The bit about recycling CFL bulbs appears to be a total misnomer. It's not about "recycling" at all. It IS about collection for disposal.
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Sun, 9/6/09, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu Subject: [EC] Fwd: New Bills/Laws & Resources -- 9-24 To: ec@osenergy.org Date: Sunday, September 6, 2009, 3:45 PM
You might find some of this useful.
JBK
Paula Carrell Paula.Carrell@sierraclub.org 9/3/2009 7:50 PM >>>
--------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS 1. Learn about the "Smart Grid" 2. N. Carolina debates Wind on mountain ridges 3. Recycling Compact Fluorescent Bulbs -- Maine
1. Is it smarter than a 5th grader?
Ivy Main, a volunteer leader in Virginia, unearthed the below-noted reports. Completely TMI, but still you might share them with your Energy Committee and encourage them to poke around a bit for some basic education. The states' role is ensuring that *renewable* energy can get on the grid through strong state interconnection standards.
Both the Department Of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued reports this summer on the nation's energy grid. The DOE report is "Smart Grid System Report," at http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/SGSRMain_090707_lowres.pdf contains a good discussion of the status of the smart grid. It also explains the relevance of interconnection standards to the smart grid and describes the overlapping federal/state jurisdiction in this area, making it clear that a lot of states are lagging on adopting acceptable interconnection standards. (See the section starting on page 20.) The FERC document, at http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2009/071609/E-3.pdf announces a policy to promote and set standards for transmission system upgrades. FERC claims it has authority to set standards for transmission, but it is apparently not saying these are mandatory.
3. The wind blows where it chooses . . .
The North Carolina State Legislature spent some time this past session talking about wind as well as contributing to it. The legislation before them was S 1068, which can be found at http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1068v3.pdf
Molly Diggins says about the bill, "North Carolina's greatest wind resources are off-shore, but there are also commercially viable resources in the mountains and on the coast (sounds). The state currently has no commercial wind and also lacks and environmental permitting process. The bill before the legislature is well-thought out and well-crafted. It is written in two sections--wind on the coast and wind in the mountains.
Other Atlantic coastal states may want to review the bill thoughtfully.
And here's the view of the "Charlotte Observer" Editorial Board from Aug. 08, 2009:
Senate right to block ridgetop wind farms Should North Carolina allow huge wind turbines on its mountain ridges to help meet future energy needs? We don't think so. But it also ought not short-circuit the potential for wind power projects in other mountain areas that may not spoil the views millions of Americans revere. We start with this proposition: One of the wisest things the legislature did in the 1980s is to adopt the mountain ridge law. It bans certain development on ridgetops in Western North Carolina to prevent the spoilage of the state's magnificent vistas. Among the things prohibited are tall condo projects and other structures that alter the viewscape. It's a good law. But controversy has risen over whether its provisions halt development of large wind turbine farms that, under a new sustainable energy law lawmakers adopted a few years ago, would help provide alternative power sources. The goal is to produce 12.5 percent of the state's energy requirements by 2021 with renewable sources such as solar and wind. To meet that goal, many environmentalists argue, the state must use available resources, including the Western N.C. winds that blow most steadily along ridgetops. We don't believe mountaintops are an appropriate place to put wind farms, collections of dozens of wind turbines that can tower up to four hundred feet high, measured from their base to the tips of their rotors. We believe the best spot is along parts of North Carolina's windswept coastline, either offshore or in its more protected sounds. In many of those areas, wind farms could be constructed that do not substantially mar the view and which could take advantage of more reliable winds than many mountain areas. We think Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, D-Dare, has this one right: The coast would be ideal for concentrations of wind farms that could produce significant amounts of electricity. He has talked with Duke Energy about such a possibility in our offshore areas, he says. That's why we like several things about a bill the Senate passed 45-1 Thursday. It sets up a careful process for assessing and issuing permits for coastal area wind farms. And it reasserts the value of the mountain ridgetop law by banning commercial windmill operations. It does allow smaller windmills for residential use. But we'd like to see legislators find a way to encourage the development of emerging wind turbine technology that might be appropriate for some Western N.C. slopes. That includes devices that use much less intrusive turbines than the three-rotor turbines found on many Western United States and European wind farms, for example. There may not be time left in the current legislative session for the House to make suitable revisions to the Senate bill that would allow research and development of mountain wind projects to go forward. But legislators should put their minds to finding a way, before they reconvene next year, to develop appropriate wind energy projects in Western N.C. that do not threaten the very landscape that North Carolinians hold so dear.
3. The Brightest Bulb
Maine's LD 973 provides a free and easy way for consumers to recycle compact fluorescent bulbs and sets a standard for the amount of mercury that can be contained in them.
Bill text: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chappdfs/PUBLIC272.p...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec