Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
Nice. Cost competitive with coal-fired power plants within 2 decades.. Just had my roof done, but will be ready to re-shingle by then. See Darryl, I'm not so impatient. With the new roof, I'm interested in pv panels. What is the functional life span? I assume it will get me to my next roof made of solar shingles; 20-25 years. Tom -Original Message- From: Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com Sent: 2/13/2015 7:52 PM To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option http://e360.yale.edu/digest/solar_shingles_made_from__common_metals_offer_cheaper_energy_option/3600/ e360 digest 22 Aug 2012: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option U.S. scientists say that emerging photovoltaic technologies will enable the production of solar shingles made from abundantly available elements rather than rare-earth metals, an innovation that would make solar energy cheaper and more sustainable. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, a team of researchers described advances in solar cells made with abundant metals, such as copper and zinc. While the market already offers solar shingles that convert the sun’s energy into electricity, producers typically must use elements that are scarce and expensive, such as indium and gallium. According to Harry A. Atwater, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, recent tests suggest that materials like zinc phosphide and copper oxide could be capable of producing electricity at prices competitive with coal-fired power plants within two decades. With China accounting for more than 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth supplies — and prices rising sharply — companies and nations are racing to find new sources of rare earth minerals, which are used in everything from solar panels to smart phones. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
Tom, in this age, I think impatience is a virtue. I think it is what drives the improvements we need. I have been waiting for BIPV (building integrated photovoltaics - like solar shingles) to go mainstream for at least a decade. In the meantime, conventional PV panels have accumulated, electric vehicles have taken up residence in the driveway, yard and lake, solar heating for the house and domestic hot water, super insulation in the attic and one exterior wall ... That has all been driven by seeing a better future and impatience to get there. New shingles here 4 years ago, so if they are available in 20, I will also be looking at them. Darryl On 14/02/2015 10:17 AM, Tom wrote: Nice. Cost competitive with coal-fired power plants within 2 decades.. Just had my roof done, but will be ready to re-shingle by then. See Darryl, I'm not so impatient. With the new roof, I'm interested in pv panels. What is the functional life span? I assume it will get me to my next roof made of solar shingles; 20-25 years. Tom -Original Message- From: Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com Sent: 2/13/2015 7:52 PM To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option http://e360.yale.edu/digest/solar_shingles_made_from__common_metals_offer_cheaper_energy_option/3600/ e360 digest 22 Aug 2012: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option U.S. scientists say that emerging photovoltaic technologies will enable the production of solar shingles made from abundantly available elements rather than rare-earth metals, an innovation that would make solar energy cheaper and more sustainable. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, a team of researchers described advances in solar cells made with abundant metals, such as copper and zinc. While the market already offers solar shingles that convert the sun’s energy into electricity, producers typically must use elements that are scarce and expensive, such as indium and gallium. According to Harry A. Atwater, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, recent tests suggest that materials like zinc phosphide and copper oxide could be capable of producing electricity at prices competitive with coal-fired power plants within two decades. With China accounting for more than 90 percent of the world’s rare-earth supplies — and prices rising sharply — companies and nations are racing to find new sources of rare earth minerals, which are used in everything from solar panels to smart phones. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager, Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
All well and good. Of course, we need them now, and would have them by now if this ridiculous benchmark of being competitive with coal weren't causing artificial inertia. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] NRDC publishes airline sustainability scorecard | Biomassmagazine.com
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/11544/nrdc-publishes-airline-sustainability-scorecard/ [The NRDC airlines sustainability scorecard is now available at the NRCD website. 24-page PDF] http://www.nrdc.org/energy/aviation-biofuel-sustainability-survey/files/aviation-biofuel-sustainability-survey-2014.pdf] NRDC publishes airline sustainability scorecard By Natural Resources Defense Council | February 13, 2015 The Natural Resources Defense Council recently released a scorecard that ranks airlines on the use of sustainable biofuels. According to the NDRC’s report, Air France/KLM is the leader of the pack, followed by British Airways, United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Cathay Pacific, and Alaska Airlines. “It’s great to see certain airlines becoming leaders in the use of sustainable biofuels,” said Debbie Hammel, senior resource specialist with NRDC’s Land Wildlife Program and author of the scorecard. “As the world rises to the challenge of curbing climate change and cutting carbon pollution, addressing air travel pollution has to be part of the mix. The aviation sector has been pretty proactive about this issue, and an industry-wide increase in the use of sustainably produced biofuels is definitely on the horizon.” The scorecards evaluate airlines’ adoption of biofuels, focusing on the use of leading sustainability certification standards, participation in industry initiatives to promote sustainability certification, public commitments to sustainability certification in sourcing, and the monitoring and disclosure of sustainability metrics. According to the NDRC, more than 40 commercial airlines around the world have flown an estimated 600,000 miles powered at least in part by biofuels over the past five years. Lufthansa completed a study on the long-term effect of aviation biofuels on engines, noting no adverse impacts, while KLM conducted 26 long-haul flights demonstrating it is possible to organize and coordinate a complex supply chain and fly regularly scheduled flights on aviation biofuel blends. Within its report, the NDRC indicates that to complete the scorecard, it sent questionnaires to 32 airlines that have used biofuels or are publicly claiming they plan to use them. Responses were received from 17 airlines, including Air France/KLM, British Airways, United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Cathay Pacific, Alaska Airlines, Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand, GOL, Qantas, TUI Travel, ANA, Japan Airlines, Jet Blue, Singapore, South African Airways, and Finnair. While only one airline reported being a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, 16 of the 17 respondents are members of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, which is a member of the RSB. According to the NDRC, all of the respondents but one have committed to RSB certification via their SAFUG membership. According to the scorecard, Air France/KLM, British Airways, United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Cathay Pacific and Alaska Airlines all have contracts in place for the future delivery of sustainable biofuels. United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Alaska Airlines, Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand, and GOL disclose the total volume of biofuels used in a year. In addition, Air France/KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, TUI Travel and Finnair either have disclosed annual biofuel use volumes in the past or intend to do so in the future. When asked if they disclose the volume of sustainable biofuel used in a year, United Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, Alaska Airlines, Virgin Australia, and GOL said yes, while Air France/KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Finnair said they either have done so in the past or plan to in the future. Only Air France/KLM said that the 75-100 percent of the total biofuel it used in the past year was sustainable. Air France and United Airlines said they monitor the full life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of their biofuels and disclose that information. British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Cathay Pacific, Alaska Airlines, Virgin Australia, GOL Qantas and Finnair said they either have monitored the full life cycle GHG performance of their biofuels in the past or intend to do so in the future, and have either disclosed that information in the past and plan to do so in the future. Air New Zealand said it has monitored the full life cycle GHG performance of their biofuels in the past or intends to do so in the future, but will not disclose the GHG life cycle performance. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic reported they have assessed the indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts of their biofuel use, while Cathay Pacific, and Virgin Australia said they have either done this in the past or intend to do so in the future. Air France/KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Virgin Australia, and Air New Zealand said they are actively engaged in developing measures, avoiding, or researching ILUC. The scorecard also features
[Biofuel] Decarbonization Techniques and Technology Report | The Energy Collective
http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2193311/recap-and-commentary-national-academy-sciences-report-carbon-removal [images and links in on-line article Spoiler alert: The report clearly states that the first-best option for preventing climate change is stopping GHG emissions, and that neither the development of CDR approaches nor the development of Albedo Modification approaches will change this finding.] National Academy of Sciences Report on Carbon Removal: A Recap and Commentary Posted February 13, 2015 Keywords: Carbon and De-carbonization, Energy Security, Tech, Communications and Messaging, Storage, Sustainability, Utilities, Climate, Environmental Policy, Cleantech, Renewables, Risk Management, Energy and Economy, Fuels, News, carbon capture and storage (ccs), carbon dioxide removal (cdr), climate change adaptation projects, energy report Recently the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) released a comprehensive study dedicated to carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”). To date, CDR has largely been relegated to the fringes of the conversation on climate change, despite the fact that major reports from the IPCC and the UN Environment Program have noted that CDR will likely be critically important for preventing climate change. Two factors have likely contributed to CDR’s position on the sideline for the climate conversation: CDR solutions have historically been conflated with the too-risky/speculative-to-even-research Albedo Modification (formerly Solar Radiation Management) “geoengineering” techniques Most CDR solutions cost more than other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) abatement approaches (e.g. solar, wind, energy efficiency, avoided deforestation, etc.), leaving little economic incentive for CDR approaches to develop organically. The release of the NAS report takes important steps towards reducing both of these barriers for CDR to enter the mainstream climate change conversation. First, the NAS released two distinct reports – one on CDR and the other on Albedo Modification – with language explicitly stating that these two categories of “climate interventions” should not be analyzed together. Second, the report unequivocally endorses expanded RD funding into CDR approaches, in hopes that such funding will enable the eventual commercialization of these CDR approaches. The NAS analysis stops before identifying the necessary RD required for developing and commercializing CDR solutions. But this report has hopefully cleared the way for this conversation to happen – along with the many other mainstream policy and industry discussions necessary for the development of CDR solutions. The NAS study is worth the full read, but I have pulled out a handful of key sentences and figures from the report, below, along with some commentary on their context to the overall conversation on CDR and preventing climate change: The definition of CDR according to the NAS: The NAS study defines CDR as: “Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)—intentional efforts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including land management strategies, accelerated weathering, ocean iron fertilization, biomass energy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), and direct air capture and sequestration (DACS). CDR techniques complement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) methods that primarily focus on reducing CO2 emissions from point sources such as fossil fuel power plants.” Under the umbrella of CDR, the NAS identifies two broad classes of CDR approaches: 1. “Some carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies seek to sequester carbon in the terrestrial biosphere or the ocean by accelerating processes that are already occurring as part of the natural carbon cycle and which already remove significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.” 2. “Other CDR approaches involve capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and disposing of it by pumping it underground at high pressure” A graphic that I’ve created to understand how these CDR pathways are related to each other and to non-CDR pathways is below: [paths graphic] Note 1: the NAS study includes ocean iron fertilization, which I haven’t included in the above graphic because “previous studies nearly all agree that deploying ocean iron fertilization at climatically relevant levels poses risks that outweigh potential benefits.” In contrast, no other CDR approaches in the NAS study are given that assessment, and many others are even given endorsements on the grounds that they “can often generate substantial co-benefits.” Note 2: Including “Carbon Sequestration on Agricultural Lands “ as part of a “Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration” (emphasis added) report is an important win for advocates of soil carbon sequestration: many geologic sequestration proponents have called into question the permanence of soil carbon sequestration as a major issue with these approaches,
[Biofuel] Court: BP has no coverage for oil spill under Transocean insurance | PropertyCasualty360
http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/13/court-bp-has-no-coverage-for-oil-spill-under-trans [Regulators better make sure the oil drilling and production operators have spill response funds guaranteed as part of the licensing process, because it appears payments will take many years unless funds are explicitly made available at the time of the event. Of course, claimants from the Exxon Valdez spill event are still awaiting their payments - over 25 years after the event. Next question: if you are a major insurance company, would you underwrite a US$60,000,000,000.00 policy for Shell or BP to go off-shore drilling in the Arctic this summer, and if so, at what premium? (Spill recovery in the Arctic will be more expensive than in the lovely Gulf of Mexico.)] Court: BP has no coverage for oil spill under Transocean insurance Feb 13, 2015 | By Rosalie L. Donlon Friday the 13th was a bad luck day for BP Plc. On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court rejected BP's claim for $750 million worth of coverage under Transocean Ltd.’s insurance policies to help pay the billions of dollars in damages and other costs associated with the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has already paid more than $28 billion in damages and costs related to the April 20, 2010 explosion and oil spill. The incident killed 11 people and started the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Transocean actually owned the oil rig and had been hired by BP to drill the Macondo oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Louisiana. Transocean had insured the drilling rig with a $50 million primary policy from Ranger Insurance and $700 million from Lloyd’s of London and other underwriters. In 2010, BP filed claims with Transocean’s carriers for coverage of below-surface pollution liabilities. This case has bounced back and forth between several courts before finally landing with the Texas Supreme Court for a ruling on interpretation of the drilling contract under state law. BP claimed that Transocean’s policies covered the oil company as well as an additional insured; Transocean and its carriers claimed that the drilling contract on the Macondo well limited coverage. BP argued that the drilling contract skipped a needed comma, which created an ambiguity that should be resolved in its favor. The clause in question in the agreement says that BP, its subsidiaries and its workers would be “named as additional insureds” in Transocean’s insurance policies “except Workers’ Compensation for liabilities assumed by [Transocean] under the terms of this contract.” According to BP, the lack of a comma after Workers’ Compensation leaves open coverage liability for oil discharged from the well. Transocean argued that the rig owner agreed to cover BP only for liabilities assumed by Transocean. Transocean’s insurance policy had to be read in context with the company’s drilling contract with BP, the Texas Supreme Court said in its ruling. BP is not entitled to coverage under the Transocean insurance policies for damages arising from subsurface pollution because BP, not Transocean, assumed liability for those claims, the court held. BP said in a regulatory filing Feb. 3 that it has set aside $43.5 billion to cover all costs of the spill. The ultimate cost has yet to be determined but some industry estimates expect it to be in the range of $50 billion. In a statement following the ruling, Geoff Morrell, BP's Senior Vice President for U.S. Communications and External Affairs said, “we are disappointed and are considering our options.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Renewable Energy Won't Die From Cheap Oil: Bloomberg | CleanTechnica
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/13/renewable-energy-wont-die-cheap-oil-bloomberg/ [image and links in on-line article] Renewable Energy Won’t Die From Cheap Oil: Bloomberg February 13th, 2015 by Adam Johnston Renewable energy won’t die from cheap oil. With oil prices hitting six-year lows, you would think cleantech’s momentum would stop. After all, history has not been kind to renewables when oil prices have fallen. However, Bloomberg Business paints a different picture. In his analysis, author Tom Randall cites 7 key reasons why, this time, cleantech is here to stay. 1. “The Sun doesn’t compete with oil.” Randall argues rather obviously that solar does not complete with oil, as it’s used more for transportation. Solar power is used for electricity. This is something everyone should know, but it seems few do. As solar prices continue falling (see here see #3 on this list), by 2050, it’s expected as the largest global power source, based on International Energy Agency predictions. (Currently, solar makes up only 1% of the world’s energy.) With solar cars and even planes always lurking around, perhaps oil will have to compete with solar-powered electric vehicles in future transportation, but we’re not there yet. Bloomberg’s solar analyst, Jenny Chase, suggested no one can kill solar energy’s current momentum. 2. “Electricity Prices are Still Going Up.” Increased demand for electricity is putting pressure on our grid, according to Randall. In 2010, grid investments were $27 billion, four times 1980 cost levels. This is making people looking at solar as an alternative source for a home’s electrical needs as prices increase. It’s also creating a paradigm shift in how we get our energy, as many utilities scramble to harness its power within the grid. It’s a similar to comparison to cell phones within the 1990s and 2000s — as cellular phones became more affordable to middle to low-income people, they quickly overtook to standard landline telephones. As electricity prices increase, and solar prices fall, new left-right political alliances are emerging. Many libertarians embrace solar energy as part of promoting free market choice. Environmentalists have teamed up with Tea Party members in some states, including Georgia, Florida, and Arizona to fight regressive solar laws. Green Tea Coalition leader Debbie Dooley told The Energy Gang podcast recently that she sees Tea Party members and environmentalists working together on the common goal in promoting solar. She also said more educated conservatives on solar’s potential as a free market choice would help diminish negative perceptions within right-wing circles. Expect even more unique political alliances between liberal and conservative groups advocating solar as electricity prices continue rising. 3. “Solar Prices are Still Going Down.” We here at CleanTechnica, have provided wall-to-wall coverage of solar energy’s sharp price decline. Improved technology and economies of scale have driven its cost down dramatically. Oil meccas, including the UAE and Saudi Arabia are starting to go big on solar, as low oil prices hit them in the pocketbook. Even more impressive, solar is now price competitive with fossil fuels in many parts of the US. As Randall notes, “In the few places oil and solar compete directly, oil doesn’t stand a chance.” 4. “Sales of Plug-ins Are Doing Just Fine Actually.” History has shown when oil is cheap, it leads to declines in electric vehicles sales. However, times are changing. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) noted global EV sales increased by one-third in 2014. Randall points to three reasons why cheap crude won’t smother EVs’ future: There has been no link between electric vehicles sales and gas prices since 2010 High European gas taxes negate any gains seen in following prices Healthy investments from China’s government in EVs thanks to pollution and climate change concerns Factor in Tesla’s ambitious Gigafactory in Nevada to mass produce EVs, and Chevy bringing an affordable all-electric car with a range of at least 200 miles, and you can see there is plenty of life in EVs. 5. “Pump Prices Haven’t Dropped as Much as Oil Prices.” Customers in some countries are not reaping the benefits of lower oil prices at the gas station. Southeastern Asian countries are using falling declining crude prices to chop fossil fuel subsidies, which were eating away at national revenues, including India and Indonesia. Meanwhile, other nations are using this opportunity to boost gas taxes and government surpluses, namely China. Many within environmental economic circles have encouraged governments, with gas prices this low, to have discussions about governments implementing carbon pricing schemes and reduce fossil fuel subsidies. Even a prominent UAE executive and minister has said we should do so. This is a good idea overall as a way to move away from
[Biofuel] Young innovator Lin set to speak at San Jacinto College - Your Houston News: Living
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/deer_park/living/young-innovator-lin-set-to-speak-at-san-jacinto-college/article_1ea99d1b-b620-5d9b-bf93-492269ee6a06.html [image in on-line article] Young innovator Lin set to speak at San Jacinto College PRESS RELEASE Posted: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:00 pm PRESS RELEASE Young environmentalist and innovator, Cassandra Lin, will guest lecture at the San Jacinto College Central Campus on Monday, Feb. 16. In 2008, after visiting the Energy Solutions Expo at University of Rhode Island, Lin learned that biodiesel, an alternative energy, could be produced from waste cooking oil. Soon afterward, she came across an article in the local paper describing the state’s high unemployment rate affecting many families in her hometown of Westerly, Rhode Island, who were struggling to heat their homes. Seeing this need firsthand inspired Lin and a team of friends, then fifth graders, to start Project TGIF (Turn Grease Into Fuel). Project TGIF is an innovative system that collects grease from residents and restaurants, has it converted into biodiesel, and then distributes biofuel to local families for emergency heating assistance. Today, the project is a huge success with 132 restaurants participating in the program and 22 residential recycling sites in three states. TGIF is able to heat the homes of 80 families annually. Additionally, Lin and her team helped introduce and pass a Used Cooking Oil Recycling Act in the state of Rhode Island, which mandates that all businesses recycle their waste oil. Governor Chafee signed the bill into law in July 2011. To date, TGIF has collected more than 180,000 gallons of grease, generated 150,000 gallons of biodiesel, and donated 40,000 gallons of BioHeat (valued at approximately $152,000) to heat the homes of 400 local families. According to the EPA’s calculations, the project has offset 3 million pounds of CO2 emissions. Due to Project TGIF’s success, Lin has been invited to speak at both national and international events such as the TEDxEast conference in New York City; the Global Issues Service Summit in Nairobi, Kenya and Luxemburg; and was invited by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) to give two workshops to children and youth in Bandung, Indonesia during the UNEP TUNZA Conference for Children and Youth on the Environment. Lin has also been named one of the Top Ten Volunteers of the Year in 2011 by the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards; a 2012 Young Wonder by CNN Heroes; honored at the 2013 Jefferson Awards; and named one of The 25 Most Powerful and Influential Young People by Youth Service America and Huffington Post in 2012. She is also a Brower Youth Award recipient for her environmental work in 2013, and was recently honored by Nickelodeon as a HALO honoree in November 2014. Cassandra Lin will speak at the San Jacinto College Central Campus on Monday, Feb. 16 at 10 a.m., in Slocomb Auditorium (building 12). This event is sponsored by the San Jacinto College Service-Learning Committee and the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL), and is free and open to the public. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Once-golden biofuels market flattened by cheap diesel :: WRAL.com
http://www.wral.com/once-golden-biofuels-market-flattened-by-cheap-diesel/14437851/ [Seems like a good opportunity for a greenhouse gas emissions tax. Personally, I favour one implemented at the start of the product change - aka big emitters, and imbed it in the production price rather than trying to tack a tax on willy-nilly at the retail level. Least paper-work, best tying of the cost to the issue.] Once-golden biofuels market flattened by cheap diesel Posted 3:01 a.m. today By CHRIS FLEISHER, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review PITTSBURGH — Last fall, Ed Vescovi planned to restart a dormant biodiesel plant in Beaver County. The market for biofuel was shaky. But a new owner, Weavertown Environmental, pledged to get the plant going after purchasing it in 2013. Vescovi was hoping to begin production before the end of last year. Then, oil prices plummeted, pushing down the price of regular diesel. You wouldn't get anybody to really buy (biodiesel) if you're still selling it for $4 a gallon, said Ed Vescovi, who Weavertown hired to run the plant. You can buy diesel fuel for $3 a gallon. How do you compete? Weavertown put the project on hold rather than suffer along with other producers who have seen their profits plummet in a challenging environment for biofuels, the petroleum alternatives made from corn, soybean oil and other crops. Cheap oil has squeezed the industry's profits even as it encounters larger questions about its impact on food prices and environmental benefits. Government mandates have supported its growth — production of biodiesel has increased from 112 million gallons in 2005 to 1.8 billion in 2013 — but inexpensive oil could increase pressure to reduce mandates. Those mandates have been questioned amid criticism that biofuels drive up food prices. Besides being a common side-dish for many Americans' meals, corn is used as a sweetener in packaged foods and beverages and as feed grain for livestock. And competition from ethanol producers forces prices up when growers can't keep up with demand. Ethanol demand Corn-based ethanol is a more widely used alternative fuel than biodiesel, which is made from recycled vegetable oil and animal fat, and is coming off of a record year for production. Ethanol makers enjoyed fattened margins amid low corn prices, but they are feeling pinched now. Prices have come down sharply, said Robert Wisner, a biofuels economist at Iowa State University. The trend has been down along with gasoline and crude oil. Wholesale prices for ethanol have fallen 37 percent since July, to $1.31 in January, Wisner said. Government mandates for production have propped up the industry. But some environmental groups have called for abolishing those supports amid concerns about the effects on the nation's food supply. Last month, a prominent environmental think tank called on Western governments to reconsider their support for biofuels. In the United States, refiners are required to blend biofuels with gasoline and diesel fuel to help reduce the nation's reliance on imported oil and to address environmental pollution concerns because biofuels are believed to be cleaner sources of energy. Turning corn and other crops into energy is inefficient and takes up land that could be better used to produce food, according to the Washington-based World Resources Institute. The push for ethanol production has driven up global food prices without lowering carbon emissions, the report said. The Institute said that the quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale is both unrealistic and unsustainable. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., wants to remove the mandate requiring refiners and blenders to mix biofuel with petroleum. It drives up gas prices, increases food costs, damages car engines and is harmful to the environment, he said. Last month, Toomey co-sponsored an amendment to the Keystone pipeline bill to remove the ethanol mandate. The amendment was never voted on, but a Toomey spokeswoman Friday said he would keep pushing the issue regardless of gas prices. Biofuel efficiency is still being debated. Scott Irwin, an agricultural economist at University of Illinois, said the fundamental theories appear sound but that the actual impact that growing plants for fuel has on food prices needs more research. There is no doubting, however, the impact that crude oil prices have on consumer thirst for biofuels, he said. When consumers are pinched by $145 crude oil, they're looking around for any relief they can find, he said. And biofuels generally look a lot better in that environment. Feeling the squeeze The fortunes of biodiesel manufacturers have been bad, too. Two years ago, there was a brisk business in turning used cooking oil into diesel fuel. HeroBX, an Erie-based biodiesel company, had its best year in 2013 and produced 50 million gallons of fuel. But uncertainty over federal production mandates and the collapse
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
Solar shingles have been available for years; Dow's Powerhouse line since about 2005. see Article in Scientific America 2013: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/ The first solar shingles were often more difficult to install than pv panels = high cost of installation. The benchmark of being competitive w. coal may well be the driving force behind improvements that have lead to significant reduction in price vs anchor holding it back. - thin film pv allowed for fast, easy installation (lower cost) - shingles made of elements more common than the indium and gallium used in the current copper, indium, gallium, selenide pv film would further lower cost Combine lowered cost w. tax incentives to install = a good thing for us common folk Tesla announced that it will make its batteries available for home energy use. Someone (Darryl?) will this also be good for residential pv installation? Tom On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:23:55 -0600 Chris Burck chris.bu...@gmail.com wrote: All well and good. Of course, we need them now, and would have them by now if this ridiculous benchmark of being competitive with coal weren't causing artificial inertia. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] With oil spill fund in red, legislators look to raise tax | Alaska Dispatch News
https://www.adn.com/article/20150213/oil-spill-fund-red-legislators-look-raise-tax With oil spill fund in red, legislators look to raise tax Nathaniel Herz February 13, 2015 JUNEAU -- Gov. Bill Walker’s administration and several Republican legislators are trying to figure out how to prop up Alaska’s oil spill response program from a shortfall due to dwindling tax receipts on North Slope oil. Rep. Paul Seaton, R-Homer, has drafted a bill to create a new wholesale tax on refined fuel products to help cover an $8 million annual deficit for the $15 million program, which has funded response and prevention work primarily through a 4 cents per-barrel surcharge on crude oil production. The per-barrel surcharge -- combined with money recovered from spillers -- was enough to pay for the whole response program for years, but collections have dwindled along with North Slope production. Following a failed effort to increase the per-barrel tax in last year’s legislative session, Seaton and Rep. Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau, are looking at raising money for the spill response program from broader sources than the oil producers, who have objected to a tax increase because a significant portion of the program’s cleanup work covers spills from other industries, or even individuals. “The idea is: How do you spread the responsibility more broadly?” Munoz said in an interview. “It’s justified, because the oil industry is not the only industry that’s responsible in Alaska.” The state’s spill fund dates back to 1986, when it was created primarily for cleaning up hazardous waste. Its purpose expanded after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, when lawmakers passed the per-barrel tax. The state’s program has two functions. First, it spends about $10 million annually to prevent spills and clean up small ones. And it keeps the state prepared in the event of a bigger one by working on prevention plans and conducting inspections and drills. There’s a response team that handles about 2,000 reports each year, though its job is primarily to oversee cleanup by the spiller rather than executing the cleanup. The state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is responsible for the spill response program, views the prevention and response function primarily as a “safety net” for the oil production industry. The program’s second function is cleaning up contaminated sites, which costs another $5 million a year. The vast majority of that work is dedicated to cleaning up spills from sources outside the oil production industry, like mines or even home heating tanks. Revenues from the per-barrel tax on oil production were once large enough to cover the the full cost of both functions, but a gap has developed in recent years as trans-Alaska pipeline throughput has dwindled, from a peak of 2 million barrels a day in 1988 to today's 500,000 barrels a day. The program now gets only about $7 million a year from the per-barrel tax, or about $8 million less than its annual costs. While the previous administration of Gov. Sean Parnell was willing to cover the gap with Alaska’s savings until a hoped-for uptick in oil production, the administration of his replacement, Walker, is facing a multibillion-dollar budget deficit and doesn’t want to close the spill program’s deficit with money in the the state’s general fund. DEC is proposing to save $500,000 this year by cutting four positions and closing its Bethel office. The department is also reorganizing its response and prevention teams into a combined unit of 50 people. Commissioner Larry Hartig said in an interview that the program’s costs have grown at 1.7 percent annually over the past decade. Administration officials are urging the Legislature to institute a new tax this year; otherwise, the state will likely have to use savings to cover the program's deficit for at least a year due to the time required to implement a tax and set up a collection system. “We can’t really afford a delay,” Hartig said. The question legislators are now pondering is how much of the new money should come from the oil industry. “The debate is: Who pays?” said Kristin Ryan, the state official in charge of the spill response program. As per-barrel revenues have decreased, legislators have tried to cover the shortfall through an increase in the per-barrel fee, like Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, in 2007, and Munoz last year. The oil industry, however, objects to that approach, arguing that the program pays for cleaning up spills from other sources, too. Data collected by the state show that only about 20 percent of spills last year came from sources associated with oil exploration and production. “Is it really the oil and gas industry’s responsibility to pay for an individual’s home heating oil tank spilling?” Kara Moriarty, the executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, a trade group, said in a phone interview. “We’re
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
The devil is in the details, but I expect the Tesla house-battery will be excellent for PV storage and micro-cogeneration. Most off-grid houses (in my limited experience) seem to have about 10 to 20 kWh of storage. The smallest Tesla car pack so far is 65 kWh. Assuming the house-batteries are based on returned car packs which no longer make the grade for vehicle use (below 85% of original capacity), that's still 55 kWh - a big step up in capacity. That gives the house-owner the option of aiming for 60-70% of full as a target, and room to store more when generation is bountiful, and still have more capacity for non-generation reserve than before. I remember the ad for Dow's Powerhouse shingles in HomePower magazine way back, but could not find a Canadian distributor - that was probably around 2006 or 2007. Grid connection was difficult to impossible at that time anyway. Put that money into solar heating and insulation instead. Darryl On 14/02/2015 4:33 PM, Thomas Kelly wrote: Solar shingles have been available for years; Dow's Powerhouse line since about 2005. see Article in Scientific America 2013: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/ The first solar shingles were often more difficult to install than pv panels = high cost of installation. The benchmark of being competitive w. coal may well be the driving force behind improvements that have lead to significant reduction in price vs anchor holding it back. - thin film pv allowed for fast, easy installation (lower cost) - shingles made of elements more common than the indium and gallium used in the current copper, indium, gallium, selenide pv film would further lower cost Combine lowered cost w. tax incentives to install = a good thing for us common folk Tesla announced that it will make its batteries available for home energy use. Someone (Darryl?) will this also be good for residential pv installation? Tom On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:23:55 -0600 Chris Burck chris.bu...@gmail.com wrote: All well and good. Of course, we need them now, and would have them by now if this ridiculous benchmark of being competitive with coal weren't causing artificial inertia. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager, Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Once-golden biofuels market flattened by cheap diesel :: WRAL.com
From my little part of the world: There was a time when I got phone calls from restaurants asking me to take their used veg oil. In fact, before I went from test batches to large batches, I did try-outs for the veg oil I would accept. There was a time when I ran two diesel cars on homebrewed BD and heated my house + domestic hot water. Then it happened. Veg oil became valuable. The price paid for it was based on the price that could be gotten for the biodiesel made from it When diesel was above $4 (US) per gallon, used veg oil went for $1 or more per gallon. Contracts were signed, oil poachers were arrested. My sources for veg oil dried up; I had to sell the 2 old Mercedes diesels and go to wood for heat. Fortunately I had set up a strategic oil reserveback when used veg oil was available for the taking ; 400+ gallons of de-watered, clean, high quality veg oil. I use home brewed BD in my oil-fired boiler to supplement wood heat. I was amazed to find that a barrel of veg oil from 2008 still made excellent BD 6 years later in 2014. Now with diesel back down to $3 or less per gallon, paying $1 per gallon of feedstock is not profitable. I imagine that the same is true for production from unused veg oil. Tom On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:08:48 -0500 Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: http://www.wral.com/once-golden-biofuels-market-flattened-by-cheap-diesel/14437851/ [Seems like a good opportunity for a greenhouse gas emissions tax. Personally, I favour one implemented at the start of the product change - aka big emitters, and imbed it in the production price rather than trying to tack a tax on willy-nilly at the retail level. Least paper-work, best tying of the cost to the issue.] Once-golden biofuels market flattened by cheap diesel Posted 3:01 a.m. today By CHRIS FLEISHER, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review PITTSBURGH — Last fall, Ed Vescovi planned to restart a dormant biodiesel plant in Beaver County. The market for biofuel was shaky. But a new owner, Weavertown Environmental, pledged to get the plant going after purchasing it in 2013. Vescovi was hoping to begin production before the end of last year. Then, oil prices plummeted, pushing down the price of regular diesel. You wouldn't get anybody to really buy (biodiesel) if you're still selling it for $4 a gallon, said Ed Vescovi, who Weavertown hired to run the plant. You can buy diesel fuel for $3 a gallon. How do you compete? Weavertown put the project on hold rather than suffer along with other producers who have seen their profits plummet in a challenging environment for biofuels, the petroleum alternatives made from corn, soybean oil and other crops. Cheap oil has squeezed the industry's profits even as it encounters larger questions about its impact on food prices and environmental benefits. Government mandates have supported its growth — production of biodiesel has increased from 112 million gallons in 2005 to 1.8 billion in 2013 — but inexpensive oil could increase pressure to reduce mandates. Those mandates have been questioned amid criticism that biofuels drive up food prices. Besides being a common side-dish for many Americans' meals, corn is used as a sweetener in packaged foods and beverages and as feed grain for livestock. And competition from ethanol producers forces prices up when growers can't keep up with demand. Ethanol demand Corn-based ethanol is a more widely used alternative fuel than biodiesel, which is made from recycled vegetable oil and animal fat, and is coming off of a record year for production. Ethanol makers enjoyed fattened margins amid low corn prices, but they are feeling pinched now. Prices have come down sharply, said Robert Wisner, a biofuels economist at Iowa State University. The trend has been down along with gasoline and crude oil. Wholesale prices for ethanol have fallen 37 percent since July, to $1.31 in January, Wisner said. Government mandates for production have propped up the industry. But some environmental groups have called for abolishing those supports amid concerns about the effects on the nation's food supply. Last month, a prominent environmental think tank called on Western governments to reconsider their support for biofuels. In the United States, refiners are required to blend biofuels with gasoline and diesel fuel to help reduce the nation's reliance on imported oil and to address environmental pollution concerns because biofuels are believed to be cleaner sources of energy. Turning corn and other crops into energy is inefficient and takes up land that could be better used to produce food, according to the Washington-based World Resources Institute. The push for ethanol production has driven up global food prices without lowering carbon emissions, the report said. The Institute said that the quest for bioenergy at a meaningful scale is both unrealistic and
[Biofuel] NASA Scientists: Future Megadroughts Could Last 30+ Years 'Thanks to Human-Induced Climate Change' » EcoWatch
http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/13/nasa-megadroughts-human-induced-climate-change/ [video, image and links in on-line article] NASA Scientists: Future Megadroughts Could Last 30+ Years ‘Thanks to Human-Induced Climate Change’ Anastasia Pantsios | February 13, 2015 2:08 pm The drought in California, going into its fourth year, has been in the news, especially since California produces much of the country’s food. But a new NASA study, published this week in the journal Science Advances, suggests that the U.S. could be looking at much worse. It predicts multi-decade “megadroughts” of more than 30 years by the end of the 21st century if we don’t significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Recent droughts such as the ongoing drought in California or the Southwest, or even historical droughts such as the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, these are naturally occurring droughts that typically last several years or sometimes almost a decade,” said the study’s lead author Ben Cook, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “What we’re seeing is that with climate change many of these types of droughts will likely last for 20, 30, sometimes even 40 years.” How bad these droughts will get is tied to how much greenhouse gas emissions humans generate in future years. Cook and his colleagues say the current risk of a megadrought is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing by the mid-21st century, they project the risk at more than 60 percent in the second half of the 21st century. And if they continue to rise at current rates, the researchers say, there is an 80 percent chance of a megadrought in the Southwest and Central Plains between 2050 and 2099. “Alternatively, if the world were to take aggressive actions to reduce emissions, the model still showed drought but the trends would be less severe,” they found. Cook said this study is more robust than previous research, which used fewer drought indictors and few climate models. This study used 17 different climate models, all of which showed a drier planet “thanks to human-induced climate change,” says NASA. “What I think really stands out in the paper is the consistency between different metrics of soil moisture and the findings across all the different climate models,” said climate scientist Kevin Anchukaitis of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who was not involved in the study. “It is rare to see all signs pointing so unwaveringly toward the same result, in this case a highly elevated risk of future megadroughts in the United States.” This is also the first study to compare future drought projections to droughts over the last 1,000 years, using tree-ring information to estimate droughts beyond the last 150 years. The researchers looked at megadroughts of 30-50 years that occurred in North America between 1100 and 1300 and compared them with projected late 21st-century droughts. They found that whether greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing or continue to increase at the current rate, the likelihood of drier conditions and droughts lasting 30 years or more is greater. “We can’t really understand the full variability and the full dynamics of drought over western North America by focusing only on the last century or so,” said Cook. “We have to go to the paleoclimate record, looking at these much longer timescales, when much more extreme and extensive drought events happened, to really come up with an appreciation for the full potential drought dynamics in the system.” Anchukaitis agreed that comparing medieval-era droughts with projected ones is useful. “Those droughts had profound ramifications for societies living in North America at the time,” he said. “These findings require us to think about how we would adapt if even more severe droughts lasting over a decade were to occur in our future.” Those adaptations would be more challenging than anything we’ve seen in the past, says Cook. “The droughts represent events that nobody in the history of the U.S. has ever had to deal with,” he said. “Even in the modern era, droughts such as the ongoing droughts in California and the Southwest, these normal droughts act as major stressors on water resources in the region. So we expect that with these much longer droughts, it’s going to be even more impactful and cause even more problems for agriculture and ecosystems in the region.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Senate report confirms CIA had ‘black site’ at Guantánamo, hid it from Congress | The Miami Herald The Miami Herald
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article4434603.html [image, links in on-line article] Senate report confirms CIA had ‘black site’ at Guantánamo, hid it from Congress By Carol Rosenberg 12/11/2014 6:55 PM In 2004, as the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to let Guantánamo captives consult lawyers for the first time, the CIA spirited some men who now face death-penalty trials from a clandestine lockup at the U.S. Navy base — and didn’t tell Congress. Two years later, even as President George W. Bush announced at the White House Rose Garden that the spy agency had transferred its most prized captives to Guantánamo for trial, the alleged al-Qaida terrorists were still under control of the CIA. The release of 524 pages of the 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee report confirms for the first time that the CIA used Guantánamo as a black site — and continued to run the prison that held the alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and 13 other men even as the Pentagon was charged to prosecute them. It also offers graphic details that the U.S. government has hidden from view in the pretrial hearings of six captives it seeks to execute — about the sexual torture and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder of the alleged USS Cole bomber and why a sickly looking accused 9/11 conspirator sits on a pillow at court proceedings. But it does not resolve whether the spy agency that systematically hid its prized interrogation program from court and congressional scrutiny has ceded control to the U.S. military of the secret facility where the men are imprisoned. And, if so, when? “I would find it hard to believe that they let go. Throughout this entire program, the CIA is running from the law at every turn,” says Navy Cmdr. Brian Mizer. He calls the revelation that his client, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the accused planner of the USS Cole bombing, “had a tube inserted into his anus” tantamount to rape. The CIA argues that there was a sound medical reason to use “rectal rehydration” on its captives in 2004 at a secret site that the report suggests was not Guantánamo. In one instance, the CIA “rectally infused” a “food tray” of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins into captive Majid Khan. Now at Guantánamo, he pleaded guilty to being an unwitting courier of cash used to fund a terrorist bombing of a Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, in exchange for the possibility of eventual release. In the instance of Nashiri, a footnote in the report says, his “rectal feeding” was carried out in a secret site a month after he was taken away from Guantánamo. “They weren’t rehydrating him,” says Mizer of Nashiri’s tube insertion, which was described as administered on a table with his feet raised higher than his head. “He was being punished for being on a short-lived hunger strike.” Defense lawyers, some of whom have seen classified evidence in the USS Cole and 9/11 cases, call this week’s disclosure “the tip of the iceberg.” They want access to the entire report. But they argue that what has been disclosed so far provides fodder for coming legal challenges that ask Guantánamo judges, members of the U.S. military, to either dismiss the case or downgrade it from a capital case on grounds of outrageous government conduct or pretrial punishment — by the CIA. Since the 2011 and 2012 arraignments, the death-penalty trials have been grappling with how to handle the mostly hidden role of the CIA in the cases — even as the agency tried to muzzle defense lawyers. In an illustration of this, an agent outside the court remotely cut the sound to the public in January 2013 when an attorney for the alleged 9/11 mastermind began to argue an unclassified motion seeking information about the black sites described in this week’s Senate report. Now the report shows that Guantánamo had two of those secret CIA black sites — code named Maroon and Indigo — from September 2003 to April 2004 that held at least five detainees. They were Nashiri, alleged 9/11 deputy Ramzi bin al Shibh, two unidentified captives and, a fifth man who would subsequently die mysteriously after being dropped off in Libya during Moammar Gaddafi’s rule — a one-time U.S. military prisoner whose detention, unlike the others, was disclosed to the International Red Cross. A Libyan, his name was Ali Mohammed al Fakheri, but the CIA called him Ibn Shaykh al Libi, the name he apparently used when captured by Pakistani security forces, according to leaked Guantánamo detainee profiles. He has been identified as a captive who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, and under torture falsely linked Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, something he recanted once in CIA custody. The U.S. would go on to invade Iraq in 2003, with Fakheri’s tortured, recanted statements as justification. In the same month that the first photos of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib,
[Biofuel] Nebraska judge temporarily blocks TransCanada's ability to use eminent domain for Keystone XL
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/12/1364134/-Nebraska-judge-temporarily-blocks-TransCanada-s-ability-to-use-eminent-domain-for-Keystone-XL [image and links in on-line article U.S. citizens might also want to note KXL is a good deal for TCP because TCP won't have to pay into the U.S. federal oil spill response fund, as by U.S. law, the dilbit is not 'oil'. Nope, it's the stuff that made a nastier mess of Kalamazoo and Mayflower than conventional oil would have. So in return for almost no real permanent jobs in the U.S., a ticking time-bomb for the Ogallala aquifer - because the TCP pipeline will leak at some point in time - and no money, TCP gets to export Canadian bitumen to international markets via the U.S. And a foreign company getting to use eminent domain for a for-profit pipeline route, against U.S. citizens, that was hilarious.] Nebraska judge temporarily blocks TransCanada's ability to use eminent domain for Keystone XL The Keystone XL pipeline that both the Senate and House have voted in the past two weeks to approve just ran into another possible hang-up. Joe Duggan reports: Holt County District Judge Mark Kozisek granted a temporary injunction Thursday to landowners who challenged the ability of TransCanada to use eminent domain to acquire land for the controversial pipeline. The judge made the ruling after landowners filed new lawsuits challenging the state’s pipeline routing law, which was narrowly upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court in a decision last month. A spokesman for TransCanada said Thursday the company agreed to the injunction in exchange for an accelerated trial schedule. Although the judge’s order affects just the landowners along the northern part of the pipeline route, the company will offer to stall land condemnation for the roughly 90 property owners along the route who have refused to sign easement contracts. Last month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against a lower court decision in a case that had found the authority for approving the pipeline's route had been unconstitutionally taken from the state's Public Service Commission and given to the governor instead. The high court's justices voted 4-3 that the change in authority was unconstitutional, but the state requires a supermajority of at least five justices to overturn a law. The decision left the door open to the additional litigation that Judge Kozisek issued his injunction on Thursday. The Obama administration is nearing the end of a process to determine whether Keystone XL is in the national interest. This process for approving international pipelines has been handled since 1968 by the U.S. State Department and has been a prerogative of the executive branch since Ulysses S. Grant was president. Since the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision five weeks ago, expectations have been that a presidential decision on the pipeline will be announced soon, possibly later this month, but more likely in early March. The latest ruling in Nebraska could delay that decision just as the original land-owners' lawsuit did. Republicans and a couple of handfuls of mostly conservative Democrats have sought to circumvent the decision process by turning over approval authority for Keystone XL—but, tellingly, not other cross-boundary pipelines—from the president to Congress. The House voted 270-152 on Wednesday on the latest round in this ongoing effort. Two weeks ago the Senate approved the same bill by a vote of 62-36. Advisers to President Obama have said they will recommend the bill be vetoed. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Global Drone Assassination Program on verge of collapse
