environmental and agriculture matters.” Published: Jan. 10, 2012 Kyle Powys Whyte, assistant professor of philosophy. Photo by G.L. Kohuth Matt Ferkany, visiting assistant professor of teacher education. Photo by G.L. Kohuth Students from MSU's Student Organic Farm deliberate with Kyle Powys Whyte about pig welfare after visiting the swine farm. ###

1 0

Dominion Post on Albright meeting
by James Kotcon 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

DOMINION POST page 9A Friday 13 January 2012: Meeting set to discuss power plant’s fate Albright facility has three years to meet new EPA regulations BY MICHELLE WOLFORD The Dominion Post KINGWOOD — The West Virginia Sierra Club will sponsor a forum on the future of the Albright Power Plant at 1 p.m. Saturday at the Albright Fire Hall. First Energy, which owns the plant, will not attend. The forum is to discuss what changes may occur at the plant under new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, and their possible impact on plant employees and the community. Mark Durbin, a First Energy spokesman, said the company hasn’t made any decisions about the plant. “Once we have an announcement, we’ll make an announcement,” he said. Employees will get the information first. Durbin said changes in EPA regulations would require expensive changes at coal-fired power plants, such as the Albright plant. The company will have to decide the fate of about 20 such plants, he said — whether they’ll be retrofitted with the necessary emission controls, retired or repowered for natural gas generation. Companies will have at least three years to make the changes, which are being implemented “to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants,” according to the EPA. Delegates Larry Williams and Stan Shaver, both D-Preston, plan to attend, Williams said. County Commissioners Craig Jennings, Vicki Cole and Dave Price will be on hand. Roberta Baylor, executive director of the Preston County Economic Development Authority, confirmed Thursday that she plans to attend. Jim Sconyers, of the Sierra Club, said First Energy, which owns the power plant, “will not be sending a representative.” “Everyone in Albright knows that the Albright Station power plant is old,” the Sierra Club said in forum information. “Built in 1952, it lacks modern pollution control equipment. Change is in the air for the Albright plant. But no one knows what those changes will be, how soon, or how they will affect the community. And no one seems to be planning for those changes. Other communities facing these changes have won new investment and new jobs, but this requires planning and everyone working together.”

1 0

research, bat deaths at turbines
by Frank Young 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=21648 Researchers have developed what they claim is a new way to reduce the amount of bats killed by flying into wind turbines. According to a team from the USDA Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) in the United States deaths of migratory bats at wind energy plants have become a 'frequent occurrence'. Bat migration patterns are poorly understood and the relationship between deaths at wind energy sites and migratory behaviour are still being studied, says PSW ecologist Ted Weller. Mr Weller argues that previous research has already shown adjusting the operations of turbines can reduce the number of bats killed by wind turbines but, this strategy has not yet been widely implemented. The online tool takes into account bat activity at different times of the year and a number of environmental conditions, such as wind direction and speed, air temperature, and moon phase. Mr Weller and his research team used devices which detected the bats' echolocation calls, then linked the presence of bats to the weather conditions measured on-site on a given night. Researchers found echolocation detectors placed at 22 meters and 52 meters above ground were more effective at characterizing migratory bat activity then those located closer to the ground. Moreover, multiple echolocation detectors were required to accurately characterize bat activity at the facility. They then built models to predict the presence of bats based on date and weather variables. Mr Weller said: "Increasing the wind speed at which turbines begin to spin and produce energy to the grid has proven to be an effective way to reduce bat fatalities. "However, bat activity levels depend on more than just wind speed, our work demonstrates the use of a decision-making tool that could protect bats when fatality risk is highest while maximizing energy production on nights with a low chance of fatalities."

1 0

Please Reply: Energy Efficiency in WV
by James Kotcon 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

We have been playing around with Energy Efficiency legislation in WV for the last couple years, but hope to launch a pretty concerted campaign this legislative session, and perhaps add other campaign elements. I propose that the Energy Committee establish the "Efficiency Subcommittee" for those who want to focus more effort on that. If you want to join the EE Subcommittee, let me know. There is likely to be some involvement/assistance from national staff, so this needs some volunteers locally. Let me know ASAP. Jim Kotcon

2 1

Fwd: position for Ex. Dir. Appalachian Stewardship Foundation
by Paul Wilson 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

fyi, paul It may be a conflict of interest for an SC leader to take this job. Bill D. may be able to clarify that. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pam Parziale <pamoren(a)frontiernet.net> Date: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:03 PM Subject: position for Ex. Dir. Appalachian Stewardship Foundation To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> ** Hello Paul, Knowing your commitment to conservation and the environment, I wanted you to know of a new opportunity that has become available. A****s past president of the WV Sierra Club, **you may be interested **on behalf of other environmentalists whom you know.** **** A position for a part-time executive director for the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation has been posted, Jan. 6, 2012. Because of your commitment in support of environmental issues, please look at the website: www.appalachianstewards.org .**** **The job description is found on the website, in several locations, including under the heading News & Media.** **Would you pass this information on to your colleagues at the Sierra Club? If you are interested or someone you know may be interested, applicants must submit a cover letter, resume and two writing samples by email to:** ** *K*athy(a)AppalachianStewards.org** **The deadline is February 10, 2012.** Thank you, Pam Parziale 5210 Paynes Ford Road Kearneysville WV 25430 USA 304-725-4251 email: pamoren(a)frontiernet.net -- 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 "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

State Energy Focus, Surprise, Surprise.
by James Kotcon 06 Jan '12

06 Jan '12

Governor’s office: State energy focus on gas and coal THE STATE JOURNAL: Posted: Jan 05, 2012 5:20 PM EST Updated: Jan 05, 2012 5:25 PM EST By Taylor Kuykendall, Reporter Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin's office, a staff member told reporters, is largely focusing on natural gas and coal, not expanding renewable or other energy sources through state initiatives. Chief of Staff Rob Alsop, speaking at the AP Legislative Lookahead on Thursday, said the state wants to be a leader in manufacturing and coal. Asked about expanding the energy portfolio to other sources, Alsop indicated the state executive's focus is elsewhere. "Our real focus has been on protecting coal and making sure it's production goes forward and then responsibly protecting the environment and working on natural gas," Alsop said. "So, that's been our main focus." Alsop said the governor believes there's much potential in shale gas, particularly for the downstream products that can be obtained from the gas. "We think this will reinvigorate manufacturing in the Appalachian basin," he said. Also said the success of wind production will most likely hinge more on federal tax programs, not state-level incentives. "If they stay, we have wind farms. If they don't then we won't," Alsop said. He pointed to challenges with wind and similar sources overcoming gas- and coal-fired electricity, such as price. He added that the state's Division of Energy was looking into a study that was conducted regarding the state's potential as a geothermal energy source but didn't immediately know the details of its progress. Alsop said the number one economic priority is attracting an ethane cracker to the state. An ethane cracker converts ethane, which is produced along with natural gas from Marcellus shale formations, into chemicals that can be used in various manufacturing processes. The resulting jobs and spin off jobs from chemical companies that use the products, have been much sought after by West Virginia officials. Announcements regarding one or more crackers are anticipated early this year. Alsop said the governor's office is confident West Virginia had a good chance of landing a cracker. "We believe we have some advantages that other states don't have," Alsop said. "We have a realistic shot at multiple crackers coming to the state."

