Tag Archives: wind energy

A lesson in water quality from clams

Local research commissioned by The Nature Conservancy revealed that 65 percent of nitrogen leaking into Great South Bay comes from a surprising source: wastewater from residential home septic systems. More here – A lesson in water quality from clams

Source article: 

A lesson in water quality from clams

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, organic gardening, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A lesson in water quality from clams

Wind Energy Will Be Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels Within a Decade

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Wind energy is growing fast. While it still accounts for less than 5 percent of the United States’ total electricity mix, wind is by far the biggest source of renewable energy other than hydroelectric dams, and it accounted for 23 percent of new power production capacity built last year. Some experts think wind could provide a fifth of the world’s energy by 2030. But wind in the US is always in a perilous position, thanks to its heavy reliance on a federal tax credit that is routinely attacked in Congress; the subsidy was allowed to expire at the end of last year, and its ultimate fate remains unclear.

Fortunately, wind won’t be subject to the whims of legislators for much longer, according to a new analysis from the Energy Department. The new report found that within a decade, wind will be cost-competitive with fossil fuels like natural gas, even without a federal tax incentive.

From Bloomberg Business:

Cost reductions and technology improvements will reduce the price of wind power to below that of fossil-fuel generation, even after a $23-per-megawatt-hour subsidy provided now to wind farm owners ends, according to a report released Thursday.

“Wind offers a power resource that’s already the most competitive option in many parts of the nation,” Lynn Orr, under secretary for science and energy at the Energy Department, said on a conference call with reporters. “With continued commitment, wind can be the cheapest, cleanest power option in all 50 states by 2050.”

That would be a huge win for slowing climate change. The report finds that it could also lead to billions of dollars of benefits to the American public, from lower monthly electric bills to fewer air-pollution-related deaths.

Continue at source: 

Wind Energy Will Be Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels Within a Decade

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wind Energy Will Be Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels Within a Decade

Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Scott Walker is killing it with Republicans. The Wisconsin governor is one of his party’s rising stars—thanks to his ongoing and largely successful war against his state’s labor unions, a fight that culminated Monday with the signing of a controversial “right-to-work” bill.

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment


Jeb Bush on Climate Change: “I’m a Skeptic”


How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World


Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.


Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Will Now Supervise the Nation’s Climate Science


Attention GOP Candidates: Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

Now (for the moment, anyway), he’s a leading contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. At the Conservative Political Action Conference a couple weeks ago, he polled a close second to three-time winner Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), beating the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by a significant margin.

It probably won’t surprise you to learn that none of the prospective GOP presidential candidates are exactly champions of the environment. Probably the least bad is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who at least acknowledges that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Walker just might be the worst. He hasn’t said much about the science of global warming. (In the video above, you can watch him tell a little kid that his solution to the problem will center on keeping campsites clean, or something.) But his track record of actively undermining pro-environment programs and policies while supporting the fossil fuel industry is arguably lengthier and more substantive than that of his likely rivals.

“He really has gone after every single piece of environmental protection: Land, air, water—he’s left no stone unturned,” said Kerry Schumann, executive director of the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. “It’s hard to imagine anyone has done worse.”

Here’s a rundown of Walker’s inglorious history of anti-environmentalism.

Attacking Obama’s climate agenda: Walker is a key figure in the GOP’s battle against President Barack Obama’s flagship climate policy—the proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the nation’s electricity sector 30 percent by 2030. The rules will likely require states to retrofit or shutter some of their coal-fired power plants. That could be a big deal in Wisconsin, which gets 62 percent of its power from coal.

In a letter to the EPA in December, Walker said the plan would be “a blow to Wisconsin residents and business owners.” He cited an analysis from his state’s Public Service Commission that predicted household electric bills would skyrocket. They won’t, necessarily, since the state has a lot of options—including boosting renewables and energy efficiency—that it could use to meet its EPA carbon target without jeopardizing the power grid. But rather than preparing for the new rules, Walker seems bent on stonewalling them. In January he announced that his new attorney general was already preparing a lawsuit against the EPA, a move that was lauded by the Wisconsin director of the Koch Brothers-backed group Americans for Prosperity. Walker has also signed a pledge, devised by Americans for Prosperity, that he will oppose any legislation relating to climate change—presumably a cap-and-trade plan or a carbon tax—that would result in a “net increase in government revenue.”

Indeed, Walker has close ties to Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who made a fortune in fossil fuels and who for years poured money into groups that cast doubt on the science of climate change. They own paper factories and a network of gasoline supply terminals in Wisconsin, and they have an interest in the state’s trove of “frac sand” (more on that below). Koch Industries gave $43,000 to Walker’s 2010 election campaign, and just after he took office, the Kochs doubled their lobbying force in Madison. In 2011 and 2012, David Koch and Americans for Prosperity spent $11 million backing Walker’s agenda and his successful effort to avoid being recalled.

Turning off clean energy: As much as he apparently supports fossil fuel development, Walker has taken steps to put the brakes on clean energy. Last month, he released a budget proposal that would drain $8.1 million from a leading renewable energy research center in the state. That same budget, however, would pump $250,000 into a study on the potential health impacts of wind turbines. (Wind energy opponents have long suggested that inaudible sound waves from turbines can cause insomnia, anxiety, and other disorders, although independent research has repeatedly found these claims are more connected to NIMBYism than legitimate medical concerns.) Walker’s budget would also cut $4 million in state subsidies for municipal recycling programs. That, at least, is an improvement over his first budget as governor, which proposed to eliminate recycling subsidies altogether.

Continue Reading »

View this article: 

Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Is the Worst Candidate for the Environment

Environmentalists Don’t Like Europe’s New Climate Plan. Can Obama Do Better?

Mother Jones

Environmental groups are warning that a new European agreement to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 sets the bar far too low.

The pact—which was reached early Friday in Brussels—makes the European Union the first major bloc of countries to commit to emissions targets ahead of next year’s crucial climate change talks in Paris. At the Paris meeting, world leaders will attempt to hammer out a global agreement that will keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

The Guardian reports that in addition to their commitment to cut greenhouse emissions by 40 percent, European leaders also agreed to increase the portion of the region’s energy that comes renewable sources to 27 percent by 2030. That provision is legally binding for the EU as a whole, but not on a national level, potentially opening the door to disagreements about how to get there. The third notable part of the pact is a plan to increase energy efficiency by 27 percent, but that target is not legally binding.

Oxfam—the global development NGO—slammed the deal as “insufficient,” saying the targets are too low and not enforceable enough. The group’s Deputy Director of Advocacy and Campaigns, Natalia Alonso, said in a statement: “Today’s deal must set the floor not the ceiling of European action, and they must arrive in Paris with a more serious offer.” Oxfam called for a much for aggressive policy: 55 percent cuts in emissions.

Greenpeace also criticized the deal, saying the EU leaders pulled the “handbrake on clean energy.”

“These targets are too low, slowing down efforts to boost renewable energy and keeping Europe hooked on polluting and expensive fuel,” the group said in a statement.

Greenpeace EU managing director Mahi Sideridou added, “The global fight against climate change needs radical shock treatment, but what the EU is offering is at best a whiff of smelling salts.”

Nevertheless, European leaders hailed the deal as a major breakthrough. “This package is very good news for our fight against climate change,” said Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said the pact “will ensure that Europe will be an important player, will be an important party, in future binding commitments of an international climate agreement.”

World Resources Institute, a leading climate policy research group, struck a more conciliatory tone than other environmental groups, while also calling for more aggressive targets. “Despite facing a dismal recession and difficult internal debate, European leaders demonstrated their resolve by staying the course,” said the institute’s director of climate and energy programs, Jennifer Morgan, in a statement. “At the same time, it is clear that all of the targets could have been—and should have been—more ambitious.”

The deal raises the stakes for other countries to get serious about climate commitments ahead of Paris. According to the Guardian, it contains a clause that would trigger a review of the new targets—potentially torpedoing today’s agreement—if other countries don’t come to the table with comparable proposals next year.

It remains unclear precisely what the US government will seek at next year’s negotiations. Early indications suggest the Obama administration is considering a plan that would require countries to limit emissions according to a specific timetable but wouldn’t dictate to individual countries how deep those cuts would be.

Original article:

Environmentalists Don’t Like Europe’s New Climate Plan. Can Obama Do Better?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Environmentalists Don’t Like Europe’s New Climate Plan. Can Obama Do Better?

A Place With the Population of West Virginia Just Powered A Work Day Entirely on Clean Energy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s one for the naysayers who insist renewable energy can’t keep the lights on and power our cities. An entire state in Australia with a population of around 1.7 million people just used renewable energy to meet 100 percent of its electricity needs throughout an entire working day. According to industry news site Energy Business News:

Between 9.30 and 6pm on Tuesday, September 30, a day not unlike most Tuesdays, with business and homes using electricity as usual, the state received the favourable weather conditions allowing solar and wind infrastructure to work side by side to achieve the impressive achievement.

The analysis comes from Pitt & Sherry, an Australian energy consultancy. As the wind picked up, all but two of the state’s coal-fired power generators, and one gas-powered unit, were shut down; the excess power was exported to other regions, according to the report. There were a few moments during the previous days—on September 27 and 28—when the state actually produced more wind power than the state’s total energy demand. Normally, nearly a third of the state’s energy comes from renewable sources, according to figures from 2012 to 2013.

South Australia, home to the city of Adelaide, has almost half of the country’s wind capacity; 25 percent of its households have rooftop solar installations, according to the report. The state is aggressively pursuing green energy goals, upping its 2025 renewable energy commitment from 33 percent to 50 percent, having met its previous goal six years ahead of schedule.

This is despite the conservative federal government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott threatening to gut a national renewable energy target, having already defunded several government agencies responsible for the country’s climate change policies. In July, Australia became the world’s first developed nation to repeal a carbon tax.

All of that policy uncertainty is having an impact on the renewable energy sector in Australia. Investment has virtually frozen in a land famous for being bathed in sun. Recent data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows Australia is on track to record its lowest level of financing for big renewable projects since 2002, dropping the country from the 11th largest investor to 31st in Bloomberg’s rankings. In the third quarter of this year, investment was down 78 percent from the same time last year.

Link to article:

A Place With the Population of West Virginia Just Powered A Work Day Entirely on Clean Energy

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Place With the Population of West Virginia Just Powered A Work Day Entirely on Clean Energy