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/13/1364144/-Global-Drone-Assassination-Program-on-verge-of-collapse [links and videos in on-line article] Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:51 AM PST Global Drone Assassination Program on verge of collapse Competition of good-paying jobs is fierce these days, but there is one job sector where they will train you, you can get paid six-figures, and you don't even have to work hard. No kidding, in the private sector the starting salary is $100,000. There's just one small catch: You sometimes have to kill children. For some people that's a deal breaker. The Air Force has a problem with their drone program. It seems the drone pilots aren't happy with killing lots of civilians. Drone pilots in the Air Force are quitting faster than they can be replaced. There are currently 988 active-duty pilots for the Predator and Reaper drones – the two most lethal unmanned aircraft commonly used for surveillance and strikes. More than 1,200 pilots are needed. Gen. Welsh says that the Air Force can only train approximately 180 drone pilots a year. But the annual need for drone pilots is closer to 300. And the Air Force loses about 240 drone pilots a year, as drone operators move to other jobs, or leave the military for higher paying jobs operating drones for the drone manufacturers that sell them to the military. In response the Air Force has doubled the incentive pay for drone operators and is looking at raiding the National Guard for qualified drone pilots. The manpower shortage in the drone program has gotten so extreme that a leaked internal memo shows that the program is on the verge of failure. “ACC believes we are about to see a perfect storm of increased COCOM [Combatant Commander] demand, accession reductions, and outflow increases that will damage the readiness and combat capability of the MQ-1/9 enterprise for years to come,” reads an internal Air Force memo from ACC commander Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, addressed to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “I am extremely concerned.” “ACC will continue to non-concur to increased tasking beyond our FY15 [fiscal year 2015] force offering and respectfully requests your support in ensuring the combat viability of the MQ-1/9 platform,” Carlisle added. In other words, the Air Force is saying that its drone force has been stretched to its limits. “It’s at the breaking point, and has been for a long time,” a senior service official told The Daily Beast. “What’s different now is that the band-aid fixes are no longer working.” The standard Predator drone crew is 10 people. In a crunch it can fall to 8.5 per drone. “ACC squadrons are currently executing steady-state, day-to-day operations (65 CAPs) at less than an 8:1 crew-to-CAP ratio. This directly violates our red line for RPA [remotely pilot aircraft] manning and combat operations,” Carlisle wrote. “The ever-present demand has resulted in increased launch and recovery taskings and increased overhead for LNO [liaison officer] support. The manpower crunch translates into longer hours, no leave, and damage to their careers. This just compounds the incentive to leave the program. What's more, the drone pilots are experiencing PTSD at the same rate as real pilots. But never fear, there is a solution. (Chillingly, to mitigate these effects, researchers have proposed creating a Siri-like user interface, a virtual copilot that anthropomorphizes the drone and lets crews shunt off the blame for whatever happens. Siri, have those people killed.) On the other end of the spectrum, the right-wing news media has never loved our global assassination program more. Consider this tasteful headline from the New York Post in response to a Yemen drone strike that mistakenly blew up a wedding. Isn't the idea of young lovers and their families being torn apart in a flaming shower of metal shrapnel just HI-LARIOUS! The editors at the New York Post seemed to think so. It makes you wonder what tasteful headline they thought of for the Newtown massacre. Oh wait. That's different. Those were real people. And by real people, I mean Americans. And by Americans I mean white people. Muslims don't count. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Yale Environment 360: Solar Shingles Made from Common Metals Offer Cheaper Energy Option
The dow shingles have fairly limited distribution from what can tell. They are only selling them to roofers here in Colorado, not to solar installers -- so despite having all of the various solar certifications, I cannot sell them. Definitely not selling them retail to DIY folks. Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of them. I wonder how the roofers are fairing with dealing with all of the various electrical design issues that are still 75% of the install. I haven't seen them going in, even on new developments that have PV on all of the houses, so I suspect there's still some disconnect there. On the battery size issue... you are correct that most off grid houses are a bit smaller battery bank than Tesla is working with, however, most grid tied houses use an enormous amount of power compared to off grid houses. Around 65kWh is probably more what you'd need to take an average house off grid. The average useage of a grid connected house here in Colorado is 750kWh per month, so 65kWh is under 2 days of storage. Z On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.com wrote: The devil is in the details, but I expect the Tesla house-battery will be excellent for PV storage and micro-cogeneration. Most off-grid houses (in my limited experience) seem to have about 10 to 20 kWh of storage. The smallest Tesla car pack so far is 65 kWh. Assuming the house-batteries are based on returned car packs which no longer make the grade for vehicle use (below 85% of original capacity), that's still 55 kWh - a big step up in capacity. That gives the house-owner the option of aiming for 60-70% of full as a target, and room to store more when generation is bountiful, and still have more capacity for non-generation reserve than before. I remember the ad for Dow's Powerhouse shingles in HomePower magazine way back, but could not find a Canadian distributor - that was probably around 2006 or 2007. Grid connection was difficult to impossible at that time anyway. Put that money into solar heating and insulation instead. Darryl On 14/02/2015 4:33 PM, Thomas Kelly wrote: Solar shingles have been available for years; Dow's Powerhouse line since about 2005. see Article in Scientific America 2013: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my- roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/ The first solar shingles were often more difficult to install than pv panels = high cost of installation. The benchmark of being competitive w. coal may well be the driving force behind improvements that have lead to significant reduction in price vs anchor holding it back. - thin film pv allowed for fast, easy installation (lower cost) - shingles made of elements more common than the indium and gallium used in the current copper, indium, gallium, selenide pv film would further lower cost Combine lowered cost w. tax incentives to install = a good thing for us common folk Tesla announced that it will make its batteries available for home energy use. Someone (Darryl?) will this also be good for residential pv installation? Tom On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:23:55 -0600 Chris Burck chris.bu...@gmail.com wrote: All well and good. Of course, we need them now, and would have them by now if this ridiculous benchmark of being competitive with coal weren't causing artificial inertia. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager, Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] 'Fox News North' Is Shutting Down
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/13/1364194/--Fox-News-North-Is-Shutting-Down [The irony here is that the self-described 'centre-right', pro-ultra-capitalism media outlet could not break-even unless subsidized by a federal government regulator forcing all broadcast carriers to carry the channel on a no-opt-out for-fee basis for all subscribers. Potential subscribers protested en masse, repeatedly, to prevent that. And apparently very, very few Canadians were prepared to pay a fee for Sun News as a specialty channel. Oh, and as a final parting gift, Sun News did not give remaining staff notice of termination as legally required. Fortunately, for those who have developed a taste for the CPC kool-aid, Canadian taxpayers provide that free of charge via the Internet - the Prime Minister's personal propaganda / vanity channel: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/24seven - AKA Spin Central - any resemblance to reality is likely an oversight.] Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:35 AM PST 'Fox News North' Is Shutting Down The market speaks, and what it says is Get lost, nobody in Canada wants to watch your right-wing faux news: Sun News Network is about to sign off, permanently. CBC News has learned that the cable news television channel will shut down early Friday. The network began broadcasting in April 2011, launching a right-of-centre programming schedule, but it has had a constant challenge attracting viewers. Its supporters blamed the CRTC for not giving it the same access enjoyed by news channels operated by CBC and CTV. The federal broadcast regulator denied Sun News a guaranteed spot on basic cable TV packages in August 2013. Data released as part of that application showed that while the network was available to 5.1 million households, it was only attracting, on average, 8,000 viewers at any given time. (My emphasis.) It never managed to pay its way because nobody wanted to watch it, outside of a few Canadian wingnuts (yes there are some), and the owners got tired of supporting it financially. Propaganda can get expensive, especially when you can't force people to watch it, like the way Fox News is the required channel in so many hotel lobbies, bars, spas, waiting rooms, restaurants, etc. across the U.S. So a minority may have been able to force Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party on the country, but at least they've haven't been able to force Fox News North on it in any way that matters. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Here's What Kinder Morgan's Keeping Secret About B.C. Spill Response Plans | Carol Linnitt
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carol-linnitt/kinder-morgan-bc-spill-response_b_6675012.html [links and images in on-line article] Carol Linnitt Managing Editor and Director of Research for DeSmog Canada Here's What Kinder Morgan's Keeping Secret About B.C. Spill Response Plans Posted: 02/13/2015 5:07 pm EST Updated: 02/13/2015 5:59 pm EST Kinder Morgan, the company currently seeking permission to nearly triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline to carry Albertan crude to the west coast, has engaged in a protracted fight with the province of British Columbia in an effort to keep its oil spill response plans a secret. The company alleges its motivation has to do with security concerns, although a look back at the to-and-fro with the province of B.C. paints a story of either incompetence or pure, defenceless hubris. Either way, what Kinder Morgan is refusing to produce for B.C. and other intervenors in the pipeline review process has been willingly disclosed south of the border for portions of the pipeline that extend to Washington State. A read through the detailed spill response plans Kinder Morgan has in place for the U.S. shows just how far the company went to prove they can handle a pipeline spill. It also highlights how outlandish it is that Kinder Morgan has not released similarly-detailed plans to the province of B.C. It is also troubling that Kinder Morgan expects the government of B.C. to consent to a massive pipeline expansion -- the proposal calls for a twinning of the pipeline which would lead to a fivefold increase in tanker traffic -- without adequate assurances that the best available emergency plans are in place. So, what did Kinder Morgan tell Washington State that it refuses to tell B.C.? 1. Details for every unique section of the pipeline In its Emergency Management Plan (EMP) documents released to regulators in Washington State, Kinder Morgan provides detailed information about every individual section of the pipeline, including the thickness of the pipeline's walls, where it crosses water, the location of shutoff valves, peak volumes, and a spill volume profile for each geographical zone of the line. 2015-02-13-KinderMorganTransMountainpipelinespillzoneUS.png A map from Kinder Morgan shows worst case scenario spill zones. 2. Worst case scenario plans for five individual zones Based on previous spill data going all the way back to 1955, maximum flow rates, and maximum shut-down response time, Kinder Morgan estimates what the worst case discharge might be for any given segment of the pipeline. The company uses these estimates to plan detailed spill response measures. It even calculates for elevation, adverse weather conditions, whether shut off valves are automated or manual, and how these factors might help or hinder response efforts. The company also provides these details for storage tanks at terminals along the pipeline. If that wasn't enough, the documents show exactly how Kinder Morgan arrived at its estimates so the methodology can be evaluated independently. 3. Who exactly is responsible for spills in each individual location Pipeline companies are obligated to obtain something called mutual aid from spill response agencies and private companies expected to respond to a spill. Kinder Morgan lists every single company and agency it anticipates would respond to a spill from the Trans Mountain pipeline or terminals in Washington State. The company also lists activation instructions outlining the steps to be taken in the event of a spill in order to draw upon the resources of their mutual aid partners. Kinder Morgan also provided regulators with confirmation letters (example below) from numerous companies that agree to provide aid in the event of a spill. These letters include signatures from personnel at the managerial level providing the state with some assurance that response plans, equipment availability, and other expectations have been previously discussed. Kinder Morgan provided this letter of intent to regulators in Washington State to confirm NRC Environmental Services will provide spill response services. Kinder Morgan refused to supply the province of B.C. with similar letters of intent as part of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion review process. Kinder Morgan refused to provide B.C. with the names of agencies to be notified in the event of an emergency, leaving the province to question if the company is relying on out-of-province first responders -- which could lead to lengthy response delays. Without such information, B.C. argues Trans Mountain has no ability to substantiate the assertions it has made about spill response preparedness in its application. A side-by-side comparison of primary response contractors documentation demonstrates the extent to which Kinder Morgan redacted information provided to B.C. 4. What will be cleaned up, where, with what, and who's bringing
[Biofuel] BP Abuses Oil Spill Claims Appeal Process | Legal Examiner New Orleans
http://neworleans.legalexaminer.com/toxic-substances/bp-abuses-oil-spill-claims-appeal-process/ [links in on-line article] BP Abuses Oil Spill Claims Appeal Process Posted by Tom Young February 8, 2015 8:56 AM I have written before about BP saying one thing while doing the opposite. Unfortunately for the people of the Gulf, such is the company’s modus operandi. Case in Point When trying desperately in 2012 to win judicial approval for the company’s Settlement Agreement with Gulf Coast businesses and individuals affected by the disaster, BP lead attorney Richard Godfrey said the following to a packed New Orleans courtroom: “The settlement is placing large sums of money today and tomorrow and next week into the hands and the communities of the Gulf, the victims of this tragic event. We believe that it’s fair, just and reasonable, and that this process should not be interrupted or stopped based upon the objections of the few for the purpose of injuring the many who need to be compensated now.” That noble sentiment followed a prior statement by BP’s CEO Bob Dudley when announcing the Settlement: “BP made a commitment to help economic and environmental restoration efforts in the Gulf Coast, and this settlement provides the framework for us to continue delivering on that promise, offering those affected full and fair compensation, without waiting for the outcome of a lengthy trial process.” Lofty promises about prompt and fair payment of compensation. Yet three years later, only a small minority of claims have been paid. And the lion’s share of the blame for such slow pay can be laid squarely at BP’s feet. The company has broken its promise, and it has done so by design. 1,011 Days Later Mr. Godfrey told us that the Settlement is “placing large sums of money today and tomorrow and next week into the hands of the communities of the Gulf.” It has been 1,011 “todays and tomorrows” since the Settlement Agreement was executed. And there have been 145 “next weeks.” In that time BP has sued the Claims Administrator, filed one legal challenge after the other with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, asked the Supreme Court to intervene, refused to pay the vendors hired to process the claims, levied all sorts of unfounded allegations of conflicts of interest, and appealed thousands of legitimate awards made to small business people devastated by the spill. As a result, only a small fraction of claims have actually been paid, 2 years, 9 months and 5 days later. BP has lost nearly every one of these legal battles, with the Supreme Court eventually telling the company to go pound sand. But a substantive victory is not what BP seeks. Despite Mr. Godfrey telling us that the payment “process should not be interrupted or stopped based upon the objections of the few for the purpose of injuring the many who need to be compensated now,” that is exactly what BP is doing. And it is intentional. June 8, 2015 The last day to file a claim for losses associated with BP’s disaster is June 8, 2015. BP is clearly pulling out all the stops to keep money out of deserving hands until that date passes. By making it difficult, through any means necessary (frivolous appeals, outlandish charges, etc), for a claimant to successfully resolve a claim, BP keeps the money off the streets, in hopes of discouraging new claimants from participating in the program. The goal is to suppress filings by convincing legitimate victims that they simply should not bother. Bad Faith Appeals They do this by filing baseless appeals that border on bad faith. BP has filed 5,600 appeals, losing 90% of them. But winning is not BP’s aim, delaying payment is. The appeal process takes between three and six months to complete. The exact time frame that includes June 8th. The frivolous nature of these appeals is not lost on the appeal panelists, well respected emeritus attorneys who reviewed the claims de novo: “The grounds assigned by BP on this appeal are the weakest and least supported yet. … The lack of any credible argument on this appeal makes this panelist question whether it was taken in good faith.” Appeal 2014-974 “BP’s proposal … is totally unsupported…” Appeal 2014-986 “BP suggests that switching to this alternative period would actually have decreased claimant’s recovery. This is completely inaccurate and BP seems to be pulling numbers out of thin air.” Appeal 2014-472 “BP offers nothing whatsoever in support of its contention … and it should be noted that the first basis for appeal cited by BP is vague and completely lacking in detail … this panelists finds no support for BP’s contention.” Appeal 2014-433 “I find no merit in BP’s argument.” Appeal 2014-446 “BP’s utter failure to disclose this information is troubling when disclosure is undoubtedly required.” Appeal 2014-385 “BP’s evidence is scant.” Appeal 2014-439 “In this
