EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

FW: [energy activists] Energy and Global Warming goals: November-December
by Grubb, Karen 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

________________________________ From: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org [mailto:Allison.Forbes@sierraclub.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:41 PM To: Allison.Forbes(a)sierraclub.org Subject: [energy activists] Energy and Global Warming goals: November-December Energy and Global Warming Sierra Club focus for November and December Our best chance to legislate global warming emission reductions this year is to help get the strongest provisions in the House and Senate energy bills enacted and signed into law. Achieving this goal will require our strongest efforts to turn votes and engage public opinion in support of passing a strong final energy bill. Passing a strong final energy bill could reduce global warming emissions almost 20 percent by 2030. Because the energy bill is moving quickly through Congress on a short time scale, and is very near the finish line, passing this bill requires our immediate focused attention. To reduce global warming emissions 80 percent by 2050, Congress will also need to enact a cap on carbon. On November 1, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (America's Climate Security Act, S. 2191) passed in Senate subcommittee by a vote of 4-3 and is headed to full committee hearings with a final markup tentatively scheduled for November 15. National staff are working with allies and champions on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee to develop a strategy for strengthening S. 2191. Please see the attached statement from Carl Pope, talking points on requested improvements, and our ad outlining "The Seven Principles of a New Energy Policy." Most environmental groups concur that S. 2191 needs to be strengthened, but there is a wide range of opinion on how to treat the bill as it moves to full committee. Sierra Club's goal is to keep our message encouraging -- recognizing the progress -- while clearly calling for strengthening changes to the bill. The most effective thing that you can do now to influence the EPW committee process is to increase the number of co-sponsors on the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) to show support for science-based emission reduction targets. Our Flip the Switch for Clean Energy campaign to get an energy bill across the finish line with the strongest House- and Senate-passed provisions is based at www.sierraclub.org/flip Allison Forbes National Conservation Organizer Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program (202) 548-6583

1 0

Re: [EC] Hillary's Energy plan
by Paul Wilson 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

coal section is pretty weak. see below. The whole plan is attached. Pls review at your leisure. paul COAL INDUSTRY'S ROLE New Technology to Fight Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efficiency First--Maximize Energy Efficiency to Address Coal Demand: A 2006 McKinsey Global Insight study of global energy efficiency potential found that all future energy service demand growth in North America can be met through cost-effective energy efficiency investments, such as greener building technologies and more efficient vehicles. Recent examples prove that efficiency can dramatically reduce the need to build new power plants. Earlier this year, investors acquired TXU and scrapped plans to build 8 of 11 planned coal-fired power plants in Texas. Part of the plan to replace the 8 planned power plants was a $400 million increase in expenditures on customer efficiency. To maximize the potential for efficiency, Hillary would direct state utility commissions to ensure that before approving an application to build a coal plant, there is an evaluation of whether the energy services provided by that plant could be met by cost-effective investments in energy efficiency. Accelerating the Development of Clean Coal Coal plays a major role in America's energy mix, powering fifty percent of America's electricity generation, and we still have enormous coal reserves. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and are responsible for emissions of mercury and other dangerous pollutants. Hillary understands that continuing to build new coal plants in the same way that we have in the past will make it extremely difficult to meet our climate change goals. Hillary's plan includes many components that would alleviate the need for additional coal plants in the coming years. For example, hr strong efficiency measures will reduce the need for new power plants. Hillary also believes that we need to take swift action to spur the development and deployment of technology and practices that will enable us to capture, store and safely sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. To accelerate the development of this important technology, Hillary would put immediate funding towards 10 large scale carbon capture and storage projects that utilize a range of coal types, power plant types, and storage locations. She will move quickly to develop the regulatory framework to ensure that carbon sequestration can be done safely and reliably. And she will require all new coal plants to be capable of adding capture and storage technology when it becomes commercially available. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Fwd: Fw: "Clean coal" plant setbacks mount in U.S.
by Paul Wilson 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org <Pat.Gallagher(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Nov 2, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: Fw: "Clean coal" plant setbacks mount in U.S. "Clean coal" plant setbacks mount in U.S. By Steve Raabe The Denver Post Article Last Updated:11/01/2007 02:04:50 AM MDT Xcel Energy's decision to delay consideration of a "clean coal" power plant is the latest in a string of setbacks for the promising but controversial technology. At least 10 proposals for coal-gasification plants in the U.S. have been delayed or canceled this year. The plans have succumbed to high costs, technological uncertainties and growing concern about carbon emissions from coal-fired power. Known as integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, the technology uses high pressure and temperatures to convert coal to a gas that burns more cleanly and efficiently than raw coal. Xcel's $1 billion-plus proposal would have gone a step further than the other plans by capturing carbon dioxide from the process and injecting it into underground caverns, mines or oil and gas wells. Xcel chief executive Dick Kelly said this week that the utility will wait at least two more years before deciding whether to launch the project. "Much of the momentum building behind IGCC has waned in 2007 as rising capital costs, stabilizing natural-gas prices and an uncertain carbon-policy outlook have undermined IGCC's competitiveness for power generation," said analyst Alex Klein in a report for Cambridge, Mass.- based Emerging Energy Research. Among the setbacks: Tampa Electric canceled a 630-megawatt plant last month because of rising costs and uncertainty over whether the project would meet Florida's new greenhouse-gas regulations. The project was killed despite Tampa Electric's 10 years of operating another IGCC plant - one of only two in the nation. Plant developer Southwestern Power Group canceled an IGCC proposal for Bowie, Ariz., and now proposes a natural- gas-fired generator because of high costs for coal gasification, carbon-regulation uncertainties and difficulty in gaining public and regulatory approval. Ohio utility AEP said it may delay the start of an IGCC plant, pending the outcome of a court ruling on a challenge stemming from the project's high cost to consumers. "It's an experimental technology, and the costs can be 40 percent higher" than conventional coal-fired plants, said Lynne Mackey, regulatory affairs director for East Brunswick, N.J.-based power producer LS Power. "When you turn a plant on, it has to run," she said. "We're not philosophically opposed to IGCC, but the technology has to be compared to proven coal technologies." LS Power has sought for two years to build a conventional coal-fired plant in Colorado, but its submission to an Xcel Energy request for proposals was turned down last year. Mackey said the efficiency of conventional coal plants has increased in the past decade, allowing generators to burn less coal and reduce their carbon emissions. Steve Raabe: 303-954-1948 or sraabe(a)denverpost.com -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

1 0

Pacala: "Equitable Solutions to Greenhouse Warming"
by Duane330＠aol.com 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

WVU announced a change in the time of the lecture: ............................... CORRECTION: time of Benedum Lecture Stephen W. Pacala, Frederick D. Petrie Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and director of the Princeton Environmental Institute at Princeton University, will deliver the 2007 Benedum Lecture at 8 p.m. Tuesday (Nov. 6) in Room 202 of Brooks Hall. The title of his talk is *Equitable Solutions to Greenhouse Warming: On the Distribution of Wealth, Emissions and Responsibility Within and Between Nations.* A reception will follow outside Room 202. The event is open to the public; admission is free. The lecture is co-sponsored by the Claude Worthington Benedum Endowment and the Office of the Provost and is coordinated by the distinguished and chaired professors of WVU. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

1 0

[Fwd: [fom] MTR poll in the Charleston Daily Mail! Please vote!]
by Regina Hendrix 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

Please take a moment and vote in this poll. Thanks. Regina

1 0

Fwd: Charlotte Obs: Demand for coal destroys mountaintops-- MTR/ GW/ new coal plants
by Paul Wilson 31 Oct '07

31 Oct '07

fyi, regina you may want to fwd to the FOM list if it has not shown up there yet. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org <Alice.McKeown(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Oct 30, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Charlotte Obs: Demand for coal destroys mountaintops-- MTR/ GW/ new coal plants I wanted to make sure everyone saw this opinion piece out of NC-- it links MTR, GW, new coal-fired power plants, and corporate accountability all together. AND it ends with a nod to efficiency. It's from our friends at App. Voices. ________________________________ Alice McKeown Sierra Club Clean Air & Coal Campaigns tel: 202.675.6271 fax: 202.547.6009 Demand for coal destroys mountaintops BofA and Duke Energy contribute to practice that hurts environment HARVARD AYERS Special to the Observer Charlotte Observer http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/336472.html This week's protest of Charlotte-based Bank of America's practice of financing companies who strip mine coal in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia raised concerns that should be of interest to all North Carolinians. The Rainforest Action Network hung a huge banner off a crane in front of the Bank of America building that dominates the skyline of downtown Charlotte. The sign read, "Financing Coal, Killing Communities." Many of us are not aware of all the mining practices of coal giants such as Arch Coal and Massey Energy. Besides the familiar underground mining, they blow up mountains in Appalachia to get down to the coal, and push the waste and debris into surrounding valleys. Known appropriately as mountaintop removal, this practice has leveled more than 470 Appalachian mountains and buried or polluted thousands of miles of mountain streams -- streams at the headwaters of the drinking water supply of millions of Americans. Blasting and flooding from mountaintop removal are also devastating families and communities in the mountains and leaving the economy of central Appalachia in shambles. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., perhaps the most prominent environmentalist of our time, recently stated in a speech in Blowing Rock, "Mountaintop removal is the biggest environmental battle of our hemisphere. You know, you can restore the Hudson River in perhaps a hundred years. But you will never, never, get these mountains back. This is truly a crime against every human being in the world." Duke wants huge new plant Another prominent corporation in Charlotte, Duke Energy, is closely connected to Kennedy's concerns. Duke is trying to gain state approval for a huge coal-fired power plant just upwind from Charlotte. The smaller, existing plants at this Cliffside site use mostly mountaintop removal coal from West Virginia and surrounding states, and the much larger unit, if approved, is expected to burn coal from the same region. In fact, according to the Boone-based environmental organization Appalachian Voices, Duke Energy is one of our nation's three biggest users of mountaintop removal coal.Not only would increased demand for coal from the expanded Cliffside plant lead directly to the destruction of more beautiful and irreplaceable Appalachian mountains and communities, it would add millions of tons of global warming gases and other pollutants to our atmosphere. Congressional efforts to curb