Fellow Missourians Thanks for signing letter to support Renewable Energy in MO

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Erin Noble <enoble@moenviron.org> wrote:

Prop C - Missouri Renewable Energy Standard Update and Next Steps   Thank you for signing the letter urging Governor Nixon calling on him to veto SCR1 which undercut Prop C - the Missouri Renewable Energy Standard.  With your help Renew Missouri, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environment Missouri delivered 1568 signatures to Governor Nixon.      The Governor's office responded on February 16 with a letter to the General Assembly.  It says that while the Governor strongly supports renewable energy in Missouri, he will not veto SCR1 because of a technicality that makes the veto moot.   Therefore, the General Assembly has officially removed the "sold to Missouri" provision from Prop C costing Missouri thousands of jobs, millions in economic development, and cleaner air, that results from home-grown, renewable energy.      But, we are not giving up yet.  There is still the opportunity to reinstate the "sold to Missouri provision" by the end of this legislative session (May 12).       Representative Jason Holsman, chairman of the new "House Committee on Renewable Energy", has introduced a bill (HB 613) which is a great start towards achieving these goals.      To successfully reinstate the RES this session, surely the easiest of all the options, we again need your help. Please tell your legislator to support HB613.  Tell them the Missouri Renewable Electricity Standard must:  Require renewable electricity be sold to Missouri customers to ensure local renewable energy development and job creation  Sets renewable energy target at 15% by 2021 or greater  Include a $2/watt rebate for solar installations. Remind them the RES will help diversify Missouri's electric portfolio away from an over-reliance on coal, and thereby protect consumers from the rising costs of coal. Find your legislators here, email or call your State Senator and State Representative by Monday, and email that you took action.   Thank you for supporting renewable energy in Missouri!   -Renew Missouri

Missouri Coalition for the Environment | 6267 Delmar Blvd., Ste. 2E | St. Louis | MO | 63130

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Nuclear is not the Answer-Dan Rather

For everyone who says nuclear waste is not harmful-- Lets put the Nuclear Waste in your Back Yard.

­

English: Nuclear waste consists of the waste products of processes involving nuclear reactions. It is most commonly associated with nuclear reactors.

[1]As for the Costs Graphs Show- Nuclear Energy is not needed for Clean Energy Production­-Renewable Energy Head-to-He­ad with Nuclear for Clean Energy Production­.[Last July we wrote about the North Carolina study that showed solar power to be cheaper than power promised by planned nuclear constructi­on in that state]

[2]Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissanc­e" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineerin­g problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."

" Nuclear Energy is not Clean Energy for the simple fact of the hazardous waste that is left over". Scotty

Energy Generated by the Sun via Solar Panels for Electricit­y produces NO WASTE- Just Clean Energy.

For the Billions Spent in Nuclear Plant Constructi­on- the $ would buy an Astronomical Number of Solar Panels that produce clean Energy. There are even Solar Panel Manufactur­ing Facilities in the USA- who employ American Workers.


Mr Rather is mistaken on Nuclear Energy, for the simple fact that there is WASTE and It is HAZARDOUS. The states that did except it at one time don't want any more. see my blogs for additional info

On with the Article by Mr Dan Rathers- via: HuffingtonPost.com 

Nuclear Reactors

Dan Rather

Host, Dan Rather Report

For many Americans, the words "nuclear power" still conjure up images of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, fears of meltdowns or radioactive leaks. Those reactor failures helped drive the U.S. nuclear industry into dormancy in the late 1970s.

But there's an increasingly urgent need in this country for a clean, carbon-free energy source. And to nuclear advocates, the answer lies not in burning dirty coal but with old-fashioned atomic fission. America was the first to harness the awesome power of atoms for peaceful purposes (and not so peaceful purposes.) As for safety concerns? We toured a research reactor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and director Dr. David Moncton told us the significance of Three Mile Island has been misunderstood. "What happened there was the nuclear equivalent of landing on the Hudson," Moncton said. An accident all right, but one that was brought under control before anyone was harmed. As for the deadly explosion at Chernobyl, Moncton told us our reactors are designed with a completely different technology that would make such an accident here impossible.

But even nuclear supporters concede that nuclear power remains hobbled by its price tag and the unanswered question of what to do with all that leftover radioactive waste that nuclear power generates. So what if there was a way to build nuclear power plants that were smaller, more affordable, and that even solved -- or at least greatly reduced -- the waste issue? I recently met entrepreneurs and scientists with radical ideas to do just that.
Dr. Eric Loewen oversees advanced reactor designs at GE-Hitachi, in Wilmington, NC. He's peddling a new nuclear reactor called the PRISM that actually runs on the waste generated by current reactors. The technology exists to recycle spent fuel, he says, it's the political will that's lacking.

The PRISM has a rich pedigree that dates back to the early 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan launched a little-known research project in the Idaho desert. We traveled out to the Arco Desert and toured a moth-balled reactor with retired scientist Dr. Charles Till, where Till spent ten years and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to prove that recycling nuclear fuel could work. Till told us the government pulled the plug on the project before it was 100% proven. It was a mistake, according to Till and Loewen. "They were completely wrong," Loewen told me.

While Loewen wants to recycle nuclear fuel, there's a brother-sister team that want to make nuclear more affordable, by shrinking it. John "Grizz" Deal and his sister Deborah Blackwell have a "hot tub" sized reactor, one they envision can be factory-produced and then transported by truck or rail wherever needed. Each reactor provides enough electricity for 20,000 homes. Perfect, they say for the developing world, small towns, or even military installations.

But these visionaries are getting ahead of themselves, according to Dr. Ernest Moniz, a renowned physics professor at MIT and a member of President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. "I feel like I'm a technology Luddite or something in saying this," Moniz told me, "For the next ten, twenty years, if we're going to build nuclear power, it's going to be fundamentally based around what you see and the so-called generation III+ reactors." In other words, more traditional, large nuclear power plants, financed with government help.

Whether the government is on the right path is a point of contention, but on one point, everyone I interviewed agrees. Nuclear power is the solution, they say, and it's time to get going. Their next challenge is winning over skeptics, who thought the horrors of Chernobyl killed the nuclear option a long time ago.

Dan Rather Reports airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET. This episode is also available on iTunes.

Here is some info on Nuclear Waste Courtesy of Wiki.com

Category:Nuclear waste

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

English: Nuclear waste consists of the waste products of processes involving nuclear reactions. It is most commonly associated with nuclear reactors.

 

Breathing Treatment: Native plants at Home Depot

Breathing Treatment: Native plants at Home Depot

foxyform.com

Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS: Scientist blames Arkansas earthquakes on drilling

Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS: Scientist blames Arkansas earthquakes on drilling

foxyform.com

St Louis Renewable Energy: Green Roof Facts

Green Roof Facts Enter Here - Scotts Contracting Offers Green Green Roofs For the Greater StLouis Region.  Click Here to Continue Learing How a Green Roof Saves Money and Boost the Environment.

Green roofs and living walls offer many benefits, including cooling buildings, reducing storm-water runoff, providing wildlife habitat, growing food and creating jobs

: " Scotts Contracting can assist in the Construction of your next Green Roof. Offering Services for the Greater St Louis Region. ..."

Email Scotty at scottscontracting@gmail.com

How Much Tax Money Goes to Fossil Energy Companies

Q:just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

A:There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested  TellMyPolitician

Why We Still Don't Know How Much Money Goes to Fossil Energy

By Mike Casey   |   February 16, 2011  

The national conversation about wasteful welfare for highly profitable dirty energy corporations has gone from the dramatic statement by the Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency that fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest impediments to global economic recovery ("the appendicitis of the global energy system which needs to be removed for a healthy, sustainable development future"), to a speech by Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch (in which he called the fossil fuel industry "grotesquely oversubsidized"), to a call by President Obama to cut oil company welfare by $4 billion.
 
Not to be outdone, House Democrats are now calling for a $40 billion cut.
Dirty energy welfare defenders have, predictably, responded with ridiculous, Palin-esque denials of reality, but the voter demands that wasteful spending be cut begs the question: just how much of our tax money is going to ExxonMobil, Massey, etc.? With the new deficit hawks in Congress going after insignificant items like bottled water expenses, you'd think they'd want to know the size of the really wasteful stuff, right?

The problem is, we've long suspected that no one really knows how much of our money goes to dirty oil executives like Rex Tillerson and Gregory Boyce. There have been counts, ranging from $10 billion a year by the Environmental Law Institute, to the more comprehensive, $52 billion a year by Doug Koplow of EarthTrack. But, do taxpayers even have a widely accepted, comprehensive inventory of how of our money is being handed to the dirty energy lobby by politicians?  That includes state-level subsidies, by the way, such as the $45 million that Virginia gives to the coal industry.

Energy trends analyst Chris Namovicz of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was the latest speaker in our "Communicating Energy" lecture series. We took the opportunity to ask one of the top, neutral energy trends analysts in the country the question, "Do you know if someone has actually done a credible, comprehensive, definitive count of how much taxpayers underwrite fossil fuels in this country?" We added the thought that "there's no one really widely available number whereaverage citizens can say, yeah, this much of my money goes to pay ExxonMobil.
According to Namovicz, there really isn't such a widely available, definitive, comprehensive number.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2B4tgpqjXuY&amp

Right…we're not accounting for the nuclear insurance subsidy, we're not accounting for military oil shipping, we're not even accounting for the tax depreciation benefits that some resources get over others...

The fact is, there is a wide array of government subsidies, both implicit and explicit, that are doled out every year to fossil fuel companies. One estimate, by the Environmental Law Institute, finds that dirty energy companies in the United States alone have run up a $72 billion tab at the taxpayer's bar from 2002 to 2008. Worldwide, it's far worse; as this study by the OECD explains:

The [International Energy Agency] estimates that direct subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by artificially lowering end-user prices for fossil fuels amounted to $312 billion in 2009. In addition, a number of mechanisms can be identified, also in advanced economies, which effectively support fossil-fuel production or consumption, such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g., land) and the transfer of risks to governments (e.g., via concessional loans or guarantees). These subsidies are more difficult to identify and estimate compared with direct consumer subsidies.

