Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?

Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?
March 26, 2011

Powder River Basin Distribution Legend Low Res

This weekend’s question may have no good answer.

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced plans to auction off 758 million tons of coal in Wyoming over the next few months. Then on Friday, the Bureau of Land Management explained they will be selling off another 1.6 billion tons of coal at a future date.

Salazar claims coal could play a role in the “clean energy future,” but that isn’t true, of course — except in an alternative universe where CO2 has a high and rising price and carbon capture and storage pans out — neither of which seems likely even if Obama weren’t now indifferent to serious climate action (see Harvard: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh! and Studyfind leaks from CO2 stored deep underground could contaminate drinking water).

The coal represents a staggering amount of future CO2 emissions, as Wild Earth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explain:

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants, further cementing the United States as a leading contributor to climate disruption … Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy. Interior, for example, touted that in 2010, 4,000 megawatts of renewable energy development were authorized. And in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year … Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from coal combustion lasts a long, long, long time (see Fossil CO2 impacts will outlast Stonehenge and nuclear waste). And that’s a major reason unrestricted burning of coal is just bad for humans (see Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add “close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated” and A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice).

So this decision just makes no sense, though Grist offers one explanation for cynics: Obama administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

This decision certainly eviscerates Salazar’s green street cred that he had developed by aggressively pushing renewable energy on public lands. It fits into an emerging pattern with offshore drilling and the continued embrace of uber-expensive nuclear power and the abandonment of any effort to pass serious climate legislation that suggests perhaps Obama really doesn’t get it at all. If so, it’s time for people like science advisor John Holdren to contemplate resigning and moving on to a job where he can do more good — like leading a national effort of scientists to inform the public about the extreme dangers of burning all that coal.

What do you think? Why are Obama and Salazar pushing a massive expansion of coal production?      Burning The Future - Coal In America  Factors Affecting Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Combustors       Methane emissions from gassy coals in storage silos

Snow on Roof-Opportunity to Check Insulation Level

This last snow we received yesterday is the perfect opportunity to see if your attic is properly insulated.
Take a look at the Roof of your Home. -Lack of Snow on your Roof is a sure indication that it was melted by the Heat as it rises from the Interior of your House into the Attic Area.

• Does the Snow cover the whole roof?
• Are there places where the snow melts first? (not caused by the Suns Rays)
  
• Is there Snow on the Garage Roof but not on the House Roof?
• Does your Neighbors House have Snow on their Roof- but-Your Roof Doesn't?
  

Any or All the above may mean that:

1. Lack of Insulation In the Attic
2. Air Infiltration from the Interior of the House into the Attic Area
   
3. Uninsulated Heating Ducts inside the Attic

Scotts Contracting can Inspect your Attic for Proper:

1. Insulation Levels
2. Adequate Ventilation
   
3. Uninsulated Heating Ducts
4. Air Infiltration
   
5. and other areas that are causing your Home to Lose Energy

Email scottscontracting@gmail.com and Scotty will provide a Free Estimate to Fix any of the Above Issues on your Home. I will also provide a Cost Saving Analysis that will provide a ROI on your Investment.
Weatherization ! - Rule of Thumb: For Every $1 Spent on Weatherization- You will save $2 or More on your Homes Energy Bills

Additional Green Blog Posts:Energy Star Home Improvement Tips ,Insulation and Thermal Performance ,Which Kind Of Insulation Is Best? ,Radiant Barriers for your Attic,Insulating Roofs, Walls, and Floors, Roof and Attic Ventilation

Email scottscontracting@gmail.com and Scotty will provide a Free Green Estimate to Fix any of the Above Issues on your Home.


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

Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...

Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From "Big Government" OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of that here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But they've got the word "America" in their title, so they must be extremely patriotic, right? Tragically, from what I'm reading on tea party blogs, it must be extremely difficult for Bank of America to survive in this era of Big Government oppression. For example, after BOA and their other corporate buddies crashed the American economy in 2008, BOA only received a $45 billion dollar bailout. And, on top of that, they've had to pay zero dollars in federal taxes while their executives eeked by with only $6 to $30 million dollar salaries! With oppressive big government action like that, it's totally understandable that the St. Louis tea party is now working hard to protect the nearly defenseless (aside from billions of dollars) bank from protesters who remind the public of BOA's actions and challenge them on their unjust foreclosure practices. Thank goodness the tea party is out there protecting the most vulnerable citizens of all: multibillion dollar companies who regularly distort the free market by infusing the political system with blood money. St. Louis Activist Hub: Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...: "OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of tha..."

Solar Stocks Still Undervalued | DanaBlankenhorn

Civilization is never going forward so long as we're tied to the technology of our caveman ancestors, looking around for stuff to burn, then burning it. It progresses – I would argue it starts – 

• when we settle down to harvesting the energy that's all around us. Let this be the century when man is finally civilized. 
• Let the Wall Street Journal put $100 into natural gas stocks, you put $100 into solar stocks, and see who wins 20 years from now.

 

 

While most investors were hurt bad by the Sendai earthquake, those who invested in solar stocks were protected.
Big solar companies like First Solar and SunPower have, in fact, been out-performing the market this year. But even with recent gains they're still selling at price-earnings multiples below that of the market, comparable to those of big oil companies like Exxon Mobil.


