New resource for energy solutions news....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-29-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: New resource for energy solutions news
Today my CEN National Update email came.
It had some potential good news and some bad news.
But then I noticed that it had a new resource for mostly good news about new projects on many kinds of topics.
The CEN description did not seem to match what I found on the website. BUT, the website was well enough done, I decided to post about it.
www.energyempowers.gov is the web address.
It has some headline stories of different kinds. It had a story about geothermal power, a story about wind power, and one on the new Porsche hybrid. And, it also featured 8 other stories.
But the part I liked best was that they also post stories by energy solutions category and by state.
In California there was a story about a Silicon Valley company that has a way of cutting silicon for wafers with dramatically less waste to cut costs and a Navy location in the Mojave desert to build carports for personnel that protect their cars and their paint from the sun and its heat while also generating photovoltaic solar power on their roofs.
The 3 main story areas are also subdivided. So the site is also useful to find articles on many different energy solution topics.
1. Renewable Energy contains stories by renewable energy source such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Energy Savings has stories by in which area of the economy such as vehicles, homes, buildings, and industry.
3. Grants and tax credits lists those and has stories on people who used them to finance energy solution projects including 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit and WAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program.
These stories show that despite our inability to be as competitive with China and European countries in renewable energy and CO2 reduction due to organized political opposition by old energy companies, the current federal government is making a lot of small progress in dozens of areas that will gradually improve our energy economy and so is the entrepreneurial business community.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
An upcoming new way to use less oil....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Proposition 23 and jobs....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Very bad and very good news on energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-8-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Very bad and very good news on energy
1. Here’s the mostly very bad news first.:
Since I am a moderate Republican and registered as a Republican, albeit one who believes in renewable and clean energy, I got on the email list of the "conservative action alerts."
Their most recent email says that there is a new government entity called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is taxing businesses that in some way contribute to the release of CO2.
It apparently is already in operation as they say that, "RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England."
They then decry this as an unnecessary tax and say that because global warming "ISN'T EVEN REAL!" the reader of the email should become angry enough to shout, "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
And they recommend the reader take this attitude out on their local US Representative or Senators to have congress cancel the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
I found the website for this Regional Greenhouse Gas Imitative to see what it is.
It's not a federal program but a program by a group of state governments in the Northeastern part of the United States:
"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI is spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and creating green jobs in each state."
So this program is funding small cuts in CO2 production AND green jobs in this area in adding renewable energy sources and in increasing the energy efficiency of homes and businesses in this area.
So, even if global warming was NOT real, it’s making these states more diversified in their energy sources, helping the homes and businesses there become more energy efficient, which SAVES money; and it’s adding new jobs to the area.
Since the increase is less than one percent of the utility bills in the New England part of the area, this “tax” is costing most people less than $5 a month.
For most homeowners and businesses in this area in fact, improvements in their energy efficiency could easily pay back their costs AND this tiny increase.
Unfortunately, the facts so far also indicate that global warming is real and will at the very least increase the number and severity of weather disasters and emergencies even if it doesn’t flood our coastal cities and severely cut back on the amount of food we can grow.
Here’s why I think this email is horribly bad news. It is designed to generate a large number of badly informed, hostile, and close-minded people to try to force our governments to move away from what to me look like reasonable and desirable changes in our energy policy.
A legitimate case can be made that the people and locations who depend on the jobs in the coal industry in this area need to be taken into account and that reasonable care needs to be taken while the country is in a severe recession not to go overboard on increased taxes and costs to the people in this area.
But the costs are relatively small and these added costs are funding new jobs and increases in energy efficiency that will create more economic benefit to these states and their people than the costs.
To be fair, I’ve seen Democrats deliberately mislead the uninformed and unthinking in this exact same way.
But, on the subject of energy, this is totally despicable and harmful.
The fact that some people will believe this email and push hard to end what so far looks like a mostly beneficial program based on the disinformation and hostility in this email is extremely bad news for the energy situation in this country.
I find this most unfortunate indeed & very, very bad news that this email even exists, let alone that such emails are going to people all over the United States.
Mercifully the very good news is dramatically better and will gradually begin to operate on a much larger scale than the deliberately deceptive people who composed this email and had it sent.
2. I just found out that the gains that can be made in increasing energy efficiency in ways that actually SAVE money to do can do some very large scale good.
It would create jobs while lowering costs and doubly strengthen our economy.
And, it goes far beyond the heat proofing of our house we once did that created a no energy needed way to cool our house BETTER than paying for air conditioning and the related energy use or just insulating houses in poor neighborhoods to lower heating costs and energy use.
It includes those on a nationwide scale. But like those, it simply employs ALREADY EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.
But what I did not know before is that almost every part of our energy use and economy has that much potential for energy and dollar cost savings.
We can make a huge difference in cutting CO2 release, in reducing our dependence on oil as peak oil approaches, in increasing our national security by sharply decreasing our imports of foreign oil, add new jobs, and save money and all at the same time!
This can be done without waiting for 200 times more renewable energy to be installed or new transmission systems built to deliver it or new energy technologies to be discovered, developed and put into widespread use.
We need to do all that as close to lightning speed as we can manage.
But we have had a horribly late start and are making too little progress. So it hasn’t been looking very good.
This new approach is much more promising. By using it, we can make progress fast enough to gain the time needed to do the other things even with the late start and too slow progress.
Best of all, everyone can get behind it. It adds jobs and saves money.
But, how do I know this and how can this be done in practice?
I would have had no clue this was so doable or had this vast a potential or how to get it done myself.
But someone did and does. He wrote a book about it. He was and is extremely well informed and covers almost every part of our economy in his book.
It’s one of the most important books published in the last 100 years.
I strongly recommend you read it and make sure all your political representatives know of it and how important it is.
The book’s unfortunate and not very fitting or descriptive title is “Addicted to Energy.”
“Energy salvation through energy efficiency IS doable” is or would be a more accurate title.
The author is Elton Sherwin, Junior.
He learned much of the information because his job is being a venture capitalist for clean energy companies.
How large scale is this?
We could end all imported oil and still grow our economy -- is just one example.
We could cut our nationwide CO2 release by up to 80%, need no carbon taxes to do it, and still grow our economy and save money and create jobs in the process.
To put it simply, I knew increased energy efficiency was an important part of the needed list of things to do about energy before. But I had no clue it was by far the biggest and most important part with the most doable and fastest payoff.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-8-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: Very bad and very good news on energy
1. Here’s the mostly very bad news first.:
Since I am a moderate Republican and registered as a Republican, albeit one who believes in renewable and clean energy, I got on the email list of the "conservative action alerts."
Their most recent email says that there is a new government entity called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is taxing businesses that in some way contribute to the release of CO2.
It apparently is already in operation as they say that, "RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England."
They then decry this as an unnecessary tax and say that because global warming "ISN'T EVEN REAL!" the reader of the email should become angry enough to shout, "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
And they recommend the reader take this attitude out on their local US Representative or Senators to have congress cancel the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
I found the website for this Regional Greenhouse Gas Imitative to see what it is.
It's not a federal program but a program by a group of state governments in the Northeastern part of the United States:
"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI is spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and creating green jobs in each state."
So this program is funding small cuts in CO2 production AND green jobs in this area in adding renewable energy sources and in increasing the energy efficiency of homes and businesses in this area.
So, even if global warming was NOT real, it’s making these states more diversified in their energy sources, helping the homes and businesses there become more energy efficient, which SAVES money; and it’s adding new jobs to the area.
Since the increase is less than one percent of the utility bills in the New England part of the area, this “tax” is costing most people less than $5 a month.
For most homeowners and businesses in this area in fact, improvements in their energy efficiency could easily pay back their costs AND this tiny increase.
Unfortunately, the facts so far also indicate that global warming is real and will at the very least increase the number and severity of weather disasters and emergencies even if it doesn’t flood our coastal cities and severely cut back on the amount of food we can grow.
Here’s why I think this email is horribly bad news. It is designed to generate a large number of badly informed, hostile, and close-minded people to try to force our governments to move away from what to me look like reasonable and desirable changes in our energy policy.
A legitimate case can be made that the people and locations who depend on the jobs in the coal industry in this area need to be taken into account and that reasonable care needs to be taken while the country is in a severe recession not to go overboard on increased taxes and costs to the people in this area.
But the costs are relatively small and these added costs are funding new jobs and increases in energy efficiency that will create more economic benefit to these states and their people than the costs.
To be fair, I’ve seen Democrats deliberately mislead the uninformed and unthinking in this exact same way.
But, on the subject of energy, this is totally despicable and harmful.
The fact that some people will believe this email and push hard to end what so far looks like a mostly beneficial program based on the disinformation and hostility in this email is extremely bad news for the energy situation in this country.
I find this most unfortunate indeed & very, very bad news that this email even exists, let alone that such emails are going to people all over the United States.
Mercifully the very good news is dramatically better and will gradually begin to operate on a much larger scale than the deliberately deceptive people who composed this email and had it sent.
2. I just found out that the gains that can be made in increasing energy efficiency in ways that actually SAVE money to do can do some very large scale good.
It would create jobs while lowering costs and doubly strengthen our economy.
And, it goes far beyond the heat proofing of our house we once did that created a no energy needed way to cool our house BETTER than paying for air conditioning and the related energy use or just insulating houses in poor neighborhoods to lower heating costs and energy use.
It includes those on a nationwide scale. But like those, it simply employs ALREADY EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.
But what I did not know before is that almost every part of our energy use and economy has that much potential for energy and dollar cost savings.
We can make a huge difference in cutting CO2 release, in reducing our dependence on oil as peak oil approaches, in increasing our national security by sharply decreasing our imports of foreign oil, add new jobs, and save money and all at the same time!
This can be done without waiting for 200 times more renewable energy to be installed or new transmission systems built to deliver it or new energy technologies to be discovered, developed and put into widespread use.
We need to do all that as close to lightning speed as we can manage.
But we have had a horribly late start and are making too little progress. So it hasn’t been looking very good.
This new approach is much more promising. By using it, we can make progress fast enough to gain the time needed to do the other things even with the late start and too slow progress.
Best of all, everyone can get behind it. It adds jobs and saves money.
But, how do I know this and how can this be done in practice?
I would have had no clue this was so doable or had this vast a potential or how to get it done myself.
But someone did and does. He wrote a book about it. He was and is extremely well informed and covers almost every part of our economy in his book.
It’s one of the most important books published in the last 100 years.
I strongly recommend you read it and make sure all your political representatives know of it and how important it is.
The book’s unfortunate and not very fitting or descriptive title is “Addicted to Energy.”
“Energy salvation through energy efficiency IS doable” is or would be a more accurate title.
The author is Elton Sherwin, Junior.
He learned much of the information because his job is being a venture capitalist for clean energy companies.
How large scale is this?
We could end all imported oil and still grow our economy -- is just one example.
We could cut our nationwide CO2 release by up to 80%, need no carbon taxes to do it, and still grow our economy and save money and create jobs in the process.
To put it simply, I knew increased energy efficiency was an important part of the needed list of things to do about energy before. But I had no clue it was by far the biggest and most important part with the most doable and fastest payoff.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
California Proposition 23 backers are unethical....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-1-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: California Proposition 23 backers are unethical
As I’ve posted before, they wrote proof of this into their initiative!
They say their proposition is postponement or delay of AB 32; but they purposely wrote conditions into what would be needed to lift this postponement that, given today’s economic conditions are somewhere between totally impossible to meet and a one in a thousand chance. So, they deliberately call something a postponement when what they want it and know it to be is a permanent cancellation.
But I just found out, they also may have an ulterior motive besides.
If you live in either Los Angeles or near it or in the San Francisco Bay Area you have breathed in toxic pollution released by the refineries of the two companies backing Proposition 23. Since one of its effects will be to weaken pollution controls in California, they stand to save money and release more pollution if it’s passed.
Do you want to breathe extra toxic pollution or vote for something written by and supported by two unethical companies that want to cause that to happen just so it makes them a few extra bucks?
(To be sure, the poor and minority people living closest to their refineries are most likely to be harmed by this pollution.
But just in the last month, someone, & my bet is that it is one or both of their refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, has been releasing huge amounts of pollution in the early morning hours just before 7 am. The smell was pervasive enough to come into our car on the freeway with the windows rolled up and to go into the place where I work even though the doors there had been shut all night and the windows don’t open. I smelled this years ago when I went to school and lived in Berkeley and the releases this time appeared from Menlo Park to San Jose. So this has been going on for over 40 years and the amounts released are massive indeed. I don’t know how toxic this pollutant is; but their oil refineries are one of the few places operating on a large enough scale in our area to generate that much pollution.
So, if it IS harmful, it covers so much of the Bay Area, it is NOT just the people nearby to their refineries who are being harmed.)
Also, here are excerpts from the press release I just found.:
LOS ANGELES – The Ella Baker Center and the California Environmental Justice Alliance released a study that reveals that Valero and Tesoro, the two Texas oil companies bankrolling Proposition 23 to repeal California's clean air and energy standards, have been repeatedly cited for producing deadly chemicals at their refineries that are exposing millions of California families to harm. The two companies have contributed more than $4 million to put Proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The report was re-released at a press conference at Los Angeles’ Vista Hermosa Park attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; No on Prop 23 Campaign Committee Co-Chair Tom Steyer; Penny Newman, Executive Director of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and member of the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA); Bill Gallegos, Executive Director, Communities for a Better Environment; and Martha Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – LA.
The study, http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/docs/Toxic%20Twins%208-31-10.pdf , titled “Toxic Twins: Soiling the Southland,” found that the two Texas-based companies’ oil refineries in the Bay Area and particularly in the Los Angeles regions “annually produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.”
The study went on to demonstrate that Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly violated pollution laws in California by releasing chemicals into the air. This January, “Valero disclosed that it had 29 outstanding Violation Notices from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,” according to the report. Over 44 violation notices within a three year window have been settled between Tesoro and the Bay Area Quality Management District.
This study builds on a report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report (http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic100 ) which named Valero and Tesoro as the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation.
I’ve posted before that proposition 23 will cut back on the job creation from clean energy companies if it’s passed.
So, if these two companies cared about California’s economy, they would have designed a proposition that only shut down parts of AB 32 to avoid that. The jobs just added by clean energy companies as other parts of the California economy just LOST jobs are a FACT.
Do you trust these two companies saying that passing Proposition 23 would improve the California economy given this significant omission?
I most certainly do not.
When implemented AB 32 will gradually lower their sales of their oil and increase the pressure on them to pollute less – both of which will cost them money.
The only certain economic winners if Proposition 23 passes are these two companies.
Please join me in voting against their proposition.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-1-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post: California Proposition 23 backers are unethical
As I’ve posted before, they wrote proof of this into their initiative!
They say their proposition is postponement or delay of AB 32; but they purposely wrote conditions into what would be needed to lift this postponement that, given today’s economic conditions are somewhere between totally impossible to meet and a one in a thousand chance. So, they deliberately call something a postponement when what they want it and know it to be is a permanent cancellation.
But I just found out, they also may have an ulterior motive besides.
If you live in either Los Angeles or near it or in the San Francisco Bay Area you have breathed in toxic pollution released by the refineries of the two companies backing Proposition 23. Since one of its effects will be to weaken pollution controls in California, they stand to save money and release more pollution if it’s passed.
Do you want to breathe extra toxic pollution or vote for something written by and supported by two unethical companies that want to cause that to happen just so it makes them a few extra bucks?
(To be sure, the poor and minority people living closest to their refineries are most likely to be harmed by this pollution.
But just in the last month, someone, & my bet is that it is one or both of their refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, has been releasing huge amounts of pollution in the early morning hours just before 7 am. The smell was pervasive enough to come into our car on the freeway with the windows rolled up and to go into the place where I work even though the doors there had been shut all night and the windows don’t open. I smelled this years ago when I went to school and lived in Berkeley and the releases this time appeared from Menlo Park to San Jose. So this has been going on for over 40 years and the amounts released are massive indeed. I don’t know how toxic this pollutant is; but their oil refineries are one of the few places operating on a large enough scale in our area to generate that much pollution.
So, if it IS harmful, it covers so much of the Bay Area, it is NOT just the people nearby to their refineries who are being harmed.)
Also, here are excerpts from the press release I just found.:
LOS ANGELES – The Ella Baker Center and the California Environmental Justice Alliance released a study that reveals that Valero and Tesoro, the two Texas oil companies bankrolling Proposition 23 to repeal California's clean air and energy standards, have been repeatedly cited for producing deadly chemicals at their refineries that are exposing millions of California families to harm. The two companies have contributed more than $4 million to put Proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The report was re-released at a press conference at Los Angeles’ Vista Hermosa Park attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; No on Prop 23 Campaign Committee Co-Chair Tom Steyer; Penny Newman, Executive Director of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and member of the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA); Bill Gallegos, Executive Director, Communities for a Better Environment; and Martha Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – LA.
The study, http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/docs/Toxic%20Twins%208-31-10.pdf , titled “Toxic Twins: Soiling the Southland,” found that the two Texas-based companies’ oil refineries in the Bay Area and particularly in the Los Angeles regions “annually produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.”
The study went on to demonstrate that Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly violated pollution laws in California by releasing chemicals into the air. This January, “Valero disclosed that it had 29 outstanding Violation Notices from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,” according to the report. Over 44 violation notices within a three year window have been settled between Tesoro and the Bay Area Quality Management District.
This study builds on a report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report (http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic100 ) which named Valero and Tesoro as the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation.
I’ve posted before that proposition 23 will cut back on the job creation from clean energy companies if it’s passed.
So, if these two companies cared about California’s economy, they would have designed a proposition that only shut down parts of AB 32 to avoid that. The jobs just added by clean energy companies as other parts of the California economy just LOST jobs are a FACT.
Do you trust these two companies saying that passing Proposition 23 would improve the California economy given this significant omission?
I most certainly do not.
When implemented AB 32 will gradually lower their sales of their oil and increase the pressure on them to pollute less – both of which will cost them money.
The only certain economic winners if Proposition 23 passes are these two companies.
Please join me in voting against their proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)