global warming are very likely to succeed in what promises to be a much more environmentally concerned Congress. So the Duke Energy effort to gain approval for the Cliffside coal plant may be seen as a race against time to get what may well be one of the last of the dirty coal plants in under the wire. When Congress does finally act to regulate global warming gases, those regulations will be costly for states like North Carolina that get most of their electricity from dirty coal plants. With an astronomical 61 percent of our electricity already generated by burning coal, North Carolinians have a lot to lose by putting even more of our energy "eggs" in the coal "basket." Rhetoric misleading Another connection exists between Bank of America and Duke Energy: both claim to be responsible corporate citizens who are concerned about their environmental footprint. Bank of America claims to be investing heavily in technologies that will reduce global warming. However, in 2006 the company spent $100 on dirty energy projects for every dollar it spent on clean energy, according to a white paper by the Rainforest Action Network. The environmental rhetoric of Duke CEO Jim Rogers is just as misleading: Rogers asserted in a recent editorial in The New York Times that the best power plant is the one you don't have to build. But a recent study by the N.C. Utilities Commission demonstrated unequivocally that conservation, efficiency and renewables could meet North Carolina's projected energy demand at a comparable cost to what Duke plans to spend building the Cliffside coal plant. The motto of North Carolina is Esse Quam Videri -- "To be, rather than to seem." But what North Carolina-based companies Duke Energy and Bank of America may have most in common is how far they are from living up to this standard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Harvard Ayers is professor emeritus of anthropology at Appalachian State University and a board member of Appalachian Voices, www.appvoices.org. Write him at harvard(a)boone.net. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975

2 1

[Fwd: Fw: Earthjustice e.Brief: Stunning Win Over Coal Power]
by Regina Hendrix 30 Oct '07

30 Oct '07

Just received this from Mark. Regina

1 0

Regina wants you to see this.
by regina1036＠verizon.net 29 Oct '07

29 Oct '07

Regina thought you would like this site. http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102407EC.shtml ApplyRefer v2.3

1 0

Add Sustainable Growth to WV-EOP
by Duane330＠aol.com 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

ENERGY POLICY: National Academies Make Case for Sustainable Growth Eli Kintisch A report released this week by dozens of the world's national science academies recommends using energy more efficiently, putting a price on carbon emissions, and developing green energy sources. See the journal Science, October 26, 2007, Volume 318, Issue 5850. Let me suggest that you visit the following web site, and submit your support for incorporating the above referenced studies into the WV Energy Opportunities Plan [EOP]. Comments can be submitted electronically until the end of October, i.e. Wednesday of next week. If you do it now, you won't forget. I have requested that WV develop a plan that reduces carbon dioxide emissions state-wide by 2% per year, which would be reasonably easy to achieve and to sustain, if a plan and commitment were made to do so. Web Site for WV-EOP: _www.energywv.org_ (http://www.energywv.org) ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

1 0

Fw: Forbes Article
by Allan Tweddle 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

Here's one WV DOE administration reaction that the members of the WV PEAS were sent. Allan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Herholdt<mailto:jherholdt@wvdo.org> To: stimmermeyer(a)wvdep.org<mailto:stimmermeyer@wvdep.org> ; David Warner<mailto:dwarner@wveda.org> ; Freeland Joe<mailto:joeatrms@yahoo.com> ; Allan Tweddle<mailto:allantweddle@msn.com> ; Mike Ross<mailto:mriimurray@3wlogic.net> ; S Pettit<mailto:spettit@waco-trio.com> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:36 AM Subject: Forbes Article The recent Forbes article referenced a study on energy efficiency at the state level conducted by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Attached is a copy of that study. The recent adoption of the 2003 International Conservation Code was reflected in our score. West Virginia is ranked 35, tied with Kentucky. FYI, Jeff Jeff Herholdt Acting Director West Virginia Division of Energy (304) 558-2234 (304) 558-0362 Fax jherholdt(a)energywv.org<mailto:jherholdt@energywv.org>

3 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC