Big Coal and Lobbyist At It Again

 One Year Later, Safety Overhaul Stalled-

West Virginia Mine Disaster:

 A year after the worst coal mining accident in decades took the lives of 29 workers, prompting urgent calls to revamp oversight of one of the country's most dangerous jobs, not much has changed in the lives of those who toil deep underground.

Soon after the disaster on April 5, 2010, lawmakers in Congress and West Virginia vowed to overhaul mine safety laws and investigators promised to swiftly find the cause of the explosion that roared through the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia the day after Easter.

Despite the widespread media coverage and passionate speeches, a bill that would have made it easier to shut down problem mines and increased penalties for serious safety violations was quietly defeated in early December. As The Huffington Post reported that month, the legislation died due to a combination of inattention, intensive lobbying efforts by a powerful industry and mine workers' lack of political clout.

Though West Virginia's then-governor Joe Manchin pledged that he would "move quicker than the feds," the state has failed to pass any mine safety package. His successor, Earl Ray Tomblin, did sign two mine safety bills but they were watered down almost completely -- instead of requiring changes, they called for studies -- reports the Charleston Daily Mail.

In the past year, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration has ramped up its inspections, finding 4,600 violations at more than 200 mines across the country. But mine safety advocates and reformers say that the agency still lacks crucial powers. MSHA could lose a court battle with Massey Energy over whether the Upper Big Branch mine owners can undertake their own investigation into the fatal accident.

"I don't see anything that's happened," said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School. "This is one of the most powerful entrenched political powers in the country and to get change, it takes relentless pressure relentlessly applied." Parenteau added that while there is no system of laws and regulations to fully prevent such disasters, they can definitely be reduced.

And though Massey has a history of environmental problems and dozens of mining deaths, the company's executives have escaped serious punishment. Notorious CEO Don Blankenship retired in December and is due to receive a $12-million pay package. That same month, more than 18 top Massey officials refused to speak to investigators.

Article Continues at:

Marcus Baram Marcus@huffingtonpost.com

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

Consumers Could Be the Losers in Capitol Hill Light Bulb Debate and Other News

Date: Mar 22, 2011

Author(s):

Kissairis Munoz

As light bulbs become a hotter topic on the Hill, the Alliance’s President Kateri Callahan was featured on E&E TV. As Congress becomes embroiled in a broader debate over the government’s role in regulations, it’s unfortunate that it’s happening around the light bulb law, she said, where the consumer could be the loser.

Senior Vice President for Programs Jeff Harris went on Washington’s NBC-4 to explain how new light bulb regulations actually provide consumers with more choice and savings, as 90 percent of the energy that’s paid for with traditional incandescent is radiated as heat, not light.

In other news, while the tax credit for hybrid vehicles expired at the end of 2010, there is still a tax credit of $2,500 to $7,500 for plug-in electric vehicles. The credits can significantly reduce what consumers will end up paying, Senior Policy and Research Associate Tom Simchak told USA Today.

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rolls out new guidelines as part of the Clean Air Act, Callahan reminded readers of the National Journal’s Energy and Environment blog that while the EPA’s actions might be controversial, enhancing energy efficiency is a sensible answer that transcends politics.

Consumers Could Be the Losers in Capitol Hill Light Bulb Debate and Other News

Students Help Their School, Local Businesses Save Money with Energy Efficiency

What’s a green high school student to do about energy waste? Just ask David Fischer, a student at West Branch High School in Iowa who helped his school save energy with efficiency, and a little help from his classmates.

“We noticed significant energy waste in our school and we decided that something had to be done to fix it,” Fischer said.

Given the tight budget at West Branch, Fischer joined forces with four other students – Ryan O’Neil, Justin Roth, Sarah Fischer and Emily Corr – to form a Total Energy Action Management (TEAM) group. Their goal? To find out how their school could save money and reduce its environmental impact.

Saving Energy Beyond the Classroom

With the support of teacher Hector Ibarra, TEAM found that their school could save $10,000 annually by conserving energy. They spoke with local energy experts, had a professional conduct an energy assessment and zeroed in on recommendations for lowering West Branch’s electric bill. These recommendations included retrofitting lights and wiring a new gym building to be solar-ready.

After uncovering savings opportunities at their school, TEAM visited small businesses to help them do the same. In particular, students helped business owners calculate the savings potential for replacing T12 fluorescent lamps with more efficient T8 lamps using General Electric’s Eco Estimator.

Consequently, TEAM won a $10,000 Lexus Eco Challenge Air/Climate regional contest. TEAM used the money to provide college scholarship to its members and establish a revolving loan fund for businesses to upgrade florescent lighting.

“Our team learned about how doing something simple like completing an energy audit can realize significant savings and can have a tremendous impact on the environment,” Fischer said.

How to Shrink Energy Bills at Your School

If you want to get started in saving energy at your school, check out TEAM’s website, which documents its efforts. In addition, follow Fischer’s recommendations for saving energy at school:

1. Conserve Lighting: Remember that lighting accounts for more than 25% of energy usage in most buildings. So, replace inefficient T12 fluorescent lights with energy efficient T8 or T5 lights. Also, use sensors that turn off lights in areas that are not used continuously, like restrooms and locker rooms.
2. Get an Energy Assessment: Schedule and conduct an energy assessment with a professional energy auditor. Call your utility company to see if they offer a free service.
3. Make Plans: Prepare for the future. Whenever new construction is taking place, look into whether efficient technologies are being designed into the plans or whether they can easily be added on later.
4. Spread the word: Tell neighbors, family, friends and community members about energy efficiency, and encourage them to do their part to save both energy and money.

Iowa Students Help Their School, Local Businesses Save Money with Energy Efficiency

Americans Give Thumbs Up to Appliance Efficiency Standards

Date: Apr 01, 2011

April 1, 2011 — Americans overwhelmingly believe that improving energy efficiency in home appliances is beneficial – especially in shrinking their electric bills – according to a March 8, 2011, survey released by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). The study also found that Americans strongly support the government’s appliance efficiency standards.

CFA’s national study, “Public Attitudes Toward Energy Efficiency and Appliance Efficiency Standards,” surveyed 1,006 adults in the United States from Jan. 12 to Jan.16 on their knowledge and opinion of appliance efficiency standards.

Q: Why Support Efficiency? A: Lower Energy Bills.

The study revealed that reducing home energy bills is the largest driver of support for appliance efficiency and improved efficiency. In addition, most Americans are OK with paying more for a product when the payback for their investment comes within a few years.

According to the study, Americans believe that:

• Energy Efficiency Lowers Bills: While 96% believe improved appliance efficiency is important for lowering electric bills, 92% also believe it is important to reduce air pollution.
• Energy Efficiency Gives a Return on Investment: Even when appliance efficiency standards increase the price of a product, 79% are in favor of efficiency standards with a payback period of around three years.
• Appliances Should be More Energy Efficient: Overall, 95% of Americans think it is “beneficial for appliances like refrigerators, clothes washers and air conditioners to become more energy efficient.”
• Government Standards Help: Only about two-thirds of Americans are aware that the government requires certain types of new appliances to meet minimum energy standards. However, whether they know about current standards or not, nearly three-fourths of Americans support the government setting appliance efficiency standards.

Efficiency Standards: Putting Benefits into Consumers’ Pockets

The study comes in the midst of heated debate on Capitol Hill over current light bulb regulations – which mandate newly manufactured light bulbs to use less energy – and on the heels of a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in February that, if passed, would improve efficiency standards on a variety of appliances. Improved appliance efficiency standards as proposed in this bill (INCAAA 2011, S. 398) would yield $43 billion in net economic savings to consumers through 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

“Congress is in the thick of this question [on regulations]. At the same time, it’s clear that people want energy efficient home appliances,” CFA Director of Research and study author Mark Cooper told the Alliance. “Congress has the opportunity to deliver benefits right into consumers’ pocketbooks if it adopts higher standards for appliances and sticks with the higher standards for light bulbs.”

Americans Give Thumbs Up to Appliance Efficiency Standards

Re: Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy

...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
________

Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth Institute

When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

The President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.

The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.

I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.

Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.

Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.

By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.

The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.

 

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

Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy

...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
________

Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth Institute

When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

The President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.

The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.

I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.

Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.

Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.

By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.

The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.

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

Study: Global Solar Transition Achievable in 20 Years – Even With Peak Oil

A new peer-reviewed scientific report published by the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD) in London concludes that the world can undergo a rapid transition to a completely renewable energy infrastructure by 2030. The report argues that such a transition is necessary to respond to the twin crises of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. It shows that technologies such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaic (PV), and concentrated solar power (CSP), with a baseload capacity provided by existing storage technologies and petroleum as it is phased out, can produce enough energy consumption per person to sustain high human development requirements for all. Co-author Professor David Schwartzman of Howard University said: "Our study models how much fossil fuel resources we will need to make the transition to a full renewable energy infrastructure. With only 1 per cent of current annual consumption of fossil fuels being used for creation of solar power per year, we can achieve a global-scale transition in no more than thirty years – and with modestly greater inputs, fossil fuels can become superfluous in only twenty years. Moreover, this transition can be accomplished with less than one-third of the proven reserves of conventional petroleum serving to insure adequate global energy needs culminating into a full solar takeover." The report shows that by reducing the world's dependence on oil, this energy transition can increasingly buffer the global economy's vulnerability to oil shocks induced by accelerating energy depletion. But we also need to consume less energy. "Optimally, this transition should be combined with an aggressive policy of energy conservation", said co-author Professor Peter Schwartzman of Knox College. "In the United States, for instance, conservation could reduce oil consumption by more than half by 2025, and for industrial countries overall by up to 35 per cent – while improving the quality of life. But we have to act immediately. If we wait a few decades, we could permanently lose our chance to get this transition off the ground." Assuming a minimum of 3.5 kilowatt per capita necessary for a world standard high human development index (hdi), in the report's conservative "best case" scenario, a renewable energy infrastructure could double present global power capacity to 32 terawatts (TW) in 25 years. This would provide a minimum energy supply corresponding to 3.5 kilowatt per capita for up to 9 billion people. However, increases in efficiency resulting from using solar power in industrialized countries could significantly reduce the energy needed to supply this hdi. This could be achieved at current population levels with 16.7 TW – which is only 5 per cent higher than the present global power capacity. IPRD Executive Director, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, said: "There is a probability of a major convergence of food, energy, water and economic crises by around 2018 without drastic change - signs of which are already appearing in the form of the Arab uprisings. We are therefore pleased to publish this new study which rigorously models the prospects for a comprehensive renewable energy transition. So far, despite the rhetoric, government efforts to support transition have been too little, too late. This report proves clearly that the way forward is for the industrialized world to eliminate its wasteful energy consumption while demilitarizing the economy and investing rapidly in new renewable technologies – and that this is really the only way to maintain well-being and prosperity while solving the challenges of peak oil and global warming." [ENDS] The new IPRD Report, 'A Solar Transition is Possible' is available for free download from the IPRD website at http://iprd.org.uk/?p=6877. For more information or to interview Professors Peter and David Schwartzman, please contact info@iprd.org.uk and/or call +44(0)7824 441 044 Notes for Editors 1.      The authors of the report, 'A Solar Transition is Possible' are Peter D. Schwartzman and David W. Schwartzman. David Schwartzman is Professor in the Department of Biology at Howard University. He is the author of Life, Temperature and the Earth: The Self-Organizing Biosphere (Columbia University Press). He obtained a PhD in Geochemistry from Brown University in 1971. Peter Schwartzman is Associate Professor and Chair of Environmental Studies at Knox College. He obtained his PhD in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia in 1997. 2.      The Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) is an independent, non-profit, transdisciplinary research network based in London, promoting equality, sustainability and security. IPRD Executive Director, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, is an international security expert specialising in the political ecology and historical sociology of mass violence. His latest work is A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (London: Pluto, 2010) For more information or to interview Professors Peter and David Schwartzman, please contact info@iprd.org.uk and/or call +44(0)7824 441 044

Institute for Policy Research & Development Suite 301, 20 Harewood Avenue, London, NW1 6JX http://www.iprd.org.uk info@iprd.org.uk

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