They're not being treated as growth stocks. They're being treated like newspaper stocks. One reason makes sense – we don't really know who the long-term winners are. Another reason is foreign competition. Some folks just don't believe America can win. (Picture from Civilianism.)


That may be why the Wall Street Journal still expects natural gas, despite its environmental problems,  to outpace solar.


I'd like to place a bet on that one. This is an industry that grew 67% last year. You really think natural gas can compete with that?


Fact is, as the folks at SolarDock and other suppliers know well, solar efficiency measured in watts of output per square foot continues to climb. It's doubled in the last decade, and there's no reason to believe it won't double again in the next.


The theoretical maximum is 1000 watts per square foot, because that's the average output of the Sun on the average piece of ground on the average day. Most current production panels run at 150 watts per square foot, so there's room for improvement.


Improvement comes every year, and not just on that single dimension. I wrote yesterday about how PPA agreements can become standardized. That cuts costs. Connectors can become standardized, and that cuts costs. Mass production leads to cost reductions, and that cuts costs. Harnessing heat as well as light (not to mention non-visible wavelengths) increases production and cuts the cost per watt. I'll bet you can think of some other dimensions of improvement as well.


Natural gas can never work that way. Greater production, at enormous long-term costs to our water table, could increase supply and maintain costs at near their current level, in the near term. But every cubic meter of gas consumed is one less cubic meter of gas in the ground. Meanwhile, the Sun keeps shining.


Civilization is never going forward so long as we're tied to the technology of our caveman ancestors, looking around for stuff to burn, then burning it. It progresses – I would argue it starts – when we settle down to harvesting the energy that's all around us.


Let this be the century when man is finally civilized. Let the Wall Street Journal put $100 into natural gas stocks, you put $100 into solar stocks, and see who wins 20 years from now.

Presidential Campaign Slogan for 2012: It's Innovation Stupid! | KC_Donovan

*Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising

Okay, so the winds blowing through Congress may set back any energy and climate legislation for years. But all is not lost: With the corporate world embracing innovation in clean energy, lawmakers will soon be forced to keep up with the times.


Of course, we're still up against a wall of doubt built by opponents.

We consistently see the anti clean energy media making the point that a transition to renewables will drive prices up, lose jobs and cause damage to an already fragile economy. It's a classic "denial" marketing strategy – trumpet exactly the opposite of reality.  Some leading this effort are experts at this strategy and earned their stripes after speweing decades of misinformation while working for the tobacco industry, and have moved to crafting the response for challenges to the status quo of energy production.
Certainly those currently making money in the fossil fuel industry have a lot at stake as they don’t want to become this century’s Black Smiths. Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an excellent interview with Grist.com that collectively, Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising their "scary" message. By comparison, that’s about what the entire Clean Energy and Environmental Community spends in a year.

Little wonder why there is no legislation for clean energy and climate policy, that 25-30% of the public question Climate Change’s existence and that government subsidizes the oil industry to the tune of between between $130-280 billion annually. This last point seems patently absurd when you realize that three of the five largest companies on the planet are oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP) – and they’re the most profitable. Even after paying out billions in Gulf Oil Spill damages in the summer of 2010, BP still was able to earn almost $2 billion in profit during the same period. Do these guys really need taxpayer financial support?  Sad when you consider that a new transmission line to bring the Mid West wind and Southwest Solar energy to our population centers would cost less than four years worth of that oil subsidy.

All of these inequities are bought and paid for – plain and simple.

We can go on and on ranting about the lack of common sense that goes into the energy hopper of public policy and discourse, or we can look enthusiastically at making a difference through innovation. Looking back through history, it has always been improvements in technology and business models that have brought about change.

It was the cotton gin and steam engine that spawned the industrial revolution (outlawing slavery in the British Empire also helped); harnessing electricity and oil was the key to such incredible growth in the 20^thCentury; and the interent created a vast network that formed the basis of our today's information-driven global economy. In every case it was the implementation of new technology that undid our past practices and ushered in greater waves of prosperity.

It will be no different this time.
We certainly have our Morgan’s, Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s in our midst that pull the levers of power and retain most of the wealth. But this time around there are Gate’s, Khosla’s and Buffett's to balance out the Cheney’s, Koch’s, Blankenship’s and their ilk.

These and others have been powerful thought leaders in this sector. In addition, the efforts of clean energy opponents have been thwarted by giant companies like WalMart, Intel and GSK that have turned to renewable energy solutions to power their businesses. In addition, other giant conglomerates like GE, Siemens and Honeywell have become leading investors in clean energy solutions; GE has pledged to spend hundreds of billions in new energy technologies in the coming years, and recently announced that it would also buy 45,000 electric vehicles for its sales fleet.

The Carbon Disclosure Project, which reviews the Global 500 biggest companies and rates their climate and sustainability policies, recently reported that more than 80% of top companies are working on carbon emissions reduction and sustainability programs. In addition, a recent UN sponsored study conducted by Accenture of 766 global CEOs found that 93% say that sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.

