A correspondent has informed us that the current (July 2011) issue of North American Windpower includes five articles decrying the imminent loss of subsidies and enforcement of wildlife regulations.
1. "Near-term U.S. policy incentives remain in limbo" — cover story by Allan Marks.
With several policy incentives set to expire, the wind industry is set to enter a period of great uncertainty.
With the upcoming expiration of many federal incentives for renewable energy technologies, the future of wind power projects will be left in a state of flux. By the end of 2012, several federal programs — including the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Section 1603 cash-grant program, the U.S. Department of Energy's Section 1705 loan-guarantee program and the availability of bonus depreciation — are scheduled to expire. The production tax credit and the investment tax credit for wind projects are also scheduled to expire at that time. [In fact, as far as we know all of these except the PTC expire at the end of 2011.] ... Another aspect affecting the future of wind power that is often overlooked is environmental policy. ... The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in February updated federal guidelines concerning wind energy projects, resulting in the Draft Voluntary Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines and the Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. These draft guidelines contain more enhanced protocols for studying possible avian impacts during pre-construction and implementing mitigation measures post-construction than what were specified under the 2001 FWS interim guidelines for wind projects.
2. "It's loud and clear: '2013 needs an answer'" — by Angela Beniwal.
A group of wind industry leaders gathered at the recent Windpower 2011 conference to discuss the current state of wind development in the U.S. ... [They] agreed that the expiration of the Treasury Department's Section 1603 cash-grant program at the end of this year and the expiration of the production tax credit in 2012 are worrisome. ... Jan Blittersdorf, president and CEO of NRG Systems, said sales at her wind assessment equipment company are an indicator of where the U.S. wind market stands. ... "We well all over the world, and the markets we're selling into right now are in Asia. And, frankly, our percentage of sales in the U.S. is about as low as I've ever seen it."
3. "Policy uncertainty continues to linger" — by Mark Del Franco.
Although much of the federal policy driving wind power remains firm in the near term, there are dark clouds just over the horizon. For example, two of the primary incentives used by developers — the U.S. Treasure Department's Section 1603 cash-grant program and the production tax credit — will soon expire. ... Although the extension of either or both policy incentives would be welcome news for the industry, receiving such immediate satisfaction is unlikely. ... "There will be no extension of any wind subsidies until, at the earliest, late 2012 after the fall election, with a significant risk of no action until early 2013," says Edward Einowski, a partner at Stoel Rives. "What action will be taken will largely depend on the outcome of the election," he says, "which could range from Democrats taking back the House and gaining 60-plus seats in the Senate — in which event PTC and ITC grant extensions appear more likely — to further gains by the Republicans in both the House and Senate, in which event any extension of either the PTC or ITC grants may well be problematic."
4. "Rep. pledges policy support" — by Angela Beniwal.
During the opening session fot he Windpower 2011 conference in May, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., spoke about the need for implementing long-term energy policies that will help the wind industry fully come to scale. ... Blumenauer, a member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, said people need to understand the importance of subsidies for the wind industry. ... But he said that transmission and integration issues must first be resolved. ... The congressman also advocated changing the regulatory process so that developing wind projects is not cumbersome. ... Blumenauer also expressed support for a national renewable electricity standard.
5. "Developers testify before Congress" (unsigned).
Land-based and offshore wind energy developers testified before Congress in June about the need for consistent and long-term federal policies to support the deployment of renewable energy, AWEA reports. The land-based wind developers also focused on rules recently proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that threaten hundreds of wind farms with years of delays and millions of dollars in costs, according to AWEA, which submitted extensive public comments on the two FWS policies of concern: the Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines and the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. ... James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates LLC, and Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, also testified on the need for stable and longer-term federal policy support, including an extension of the ITC and extending the loan-guarantee program.
July 10, 2011
July 7, 2011
Solving the federal budget crisis.
About half of U.S. federal spending is for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Thus it would seem that savings (i.e., cuts) in those programs would contribute a great deal to balancing the budget.
Social Security and Medicare, however, are self-financed. They have nothing to do with the general budget.
On the other hand, military spending represents about half of the spending that's left after taking out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. About a tenth of that is for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, simply ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would reduce the non–self-financed federal budget by about 5%. That alone is about one-quarter of the way to completely balancing the budget.
And the military budget itself is in dire need of trimming. It is about 10 times that of the next biggest military spender, China. U.S. military spending represents about 40% of the world's total, and with its closest allies accounts for up to three-quarters.
Such a pervasive military presence around the world obviously leads to resentment and resistance — and the need for more military spending. This is a vicious circle that benefits only arms manufacturers and other military contractors (who then don't even pay their fair share of taxes to help pay for it all). It is not a sustainable means of running a civilized society.
So end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut military spending by another 30% and the budget is balanced. And the U.S. would still be the world's biggest military spender by far. That is, we would still be safe from Canadian, Mexican, or Cuban invasion.
Thus it would seem that savings (i.e., cuts) in those programs would contribute a great deal to balancing the budget.
Social Security and Medicare, however, are self-financed. They have nothing to do with the general budget.
On the other hand, military spending represents about half of the spending that's left after taking out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. About a tenth of that is for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, simply ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would reduce the non–self-financed federal budget by about 5%. That alone is about one-quarter of the way to completely balancing the budget.
And the military budget itself is in dire need of trimming. It is about 10 times that of the next biggest military spender, China. U.S. military spending represents about 40% of the world's total, and with its closest allies accounts for up to three-quarters.
Such a pervasive military presence around the world obviously leads to resentment and resistance — and the need for more military spending. This is a vicious circle that benefits only arms manufacturers and other military contractors (who then don't even pay their fair share of taxes to help pay for it all). It is not a sustainable means of running a civilized society.
So end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut military spending by another 30% and the budget is balanced. And the U.S. would still be the world's biggest military spender by far. That is, we would still be safe from Canadian, Mexican, or Cuban invasion.
July 2, 2011
Destroying the world for "green" fuel
Tracy McVeigh writes in The Guardian (click the title of this post):
... The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya's Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds.
The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel.
The delta, one of Kenya's last wildernesses and one of the most important bird habitats in Africa, is the flood plain of the Tana river, which flows 1,014km from Mount Kenya to the Indian Ocean. ...
... The eviction of the villagers to make way for a sugar cane plantation is part of a wider land grab going on in Kenya's Tana Delta that is not only pushing people off plots they have farmed for generations, stealing their water resources and raising tribal tensions that many fear will escalate into war, but also destroying a unique wetland habitat that is home to hundreds of rare and spectacular birds.
The irony is that most of the land is being taken for allegedly environmental reasons – to allow private companies to grow water-thirsty sugar cane and jatropha for the biofuels so much in demand in the west, where green legislation, designed to ease carbon dioxide emissions, is requiring they are mixed with petrol and diesel.
The delta, one of Kenya's last wildernesses and one of the most important bird habitats in Africa, is the flood plain of the Tana river, which flows 1,014km from Mount Kenya to the Indian Ocean. ...
July 1, 2011
Vermonters for a Clean Environment
Click the title of this post to download the VCE 2011 midyear report.
Articles include:
Trouble with Snowmobiles, State Stonewalls, by Kate Scarlott and Rob MacLeod (East Hardwick)
Working Together to Save the “Nature of Vermont”, by Steve Wright (Craftsbury Common)
Why Water Quality Matters, by Paul Brouha (Sutton)
Is Anyone Listening? by Candice Shaffer (Waitsfield)
Protecting Water, by Susan Shaw (Florence)
Plus legislative and news updates.
environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Articles include:
Trouble with Snowmobiles, State Stonewalls, by Kate Scarlott and Rob MacLeod (East Hardwick)
Working Together to Save the “Nature of Vermont”, by Steve Wright (Craftsbury Common)
Why Water Quality Matters, by Paul Brouha (Sutton)
Is Anyone Listening? by Candice Shaffer (Waitsfield)
Protecting Water, by Susan Shaw (Florence)
Plus legislative and news updates.
environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 30, 2011
Wind industry decries "delegitimization"
The industrial wind industry is a lot like the state of Israel. Both began in an idealistic spirit of creating an vibrant alternative. Both soon came to antagonize their neighbors. As uncomfortable facts about their operations became undeniable, both have retreated to an aggressive self-righteous bravado and emphasize their important economic contributions: rural jobs and nanotechnology. Both rely on demonization of an imagined enemy behind all criticism: the coal lobby or Iran. Both can only answer their critics by calling them names: Nimby, climate science denier, antisemite.
Both have delegitimized themselves. The game is over.
Both have delegitimized themselves. The game is over.
June 29, 2011
Sheffield wind energy plant
From the Burlington Free Press, here is a photo of the substation construction from the 16-turbine 40-megawatt Sheffield facility on ridgelines overlooking Sutton, Vermont.
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
tags: wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 27, 2011
The Deep Green Meaning of Fukushima
Don Fitz writes at Counterpunch (click the title of this post for the entire piece):
Humanity must decrease its use of energy. The decrease must be a lot (not a little bit) and it must happen soon. A failure to do so will lay the foundation for the destruction of human life by some combination of climate change and radiation. ... There is also a deeper green meaning: The limits of economic growth have long since passed and we need to design a world with considerably less stuff. ...
Claims that society must choose between fossil fuels and nukes are 100% false
Pretending to care about climate change, utility companies say that we must have more nukes to avoid increasing CO2 levels. Hansen and Monbiot parrot corporate propaganda when they present the false dichotomy: nukes or fossil fuels.
Their tunnel vision on climate change interferes with their ability to perceive global warming and nuclear power as different manifestations of the same problem. ... The deep green connection between radiation and climate change is that they are both part of the lockstep march toward economic growth. The question for both Hansen and Monbiot is what humanity will do when uranium ore is exhausted but the drive toward growth intensifies.
Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium will run out at some time in the future. None of them can ever be the basis of a sustainable economy. The issue is not whether society will or will not have to do without non-renewables — the only issue is whether humanity will stop using them prior to destroying the biological web of Life or whether humanity is forced to stop using them, either because it takes more energy to extract them than they yield or because our descendants have lost the mental or physical ability to process them.
Solar and wind offer no alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power
In a growth economy, solar and wind cannot replace fossil fuels and/or nukes, which they must depend on for their own creation and for making up energy short-falls. As Ted Trainer and others have clearly demonstrated, solar and wind power are subject to conditions like how much sunshine and wind exist at a given time. An industry which is geometrically expanding must be drawn to fossil fuel and nukes because they are not subject to weather fluctuations and they can produce enormous quantities of energy for manufacture.
Weather variability means that solar and wind power have a greater need to store energy than non-renewables. This means solar and wind lose even more energy during storage and retrieval. They also require considerable energy and resource extraction to produce associated technologies such as transmission lines and batteries. These are not green attributes.
During the opening of his seminal exposé of renewable energy, Trainer points to turf where solar and wind proponents dare not tread: The issue is not merely whether solar and wind can provide for the industrial needs of a modern economy — it is ridiculous to suggest that they could provide energy needs of a global economy which is 60 times its current size. Trainer calculates that bringing all the world up to consumptive standards of the overdeveloped countries, maintaining a 3% annual GDP growth rate, and reaching a population of 9.4 billion would require a 6000% increase in the economy between 2007 and 2070.
The mechanical impossibility of infinite solar and wind power leads to a deeper green problem: They reflect the same fetish on things as do non-renewables. Switching from one fetish to another in no way rejects the thingification of human existence. It is this worship of objects which is the core of the problem.
Failure to challenge the endless manufacture of artificial needs and the continual shrinkage of the durability of commodities means that no combination of nukes, fossil fuel, solar, wind, and other energy sources can ever satisfy bottomless greed. Seeking to replace human caring, sharing and community with object glorification will always result in feelings of emptiness and craving for more and more objects. Object addiction can never be satiated — even if those objects are “green.”
Stan Cox notes that a huge expansion of fossil fuel use would be necessary if solar and wind were to increase enough to replace nukes. Creating this solar and wind infrastructure would result in massive emissions of CO2. Thus, in a growth economy, renewables are no more separable from non-renewables than climate change is separable from radiation.
Recent increases in solar and wind power has resulted in lawsuits to protect native lands and sensitive species. [16] How many more valleys must be transformed into ugly wind farms and how many more deserts must be covered with solar collectors just to enable landfills of discarded junk to expand to the moon?
Why grow?
The ideology of growth is the bedrock of nuclear power. Growth requires the expansion of energy. As Robert Bryce demonstrates, “America’s energy consumption has grown in direct proportion to its economic growth.” Between 1913 and 2005, the 300-fold increase in oil imports was paralleled by a 300-fold increase in US economic output.
As energy sources have gone from wood to coal to oil to nukes, there has been a steady increase in the total amount of energy available. During most of this progression economic growth has meant an expansion of goods which people need. By the end of World War II this was no longer the case as there was enough to provide basic needs for everyone.
More than ever before, production for need gave way to production for militarism, for obscene wealth, for throw-away goods and for marketing to take precedence over utility. Nuclear power became the cornerstone of both militarism and the seemingly limitless energy necessary for planned obsolescence. Nuclear plants were born as a physical manifestation of social relationships underlying growth without need. ...
Is anti-growth feasible?
“Anti-growth” means that people will have better lives if society produces fewer things that are useless and dangerous. It assumes that the total quantity of things needed to make everyone’s lives better is vastly less that the total quantity of current negative production.
“Anti-growth” can be contrasted to “de-growth,” which has become synonymous with trying to change the economy by tiptoeing through the tulips. The phrase “anti-growth” aims to dismiss two myths: (a) the belief that a decrease in production requires people to suffer; and (b) the belief that lifestyle changes can substitute for social action. (Though altering individual lifestyles is important to show that a new and different world is possible, it does little to bring about the scale of needed changes.)
The corporate line on reversing growth is that it would bring agony worse than nuclear radiation and is therefore impossible. Sadly, many progressives (including environmentalists, anti-war activists and even “Marxists”) swallow the line.
Let’s not confuse an increase in provision of basic needs like housing, clothing and education with overall economic growth. Reducing unnecessary and destructive production (such as military spending) can be done at the same time as increasing preventive medical care. Reducing the advertising of food, packaging of food, long-range transportation of food and animal protein can occur simultaneously with increasing healthy food. Nobody’s quality of life is going to deteriorate because they have a simple coffee pot that lasts for 75–100 years rather than one with a mini-computer designed to fall apart in six months.
To reiterate: The economy can shrink while the amount of necessary goods expands. Anti-growth is not too complex to fathom. The idea that we should make more good stuff and less bad stuff is so simple that anyone except an economist can understand it.
Unfortunately, many advocating a smaller economy shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting anti-corporate struggle. ...
A radical rethinking
... The survival of humanity is at not only odds with right wing politicians and “free market” economists who preach growth by engorging the rich. Human existence is simultaneously threatened by “liberal” politicians and Keynesian economists who promote growth by governmental intervention. Preserving a livable environment is likewise at odds with “environmentalists” who advocate growth via purchasing green gadgets. “Socialists” and wooden “Marxists” walk less than a shining path when they demand a planned economy for the purpose of “unleashing the capitalists fetters on production” (i.e., unlimited growth). Planetary extermination under workers’ control does not fulfill dreams of Karl Marx.
In the wake of Fukushima many scream that we must abandon nukes as rapidly as possible. Yes, yes, and yes. Join their screams and demand a halt in the production of new nukes and a rapid shut down of those that exist!
We must do the almost the same for fossil fuels, with a rapid reduction to 90% of current levels, then 80%, and so on until we level off at perhaps 10% of where we are at now. If and only if this reduction is made can solar, wind and geothermal (along with a very judicious use of fossil fuels and biofuels) meet energy needs in a sane society.
But all of us, especially environmentalists, must abandon the illusion that solar, wind and geothermal can be a source of infinite economic growth. And all of us, especially social justice activists, trade unionists and socialists, must abandon any misplaced belief that a massive reduction of energy requires any sacrifice in the quality of life. We must affirm if we change our values, change our society and change our economy, we can have great lives by focusing on people rather than the eternal accumulation of objects.
Humanity must decrease its use of energy. The decrease must be a lot (not a little bit) and it must happen soon. A failure to do so will lay the foundation for the destruction of human life by some combination of climate change and radiation. ... There is also a deeper green meaning: The limits of economic growth have long since passed and we need to design a world with considerably less stuff. ...
Claims that society must choose between fossil fuels and nukes are 100% false
Pretending to care about climate change, utility companies say that we must have more nukes to avoid increasing CO2 levels. Hansen and Monbiot parrot corporate propaganda when they present the false dichotomy: nukes or fossil fuels.
Their tunnel vision on climate change interferes with their ability to perceive global warming and nuclear power as different manifestations of the same problem. ... The deep green connection between radiation and climate change is that they are both part of the lockstep march toward economic growth. The question for both Hansen and Monbiot is what humanity will do when uranium ore is exhausted but the drive toward growth intensifies.
Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium will run out at some time in the future. None of them can ever be the basis of a sustainable economy. The issue is not whether society will or will not have to do without non-renewables — the only issue is whether humanity will stop using them prior to destroying the biological web of Life or whether humanity is forced to stop using them, either because it takes more energy to extract them than they yield or because our descendants have lost the mental or physical ability to process them.
Solar and wind offer no alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power
In a growth economy, solar and wind cannot replace fossil fuels and/or nukes, which they must depend on for their own creation and for making up energy short-falls. As Ted Trainer and others have clearly demonstrated, solar and wind power are subject to conditions like how much sunshine and wind exist at a given time. An industry which is geometrically expanding must be drawn to fossil fuel and nukes because they are not subject to weather fluctuations and they can produce enormous quantities of energy for manufacture.
Weather variability means that solar and wind power have a greater need to store energy than non-renewables. This means solar and wind lose even more energy during storage and retrieval. They also require considerable energy and resource extraction to produce associated technologies such as transmission lines and batteries. These are not green attributes.
During the opening of his seminal exposé of renewable energy, Trainer points to turf where solar and wind proponents dare not tread: The issue is not merely whether solar and wind can provide for the industrial needs of a modern economy — it is ridiculous to suggest that they could provide energy needs of a global economy which is 60 times its current size. Trainer calculates that bringing all the world up to consumptive standards of the overdeveloped countries, maintaining a 3% annual GDP growth rate, and reaching a population of 9.4 billion would require a 6000% increase in the economy between 2007 and 2070.
The mechanical impossibility of infinite solar and wind power leads to a deeper green problem: They reflect the same fetish on things as do non-renewables. Switching from one fetish to another in no way rejects the thingification of human existence. It is this worship of objects which is the core of the problem.
Failure to challenge the endless manufacture of artificial needs and the continual shrinkage of the durability of commodities means that no combination of nukes, fossil fuel, solar, wind, and other energy sources can ever satisfy bottomless greed. Seeking to replace human caring, sharing and community with object glorification will always result in feelings of emptiness and craving for more and more objects. Object addiction can never be satiated — even if those objects are “green.”
Stan Cox notes that a huge expansion of fossil fuel use would be necessary if solar and wind were to increase enough to replace nukes. Creating this solar and wind infrastructure would result in massive emissions of CO2. Thus, in a growth economy, renewables are no more separable from non-renewables than climate change is separable from radiation.
Recent increases in solar and wind power has resulted in lawsuits to protect native lands and sensitive species. [16] How many more valleys must be transformed into ugly wind farms and how many more deserts must be covered with solar collectors just to enable landfills of discarded junk to expand to the moon?
Why grow?
The ideology of growth is the bedrock of nuclear power. Growth requires the expansion of energy. As Robert Bryce demonstrates, “America’s energy consumption has grown in direct proportion to its economic growth.” Between 1913 and 2005, the 300-fold increase in oil imports was paralleled by a 300-fold increase in US economic output.
As energy sources have gone from wood to coal to oil to nukes, there has been a steady increase in the total amount of energy available. During most of this progression economic growth has meant an expansion of goods which people need. By the end of World War II this was no longer the case as there was enough to provide basic needs for everyone.
More than ever before, production for need gave way to production for militarism, for obscene wealth, for throw-away goods and for marketing to take precedence over utility. Nuclear power became the cornerstone of both militarism and the seemingly limitless energy necessary for planned obsolescence. Nuclear plants were born as a physical manifestation of social relationships underlying growth without need. ...
Is anti-growth feasible?
“Anti-growth” means that people will have better lives if society produces fewer things that are useless and dangerous. It assumes that the total quantity of things needed to make everyone’s lives better is vastly less that the total quantity of current negative production.
“Anti-growth” can be contrasted to “de-growth,” which has become synonymous with trying to change the economy by tiptoeing through the tulips. The phrase “anti-growth” aims to dismiss two myths: (a) the belief that a decrease in production requires people to suffer; and (b) the belief that lifestyle changes can substitute for social action. (Though altering individual lifestyles is important to show that a new and different world is possible, it does little to bring about the scale of needed changes.)
The corporate line on reversing growth is that it would bring agony worse than nuclear radiation and is therefore impossible. Sadly, many progressives (including environmentalists, anti-war activists and even “Marxists”) swallow the line.
Let’s not confuse an increase in provision of basic needs like housing, clothing and education with overall economic growth. Reducing unnecessary and destructive production (such as military spending) can be done at the same time as increasing preventive medical care. Reducing the advertising of food, packaging of food, long-range transportation of food and animal protein can occur simultaneously with increasing healthy food. Nobody’s quality of life is going to deteriorate because they have a simple coffee pot that lasts for 75–100 years rather than one with a mini-computer designed to fall apart in six months.
To reiterate: The economy can shrink while the amount of necessary goods expands. Anti-growth is not too complex to fathom. The idea that we should make more good stuff and less bad stuff is so simple that anyone except an economist can understand it.
Unfortunately, many advocating a smaller economy shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting anti-corporate struggle. ...
A radical rethinking
... The survival of humanity is at not only odds with right wing politicians and “free market” economists who preach growth by engorging the rich. Human existence is simultaneously threatened by “liberal” politicians and Keynesian economists who promote growth by governmental intervention. Preserving a livable environment is likewise at odds with “environmentalists” who advocate growth via purchasing green gadgets. “Socialists” and wooden “Marxists” walk less than a shining path when they demand a planned economy for the purpose of “unleashing the capitalists fetters on production” (i.e., unlimited growth). Planetary extermination under workers’ control does not fulfill dreams of Karl Marx.
In the wake of Fukushima many scream that we must abandon nukes as rapidly as possible. Yes, yes, and yes. Join their screams and demand a halt in the production of new nukes and a rapid shut down of those that exist!
We must do the almost the same for fossil fuels, with a rapid reduction to 90% of current levels, then 80%, and so on until we level off at perhaps 10% of where we are at now. If and only if this reduction is made can solar, wind and geothermal (along with a very judicious use of fossil fuels and biofuels) meet energy needs in a sane society.
But all of us, especially environmentalists, must abandon the illusion that solar, wind and geothermal can be a source of infinite economic growth. And all of us, especially social justice activists, trade unionists and socialists, must abandon any misplaced belief that a massive reduction of energy requires any sacrifice in the quality of life. We must affirm if we change our values, change our society and change our economy, we can have great lives by focusing on people rather than the eternal accumulation of objects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)