As we pointed out in a recent post, these subsidies aren't just reckless and stupid, they aren't even what people want. In fact, only 8 percent of Americans prefer their tax money be given to highly profitable, mature industries such as ExxonMobil and Massey Energy.

Shouldn't there be a definitive count of energy subsidies? As we're looking at cutting waste from our federal (and states') budgets, shouldn't there be a credible accounting of all the ways we pay to grease the way for these mature, highly profitable industries? We're not talking about one done by dirty energy lobbyists or their hired "experts," by the way, but a real inventory done by those who wouldn't profit by a lower or incomplete count. Such an accounting should include:

• Tax breaks
• Dirty subsidies
• The costs of government agencies that are set up to perform functions that these industries should pay full cost for doing – such as figuring out how to stuff their pollution underground instead of wasting it on exorbitant, fantasy projects like "FutureGen."
• Military expenditures to protect oil shipping lanes.
• Pollution forgiveness or remediation
• Rock-bottom priced access to public property – mountains, subsurface property, aquifers, ocean waters -- which fossil energy companies routinely wreck and pay comparatively little to fix.

We need to force politicians to be aggressively honest about how much of our money is going to Tillerson, Boyce., Blankenship, O'Reilly, Lesar, etc. Until they do, the anti-clean energy bigmouths in Congress who are bashing clean energy policy support need to back way off. And, the dirty energy lobby mouthpieces who propagandize how "cheap" dirty energy is, should do the same. Directly or indirectly, we're paying their salaries.

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

Article by: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/top-eia-energy-trends-watcher-no-definitive-count-on-dirty-energy-welfare?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-February24-2011
Westinghouse, Westinghouse Solar Systems, Solar Panel, Solar Electricity, Solar Systems, Inverter, Installation Guides, Facts, Solar Warranty Information, Deals of the Week, Solar Panel Electric Systems, Battery, Grid Tie, Off Grid
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

USA vs China- Renewable Energy News

Fact is we're in a race with China. The nation that weans itself from imported fossil fuels first will have an enormous economic advantage. China is no longer willing to be just the "low cost supplier" – its workers are getting raises – but it does plan on using wind and solar energy, along with hydropower and even nuclear energy, to enhance its national security.

The question we have to ask is, can we afford to do less? China thinks renewable energy can help its grandchildren earn more than your grandchildren. Are we up to the challenge? Or are we going to let troubles in places like Libya drive our future?

Those are the stakes. I think most Americans understand this, and it's why renewable energy remains popular. Even in states dominated by conservative Republicans, efforts to overturn renewable energy targets are falling short.

Bolstering Renewables with Patriotism emphasis added by scotty

By Dana Blankenhorn   |   February 23, 2011

Yesterday I asked whether there is a way to trump the arguments of natural gas, on behalf of renewable energy.

The responses were interesting. Some believe we can't. Others that we must. Some pointed out that natural gas prices are volatile, others noted the volatility of energy from wind.

My article focused on the issue of fracturing, exploding small bombs deep in the Earth's crust to stimulate delivery of gas. I acknowledged that while the concerns are real the argument is not winning the day.

Today I want to propose that we have two trump cards to play right now at a time when lawmakers are re-evaluating incentives for many renewable energy programs: Libya and China.

The price explosion that followed recent unrest in Libya can happen at any time, and in many places. Each time it happens, economies that depend on fossil fuels are hit hard. The stock market tanks. We wind up rooting against democracy for fear that our own jobs could disappear if it triumphed. It's a sin we're constantly reminded of on the world stage, a reality our high ideals can't absolve us of.

Fact is that when you tie your economy to a common commodity that is imported you lose your autonomy. America's national security is in the hands of others. Our best and bravest are sent to fight and die to maintain supply lines, even when alternative technologies exist that can cut those ties and reduce that dependence.

China's next five-year plan  (yes, they still have them) focuses on higher wages and domestic demand. But its key buzzword on the supply side is renewable energy.

In an effort to keep growing while expanding renewable energy to 20% of domestic demand by 2020, our rival plans on doing the very same things America's renewable industry wants us to do, starting with a tax on pollution. A carbon trading system is also expected to be part of the plan, due for ratification next month, with environmental and energy efficiency declared "priority industries" for the first time.

Fact is we're in a race with China. The nation that weans itself from imported fossil fuels first will have an enormous economic advantage. China is no longer willing to be just the "low cost supplier" – its workers are getting raises – but it does plan on using wind and solar energy, along with hydropower and even nuclear energy, to enhance its national security.

The question we have to ask is, can we afford to do less? China thinks renewable energy can help its grandchildren earn more than your grandchildren. Are we up to the challenge? Or are we going to let troubles in places like Libya drive our future?

Those are the stakes. I think most Americans understand this, and it's why renewable energy remains popular. Even in states dominated by conservative Republicans, efforts to overturn renewable energy targets are falling short.

I think we have the wind at our backs. Let's not be afraid to use patriotism to close the deal.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com