Why Coal Is (Still) Worse Than Fracking and Cow Burps

green4us

Geoscientist Raymond Pierrehumbert argues that carbon dioxide is always worse than shorter-lived pollutants like methane. A Marcellus Shale drilling tower. Ruhrfisch/Wikimedia Commons Is fracking for natural gas good for the planet? To understand the pitched fight over this question, you first need to realize that for many years, we’ve been burning huge volumes of coal to get electricity—and coal produces a ton of carbon dioxide, the chief gas behind global warming. Natural gas, by contrast, produces half as much carbon dioxide when it burns, and thus, the fracking boom has been credited with a decline in US greenhouse gas emissions. So far so good, right? Umm, maybe. Recently on our Inquiring Minds podcast, we heard from Anthony Ingraffea, a professor of engineering at Cornell University, who contends that it just isn’t that simple. Methane (the main component of natural gas) is also a hard-hitting greenhouse gas, if it somehow finds its way into the atmosphere. And Ingraffea argued that because of high leakage rates of methane from shale gas development, that’s exactly what’s happening. The trouble is that methane has a much greater “global warming potential” than carbon dioxide, meaning that it has a greater “radiative forcing” effect on the climate over a given time period (and especially over shorter time periods). In other words, according to Ingraffea, the CO2 savings from burning natural gas instead of coal is being canceled out by all the methane that leaks into the atmosphere when we’re extracting and transporting that gas. (Escaped methane from natural gas drilling complements other preexisting sources, such as the belching of cows.) But not every scientist agrees with Ingraffea’s methane-centered argument. In particular, Raymond Pierrehumbert, a geoscientist at the University of Chicago, has prominently argued that carbon dioxide “is in a class by itself” among greenhouse warming pollutants, because unlike methane, its impacts occur over such a dramatic timescale that they are “essentially irreversible.” That’s because of carbon dioxide’s incredibly long-term effect on the climate: Given a large pulse of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, much of it will still be there 10,000 years later. By contrast, even though methane is much more potent than carbon dioxide over a short timeframe, its atmospheric lifetime is only about 12 years. Applied to the debate over natural gas, that could mean that seeing gas displace coal is a good thing in spite of any concerns about methane leaks. To hear this counterpoint, we invited Pierrehumbert on Inquiring Minds as well. “You can afford to actually have a little bit of extra warming due to methane if you’re using its a bridge fuel, because the benefit you get from reducing the carbon dioxide emissions stays with you forever, whereas the harm done by methane goes away more or less as soon as you stop using it,” he explained on the show. You can listen to the interview—which is part of a larger show—below, beginning at about 4:40 (or you can leap to it by clicking here): Pierrehumbert’s arguments are based on a recent paper that he published in the Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences, extensively comparing carbon dioxide with more short-lived climate pollutants, like methane, black carbon, and ozone. The paper basically states that the metric everybody has been using to compare carbon dioxide with methane, the “global warming potential” described by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is deeply misleading. The IPCC, in its 2013 report, calls global warming potential the “default metric” for comparing the consequences, over a fixed period of time, of emitting the same volume of two different greenhouse gases. And according to the IPCC, using this approach, methane has 84 times the atmospheric effect that an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide does over a period of 20 years. But, it’s crucial to remember that that’s over 20 years; at the end of the period, the carbon dioxide will still be around and the methane won’t. The metric, writes Humbert, is “completely insensitive” to any damages due to global warming that occur beyond a particular time window, “no matter how catastrophic they may be.” Elsewhere, he calls the approach “crude.” To see why, consider this figure from Pierrehumbert’s paper, comparing the steady emission, over 200 years, of two hypothetical greenhouse gases (the solid blue and red lines). One gas lasts in the atmosphere for 1,000 years, and one that lasts only 10 years. Each has the same “global warming potential” at 100 years, but notice how the short lived gas’ warming effect vanishes almost as soon as the emissions of it end: Comparison of two greenhouse gases that have the same “global warming potential” over 100 years but very different lifetimes. The gases in the figure aren’t carbon dioxide and methane, but you get the point. The upshot, Pierrehumbert argues, is that it is almost always a good idea to cut CO2 emissions—even if doing so results in a temporary increase of methane emissions from leaky fracked wells. As he writes: …there is little to be gained from early mitigation of the short-lived gas [methane]. In contrast, any delay in mitigation of the long-lived gas ratchets up the warming irreversibly…the situation is rather like saving money for one’s retirement—the earlier one begins saving, the more one’s savings grow by the time of retirement, so the earlier one starts, the easier it is to achieve the goal of a prosperous retirement. Methane mitigation is like trying to stockpile bananas to eat during retirement. Given the short lifetime of bananas, it makes little sense to begin saving them until your retirement date is quite near. And that, in turn, implies that any displacing of coal with natural gas is a good thing for the climate. It’s just less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plain and simple. Ingraffea disagrees. By email, he commented that Pierrehumbert “is correct that the long term risk to climate is from CO2, but he is willing to accept the almost certain short term consequences which can only be ameliorated by reductions in methane and black carbon.” But interestingly, there is one major commonality between Ingraffea’s point of view and that of Pierrehumbert. Namely, both emphasize the importance of getting beyond natural gas, and transitioning to 100 percent clean energy. Here’s the logic: Because carbon dioxide is so bad for the climate, the fact that natural gas burning does produce some of it (even if not as much as coal) means that if cheap natural gas discourages the use of carbon-free sources like nuclear, solar, or wind energy, then that’s also a huge climate negative. So just as natural gas is not nearly as bad as coal from a carbon perspective, it is also not nearly as good as renewable energy. And that, in turn, means that while natural gas can play a transitional role toward a clean energy future, that role has to be relatively brief. “It’s useful as a bridge fuel,” says Pierrehumbert, “but if using it as a bridge fuel just drives out renewables and other carbon-free sources of energy, it’s really a bridge to nowhere.”

See the article here:

Why Coal Is (Still) Worse Than Fracking and Cow Burps

Related Posts

Can This Contraption Make Fracking Greener?
Views Differ on Fracking’s Impact
Mark Ruffalo Wants You to Imagine a 100 Percent Clean Energy Future
How To Make Natural Gas More Climate-Friendly
The EPA’s Bold New Agenda

Share this:

Continue reading: 

Why Coal Is (Still) Worse Than Fracking and Cow Burps

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Coal Is (Still) Worse Than Fracking and Cow Burps

Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

A disease is killing huge numbers of piglets and young hogs, and environmental groups worry about the effects on groundwater of the buried carcasses. Follow this link – Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists Related ArticlesEl Salvador Ends Dispute With U.S. Over SeedsDot Earth Blog: Protecting Parrotfish on the Path to a Caribbean Reef RevivalDot Earth Blog: Stroke Lessons (Time Wasted is Brain Lost)

Read this article – 

Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, Mop, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Virus Plagues the Pork Industry, and Environmentalists

Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

A riverfront festival features floating folk concerts and sail-powered barges. Excerpt from –  Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song ; ;Related ArticlesRetiring: A Second Career, Happily in the WeedsDot Earth Blog: Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the AnthropoceneOpinion: Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession ;

Read article here:  

Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: Celebrating a Reviving River Through Sail and Song

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

back

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted 8 May 2014 in

National

Note: A PDF of the letter is available here.

Letter to President Obama: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

EPA Proposal to Reduce Renewable Fuels at Odds With National Climate Assessment

In a letter to President Obama today, leaders of America’s renewable fuel industry urge the Administration to rethink its proposal to weaken the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard – a proposal that is at odds with the National Climate Assessment the White House released earlier this week.

The letter is signed by Abengoa Bioenergy, the Advanced Ethanol Council, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, DuPont, DSM, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, Novozymes, the Renewable Fuels Association, and POET.

The companies and organizations write that the Administration’s proposal to reduce the amount of renewable fuel in gasoline and diesel would “make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher.”

The letter notes that the impact of the Administration’s proposal would increase carbon pollution by an estimated 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone – which is equivalent to building 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.

“The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels,” said the authors of the letter. “We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.”

Text of the letter is below:

May 8, 2014

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

This week’s National Climate Assessment report is a wakeup call about the serious economic, environmental and public health threats to the American people caused by climate change.

The good news is that our nation has reduced energy related emissions of carbon pollution in recent years and we can achieve further reductions as we move to clean energy sources like wind, solar and renewable biofuels. The bad news is that the Administration, under heavy pressure from the global oil industry, has proposed to significantly reduce the renewable fuel content of gasoline and diesel this year. This would make us more oil dependent, effectively gut the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard, strand billions of dollars in private investment, and send emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants sharply higher. It represents a significant step backward in your effort to confront climate change.

Given that the United States already consumes far more oil than we produce – and the U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that will continue to be true for decades[1] — lowering the amount of renewable fuel we use will likely increase the amount of foreign oil we import and burn.

Argonne National Laboratory, in a 2012 study funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, showed that the lifecycle CO2 emissions from traditional corn ethanol are 34% lower than gasoline. Advanced biofuels from switchgrass, corn stover or miscanthus represent reductions in lifecycle CO2 emissions of 88%, 96%, and 108% respectively. By cutting our use of these low-carbon fuels and reducing investments into innovative second generation biofuels, the EPA proposal to weaken the Renewable Fuel Standard would trigger a substantial increase in carbon emissions.

In fact, a recent analysis by the Biotechnology Industry Organization shows that this action would increase carbon pollution emissions by 28.2 million metric tons in 2014 alone. To put this in perspective, the impact would be equivalent to adding 7 new coal fired power plants or cancelling every wind farm project currently under construction in the United States.[2] Carrying the EPA’s proposed approach forward in future years would trigger even larger increases in climate-altering emissions; by 2022, the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases would be nearly 1 billion metric tons higher than would occur if EPA continued to set the Renewable Fuel Standard at statutory levels.

The EPA’s proposal will not only undermine your Administration’s efforts to address climate change, it will also undercut the Administration’s efforts to support commercial scale production of cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels – precisely at the time this new industry is taking root. Four new commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facilities are coming online this year.

The policy stability offered by the Renewable Fuel Standard – with a gradual ramping up of renewable fuel targets year by year – created the market certainty needed to foster the private sector investment in these innovative new fuels. With the proposed rule, the EPA is changing the rules in midstream, replacing market certainty with uncertainty, and making it very difficult for additional U.S. cellulosic ethanol facilities to secure financing and investor support. If the United States continues on this course, future investments in advanced biofuels will increasingly shift to Asia, South America and Europe.

This is precisely what the oil companies want. In fact, after the EPA proposal was announced, the Big Five oil companies reaped a $23 billion windfall in a single day. The companies’ stock prices soared four times faster than the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 during that same period. Just this week, the Center for American Progress reported that the big five oil companies have $68 billion in cash reserves and have been the largest recipient of federal tax breaks, subsidies, and other government supports over the past century.

The question comes down to whether we want to rely more on foreign oil, or more on clean, renewable American made biofuels. Do we want more U.S. jobs – or more jobs overseas? Indeed, a recent economic analysis performed by John Dunham & Associates makes clear the benefits that renewable fuels have for our country’s economy — driving $184.5 billion of economic output, supporting 852,000 jobs and $46.2 billion in wages, while generating $14.5 billion in tax revenue each year. The report also details these sizable economic benefits for every U.S. state and congressional district.

Finally, an accurate assessment of the climate impacts of transportation fuels requires rigorous analysis of the lifecycle carbon impacts of biofuels. Unfortunately, EPA continues to rely on outdated analysis from 2007 and an archaic view of some commercial biofuels. The 2007 analysis does not take into account the significant improvements that have been made in recent years to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from feedstocks and from renewable fuel production. For example, the land use changes predicted by EPA’s modeling simply have not materialized. We encourage your Administration to revisit its lifecycle analysis of these biofuels and ensure EPA is using the best available data and information.

We urge you to reconsider the EPA proposal and the methodology for reducing the volumes — and allow the commonsense, bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standard to continue working as intended to create American jobs, promote American innovation, cut our reliance on foreign oil, and reduce harmful carbon pollution.

Sincerely,

Abengoa Bioenergy / Advanced Ethanol Council / Biotechnology Industry Organization / DuPont / DSM / Growth Energy / National Corn Growers Association / Novozymes / Renewable Fuels Association / POET

 

[1] EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook reference case projects that imports will continue to decline into 2015 and then steadily rise through at least 2040. Reducing U.S. biofuel production below current levels – and those outlined in the Renewable Fuel Standard – would require additional imports.

[2] According to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator, the 28.2 million metric tons of CO2 added by this rule change is equivalent to the CO2 emissions from 7.4 new coal plants or the CO2 avoided from 15 gigawatts of wind power. The American Wind Energy Association reports that 12 gigawatts of wind power are currently under construction – more than any time in history.

Contact: Aaron Wells
aaron@smoottewes.com
320-247-7616

###

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
View post: 

Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, solar, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Letter: Renewable Fuel Producers Urge Administration to Heed Own Warning on Climate Change

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Shutterstock

Some bird advocates ain’t cool with recent moves by the Obama administration to smooth the way for wind power.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced in December that it will issue 30-year “take” permits that allow wind farms to inadvertently kill bald and golden eagles, provided they use “advanced conservation practices” to limit the number of deaths. Previously the permits were issued for only up to five years.

This week, the American Bird Conservancy said it will sue the federal government over the permits.

Wind energy advocates point out that turbines are less deadly to birds than many fossil fuel operations, not to mention household cats and buildings — and that wind power can help birds by slowing climate change. Still, the bird lovers at ABC think the wind industry needs to do more to protect our feathery friends.

The rule change “was adopted in violation of several federal wildlife protection and environmental laws,” ABC’s attorneys wrote in a letter stating their intent to sue. The group alleges the policy shift violates the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and argues that it was made without the public consultation or environmental analysis that should have been required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

“ABC strongly supports wind power and other renewable energy projects when those projects are located in an appropriate, wildlife-friendly manner,” the letter states. “On the other hand, when decisions regarding such projects are made precipitously and without compliance with elementary legal safeguards, … ABC will take appropriate action to protect eagles and other migratory birds.”


Source
American Bird Conservancy to Take Legal Action Over FWS 30-Year Eagle Kill Rule, American Bird Conservancy

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Jump to original: 

Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bird lovers to sue feds for letting wind farms kill eagles