With this kind of support from the corporate world, there's a real chance that we can continue our progress even without consistent support from Congress. As innovation keeps brewing, federal lawmakers will have no choice but to listen.

Re: Compromise is key to setting energy policy

Editorial: Compromise is key to setting energy policy
	Mar 16, 2011	Knox News
	Energy crises have been a part the American landscape on and off for the past 40 years. However, it seems we have learned little, except perhaps that politicians understand they can get a lot of mileage when they complain about America's dependence on "foreign oil." Since the 1970s when gasoline prices shot up during an embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Americans have talked about decreasing their dependence on oil from other nations, especially the Middle East. (During the current crisis, OPEC has ramped up production to compensate for the loss of Libyan crude.) The early 1970s also was the time the environmental movement was hitting its stride, so there was talk about ending dependence on fossil fuels and switching to alternative forms of energy: solar, geothermal and wind power, among others. And speaking of alternative sources of energy, credit U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander with leading the way. The Tennessee Republican last week became one of the first consumers in the state to purchase a 2011 Nissan Leaf electric car, encouraging the use of electric-powered vehicles. If enough Americans made similar purchases, he said, "that would be the single best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." With gasoline prices hitting an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide last week - about $3.35 per gallon in Tennessee - Alexander's purchase was timely. Meanwhile, those rising gasoline prices continue to capture most of the current attention. And even politicians who seriously want Americans to find alternative sources of energy acknowledge that gasoline will remain the fuel of choice in the near future. Now, some predict that gas prices will reach $5 per gallon by the summer, and that is causing the rhetoric to rise as well. Tennessee's U.S. representatives have decried the dependence on foreign oil as well as the lack of a clear energy policy. U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, also expressed understandable concern about people in rural areas having to drive longer distances to work. Duncan chairs the House Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. An energy policy should include drilling in new areas and accelerating approval of nuclear power plants, Duncan said. U.S. Reps. Scott DesJarlais, of the 3rd District, and Phil Roe, of the 1st District, agreed. DeJarlais added that alternative forms of energy should be expanded, while Roe said the U.S. should boost the use of natural gas. Duncan said he expects the new Republican majority in the House to begin pushing for an energy policy that includes more domestic production. The discussion needs to begin anew and not disappear when gasoline prices fall. If the GOP majority can get it going, good for them. With the House in Republican hands and the Senate and White House controlled by Democrats, the current crisis might produce what has been lacking in the past. That would be a compromise that gives Americans a clear, coherent energy policy, one that builds instead of blames and guides instead of guesses. That would be an achievement 40 years in the making.

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

President Carter was right

	Mar 16, 2011	UK Progressive
	For 40 years, America's energy policy has been a bipartisan disaster. Since the early 1970s America's dependence on foreign oil has threatened our economy, security and national honor as we corrupted our foreign policy to satisfy our thirst for oil. Nixon failed. Ford failed. Reagan failed. George H.W. Bush failed. Clinton failed. George W. Bush failed. Compared to the magnitude of the problem, Obama so far has failed. Democrats failed. Republicans failed. The House failed. The Senate failed. The one national leader who understood was a prophet without honor in a nation addicted to oil: President Jimmy Carter. When Carter said the energy crisis is the moral equivalent of war, he was absolutely right. Carter could have been a more perfect commander in the politics of passing an energy program. Yet the far larger fault lies with the generals, captains and foot soldiers in a war that demanded our support, a war we have never fought, a war we continue to lose today. Perhaps with the price of oil rising to the skies again, our economic recovery threatened by the punishing price of gasoline, our decadent four-decade program of foreign policy threatened by instability in despotic oil-producing regimes and fears of nuclear meltdown arriving again, this could be President Obama's moment. In 2008 I wrote a column proposing a JFK moon-shot for the fuel-efficient car. I repeat that proposal here, adding an idea first suggested by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Let's create the greatest private incentives in economic history to bring back the drive of invention, innovation and progress and renew "Made in America" to world energy, environmental and technology leadership. I propose that a company that sells at least 250,000 American-made cars that achieve 100 miles per gallon within five years be granted a waiver of all corporate taxes for that year; that the inventor of that car be granted a $1 billion cash bounty from the federal government, payable upon the sale of those 250,000 cars; that investors in that company receive a complete capital gains tax holiday for stock they own in that company held for at least two years; and that all workers in that company receive a holiday of all payroll taxes for one year. My proposal only goes into effect if the 100 mpg cars are sold in large numbers within the five-year window. It would create powerful incentives and rewards for inventors, management, corporate boards, investors and employees to create and sell the cars that would bring revolutionary energy savings for the world and a jobs wave for Americans. Let's fully upgrade the technology at the patent office and hire every employee necessary to fast-track patent approval for all major innovations, especially energy. It is ridiculous for the agency tasked to advance innovation to be a laggard in the world economy. Let's have a televised Davos-like summit in Washington to bring together inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs, CEOs, venture capitalists, private equity managers, labor leaders and consumer groups to develop investment, tax and spending policies to win the moral equivalent of war that we must wage and win together. Brent Budowsky The Hill

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