1 0

Fwd: Renewable Energy Growth in 2011
by James Kotcon 05 Jan '12

05 Jan '12

New data from US-DOE's Energy Information Agency for the first three quarters of 2011. Here is the part I like: Looking at just the electricity sector, compared to the same nine-month period in 2010: coal Down 4.2% nuclear Down 2.8%. natural gas Up 1.6%. renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) Up 24.73%. Renewables provided 12.73% of net U.S. electrical generation. Jim Kotcon >>> Ken Bossong <sun-day-campaign(a)hotmail.com> 1/4/2012 9:08 PM >>> SUN DAY CAMPAIG 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite #340; Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-6477 x.11 sun-day-campaign(a)hotmail.com News Advisory RENEWABLE SOURCES CONTINUE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH: NOW PROVIDE 12% OF DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION - 14% MORE THAN 2010 RENEWABLE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT INCREASES 25%; CONTRIBUTES 13% OF U.S. POWER For Immediate Release: Wednesday - January 4, 2012 Contact: Ken Bossong, 301-270-6477 x.11 Washington DC – According to the most recent issue of the "Monthly Energy Review" by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), with data through September 30, 2011, renewable energy sources continue to expand rapidly while substantially outpacing the growth rates of fossil fuels and nuclear power. For the first nine months of 2011, renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) provided 11.95% of domestic U.S. energy production. That compares to 10.85% for the same period in 2010 and 10.33% in 2009. By comparison, nuclear power provided just 10.62% of the nation's energy production in the first three quarters of 2011 -- i.e., 11.10% less than renewables. Looking at all energy sectors (e.g., electricity, transportation, thermal), renewable energy output, including hydropower, grew by 14.44% in 2011 compared to 2010. Among the renewable energy sources, conventional hydropower provided 4.35% of domestic energy production during the first nine months of 2011, followed by biomass (3.15%), biofuels (2.57%), wind (1.45%), geothermal (0.29%), and solar (0.15%). (On the consumption side, which includes oil and other energy imports, renewable sources accounted for 9.35% of total U.S. energy use during the first nine months of 2011.) Looking at just the electricity sector, according to the latest issue of EIA’s "Electric Power Monthly," with data through September 30, 2011, renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, water wind) provided 12.73% of net U.S. electrical generation. This represents an increase of 24.73% compared to the same nine-month period in 2010. By comparison, electrical generation from coal dropped by 4.2% while nuclear output declined by 2.8%. Natural gas electrical generation rose by 1.6%. Conventional hydropower accounted for 8.21% of net electrical generation during the first nine months of 2011 - an increase of 29.6% compared to 2010. Non-hydro renewables accounted for 4.52% of net electrical generation (wind - 2.73%, biomass - 1.34%, geothermal - 0.40%, solar - 0.05%). Compared to the first three quarters of 2010, solar-generated electricity expanded in 2011 by 46.5%; wind by 27.1%, geothermal by 9.4%, and biomass by 1.3%. “Notwithstanding the recession of the past three years, renewable energy sources have experienced explosive rates of growth that other industries can only envy,” said Ken Bossong, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. “The investments in sustainable energy made by the federal government as well as state and private funders have paid off handsomely underscoring the short-sightedness of emerging proposals to cut back on or discontinue such support.” # # # # # # # # The U.S. Energy Information Administration released its most recent "Monthly Energy Review" on December 23, 2011. It can be found at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm. The relevant charts from which the data above are extrapolated are Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 10.1. EIA released its most recent "Electric Power Monthly" on December 16, 2011; see: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/epm.pdf. The relevant charts are Tables 1.1, ES1.A, ES1.B, and 1.1.A. ======================= The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as cost-effective alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels.

1 0

Fwd: [eewv] EEWV Lobbying January 10th!
by James Kotcon 04 Jan '12

04 Jan '12

To the Energy Committee: There will be a significant push for energy efficiency legislation this session, so if anyone wants to help get a head start, the "Lobby Day" next Tuesday would be an excellent opportunity to be come the expert in your region. EVERY possible scenario for addressing global warming that includes a significant Energy Efficiency component, and West Virginia has a long way to go to catch up to what other states are doing. This is the Year, Now is the Time! Jim Kotcon >>> Molly McLaughlin <molly.eewv(a)gmail.com> 1/4/2012 12:45 PM >>> We wanted to remind you about the first Energy Efficient West Virginia lobby day at the capitol next Tuesday, January 10th. This is the day before the start of the session, so it will be an excellent opportunity to let your legislators know what energy efficiency bills are coming and to encourage them to co-sponsor legislation. We will meet at 11am in the rotunda of the capitol building (the main dome) - on the lower level next to the Information Desk. If you can't find us, call us at our cell phone numbers listed below. We will give you a brief orientation and answer any questions that you have about talking to your legislators or the bills, as well as handing out fact sheets that you can provide to your legislators if you wish. If you wish to set up meeting times with your senators and representatives in advance, you can find their contact information on the legislature's website: http://www.legis.state.wv.us/ (see "Who's my legislator?" in the lower right corner). If you want to lobby on the 10th but can't make it at 11am (or if you have already arranged a meeting with your legislators at an earlier time), please email me and we can arrange to meet with you separately. This lobby day will coincide with an educational event organized by our friends at West Virginia Greenworks on energy efficiency in the House Chamber from 1-4pm. This event will include presentations and panel discussions on major pieces of energy efficiency legislation that will come up this year: improving building codes for energy efficiency, an energy expansion fund, the energy efficiency resource standard, and least-cost planning. We hope you can stick around for what promises to be an exciting discussion! Feel free to email us with any questions. Molly (404-729-9312) Cathy (304-237-3802 ( tel:%28304-237-3802 ))

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC