[Biofuel] Closing Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Will Save Money And Carbon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2016/06/22/close-a-nuclear-plant-save-money-and-carbon-improve-the-grid-says-pge/#640f80a94cea [images and links in on-line article] Jun 22, 2016 @ 01:37 AM Closing Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Will Save Money And Carbon Amory B. Lovins, Contributor A widespread claim—that dozens of nuclear plants, too costly to run profitably, now merit new subsidies to protect the earth’s climate—just collided with market reality. The CEO of one of America’s most prominent and technically capable utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric Company—previously chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Edison Electric Institute—just announced its decision (subject to regulatory approvals) to close PG&E’s well-running twin nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon because they’re uneconomic and won’t be needed. Unlike previous nuclear shutdowns, some of which were too abrupt for immediate replacement with carbon-free resources, PG&E’s nuclear output will be phased out over 8–9 years, replaced timely and cost-effectively by efficiency and renewables. That means no more fossil fuel burned nor carbon emitted, all at less cost to ratepayers. How much less? Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says at least $1 billion (net present value to 2044). PG&E also agrees that removing the inflexible “must-run” nuclear output, which can’t easily and economically ramp down much, will help integrate more renewable power reliably into the grid. Midday solar, rather than being increasingly crowded out by continued nuclear overgeneration, will be able to supply more energy. As Germany found, integrating varying solar and windpower with steady “baseload” plants can present challenges for the the opposite of the reason originally supposed: not because wind and solar power vary (demand varies even less predictably), but because “baseload” plants are too inflexible. Diablo Canyon enjoys the scale economies of a two-unit plant, is ably staffed, has a large and sophisticated owner, and is running well—rated in the top tier by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Persistent seismic concerns aren’t currently in the foreground. Rather, as PG&E acknowledges, market forces have made California’s last nuclear plant redundant. As customers use electricity more productively, solar roofs generate homebrew power, and competitive renewables flood the wholesale market, Diablo Canyon has become superfluous—and cheaper to close than to run. The big economic lesson here is that nuclear power’s ability to displace fossil-fueled generation is not simply about tons of carbon dioxide saved. Nuclear power also incurs an operating cost that for many reactors, including Diablo Canyon, has become very high. Saving and reinvesting that avoidable cost can buy a larger quantity of cheaper carbon-displacing resources, saving even more carbon. Nearly all commentators, even Bloomberg’s astute editorial board (twice), have overlooked this advantageous swap. Recommended by Forbes As the Italian proverb says, arithmetic is not an opinion. So let’s do the math. Renewables and efficiency cost less than operating many nuclear plants Diablo Canyon’s forward operating cost, about $70/MWh (levelized 2014 $), is in the top quartile of the national nuclear fleet according to the industry’s latest published data. That quartile’s national average operating cost in 2010–12 averaged $62/MWh in 2013 $. (These operating costs include major repairs, called Net Capital Additions, that tend to rise in the aging fleet, but they exclude all charges for the original construction cost and its financing.) As the Italian proverb says, arithmetic is not an opinion. So let’s do the math. But carbon-free replacements cost far less. In California, windpower and utility-scale photovoltaics cost around $30–50/MWh to build and run. U.S.-average renewables cost roughly $10/MWh less than in California. Here are their empirical market prices: The average costs of the long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) signed each year for windpower (blue dots) and utility-scale solar power (brown dots) are at or below the aqua national range of wholesale power prices. These data, from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s authoritative annual market reports, reflect renewables’ temporary subsidies (generally smaller than fossil and nuclear plants’ permanent ones). But the two asterisks at the right report the market prices for recent similar but unsubsidized long-term power sales by the low bidders—$30/MWh Moroccan wind and $35.5/MWh Mexican photovoltaics near the Texas border. Both undercut the average U.S. reactor’s 2014 operating cost of $36/MWh (which may exclude some troubled units). Renewables aren’t even the cheapest competitor. Saving a kWh through more-efficient use costs an average of roughly $20/MWh in the Pacific Northwest and $20–30/MWh on national average; many opportunities undercut bot
[Biofuel] Nexen to Idle Oil-Sands Facility After Accidents - WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nexen-to-idle-oil-sands-facility-after-accidents-1468352641 [links and images in on-line article] Nexen to Idle Oil-Sands Facility After Accidents Cnooc’s Canadian unit to cut 350 jobs after pipeline leak, explosion at Long Lake crude-processing plant By Chester Dawson July 12, 2016 3:44 p.m. ET CALGARY, Alberta— Cnooc Ltd. ’s Canadian subsidiary said Tuesday it would idle a troubled oil-sands facility following two accidents at the site, a move that raises questions about the Chinese company’s $15 billion investment in Canadian oil sands. Nexen Energy ULC, the Cnooc subsidiary, had already cut its oil-sands production after a July 2015 pipeline leak and then again after an explosion at its Long Lake crude-processing unit in northern Alberta, which killed two workers in January. Production at the site has been limited to just 15,000 barrels a day since then, compared with 50,000 barrels a day this time last year. The company said it would lay off some 350 employees beyond its previously announced job cuts due to its decision to scale down operations. Regulatory authorities in Alberta say their investigations into the two accidents are continuing. Nexen CEO Fang Zhi said the damaged processing unit wouldn’t be repaired pending a review of the long-term viability of its oil sands operations amid a global slump in crude oil prices. “The prolonged low price environment and unique operational challenges that Nexen has faced at our Long Lake facility have factored into this decision,” he told reporters at a press conference in Calgary. Nexen said the two employees who perished in the January explosion were conducting maintenance on part of Long Lake’s oil processing unit known as a hydro cracker, which turns heavy crude into lighter crude. Its internal investigation found the men caused the hydro cracker blast by performing unspecified tasks “outside the scope of approved work activities.” The company said the spill of 31,500 barrels of oil on the grounds of its Long Lake site was caused by the buckling of a six-month old pipeline that wasn’t properly moored in a marshy area. It faulted its own assessment of the pipe’s resiliency but also contractors and subcontractors—who Nexen didn’t identify—with substandard work on the pipe’s design, construction and installation. The rupture in the pipeline is estimated to have occurred on June 11 last year during a shutdown for routine maintenance, which was more than one month before the leak was detected, Ron Bailey, Nexen’s senior vice president for Canadian operations, told reporters. “The delay in discovery was primarily the result of shortcomings in the pipeline’s automatic leak detection system and our ability to monitor this system,” Mr. Bailey said. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Why We Pretend to Clean Up Oil Spills | Science | Smithsonian
theatrical response to catastrophic oil spills resembles the way medical professionals respond to aggressive cancer in an elderly patient. Because surgery is available, it is often used. Surgery also creates the impression that the health care system is doing something even though it can’t change or reverse the patient’s ultimate condition. In an oil-based society, the cleanup delusion is also irresistible. Just as it is difficult for us to acknowledge the limits of medical intervention, society struggles to acknowledge the limits of technologies or the consequences of energy habits. And that’s where the state of marine oil spill response sits today: it creates little more than an illusion of a cleanup. Scientists—outside the oil industry—call it “prime-time theater” or “response theater.” The hard scientific reality is this: a big spill is almost impossible to contain because it is physically impossible to mobilize the labor needed and current cleanup technologies in a timely fashion. When the city of Vancouver released a study in 2015 on the effectiveness of responses to large tanker or pipeline spills along the southern coast of British Columbia, the conclusion was blunt: “collecting and removing oil from the sea surface is a challenging, time-sensitive, and often ineffective process,” even in calm water. Scientists have recognized this reality for a long time. During the 1970s when the oil industry was poised to invade the Beaufort Sea, the Canadian government employed more than 100 researchers to gauge the impacts of an oil spill on Arctic ice. The researchers doused sea ducks and ring seals with oil and set pools of oil on fire under a variety of ice conditions. They also created sizable oil spills (one was almost 60,000 liters, a medium-sized spill) in the Beaufort Sea and tried to contain them with booms and skimmers. They prodded polar bears into a man-made oil slick only to discover that bears, like birds, will lick oil off their matted fur and later die of kidney failure. In the end, the Beaufort Sea Project concluded that “oil spill countermeasures, techniques, and equipment” would have “limited effectiveness” on ice-covered waters. The reports, however, failed to stop Arctic drilling. image: http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/15/c4/15c4400c-87e8-4f67-aea8-004953992ceb/penguin-oil-spill-mythology.jpg__800x450_q85_crop_upscale.jpg An oil spill in Cape Town’s Table Bay threatened 40 percent of an endangered species, the African penguin population that inhabits Robben and Dassen Islands. An oil spill in Cape Town’s Table Bay threatened 40 percent of an endangered species, the African penguin population that inhabits Robben and Dassen Islands. (AfriPics.com / Alamy Stock Photo) Part of the illusion has been created by ineffective technologies adopted and billed by industry as “world class.” Ever since the 1970s, the oil and gas industry has trotted out four basic ways to deal with ocean spills: booms to contain the oil; skimmers to remove the oil; fire to burn the oil; and chemical dispersants, such as Corexit, to break the oil into smaller pieces. For small spills these technologies can sometimes make a difference, but only in sheltered waters. None has ever been effective in containing large spills. Conventional containment booms, for example, don’t work in icy water, or where waves run amok. Burning oil merely transforms one grave problem—water pollution—into sooty greenhouse gases and creates air pollution. Dispersants only hide the oil by scattering small droplets into the water column, yet they often don’t even do that since conditions have to be just right for dispersants to work. Darryl McMahon, a director of RESTCo, a firm pursuing more effective cleanup technologies, has written extensively about the problem, and his opinion remains: “Sadly, even after over 40 years experience, the outcomes are not acceptable. In many cases, the strategy is still to ignore spills on open water, only addressing them when the slicks reach shore.” The issue partly boils down to scale, explains Jeffrey Short, a retired National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research chemist who studied the aftermath of the 2010 BP disaster as well as the Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound, which grew at the alarming rate of half a football field per second over two days. “Go try and control something like that,” says Short. Yet almost 30 years after the Exxon Valdez contaminated much of Prince William Sound, the cleanup technology has changed little. “What I find the most disturbing is the tendency for responsible authorities and industry to adopt technologies mainly because of their optics and with scant regard for their efficacy,” says Short. In addition, chaos rules in the aftermath of a spill. The enormous political pressure to do something routinely sacrifices any duty to properly evaluate what kind of response might act
[Biofuel] Arctic Ocean lease sales can threaten food security of Alaska Native communities | TheHill
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/287058-arctic-ocean-lease-sales-can-threaten-food-security-of July 11, 2016, 09:13 am Arctic Ocean lease sales can threaten food security of Alaska Native communities By John Chase To most Americans, the Arctic Ocean is a remote and unseen place—a place that exists only in their imaginations. But in my community of Kotzebue, the Arctic is just outside the front door. The Arctic is our reality. We depend on a healthy environment to feed our families, and to sustain our culture and our subsistence way of life. A major oil spill in the Arctic Ocean would devastate the way of life we’ve known for 10,000 years. In mid-March, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management proposed lease sales for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea in 2020 and the Chukchi Sea in 2022. The government did this despite the risk of a major oil spill that would threaten our No. 1 food source: the ocean. The Obama administration is expected to decide by the end of this year whether to remove the Arctic Ocean from its offshore leasing plan, or allow the lease sales to go forward. The Arctic is unforgiving to those who do not respect it. It gives life and takes it away. Shell proved during the 2012 drilling season that the oil industry is incapable of safely mobilizing and drilling in one of the most remote, pristine and icy environments on Earth. In 2015, Shell abandoned its offshore drilling efforts in Alaska “for the foreseeable future.” Even with last week’s announcement on Arctic drilling rules, the oil industry has no proven technology for removing oil even from calmer, warmer seas, and Alaska’s remote coastline has none of the infrastructure that would be needed to effectively respond to a major spill. The nearest U.S. Coast Guard station is hundreds of miles away. If an oil company experienced a well blowout like the one that caused the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it would be almost impossible to contain in the Arctic Ocean. If a blowout happened late in the summer or early fall, as sea ice was forming, oil could spew into the Chukchi and Beaufort seas through an entire winter. This would devastate food security for all of our rural communities. BOEM showed no respect for the danger that drilling poses for our communities that depend on the seals, fish, walrus, bowhead whales, and other sea life that have sustained our people for thousands of years. In my home, subsistence provides about 80 percent of my family’s sustenance. I cannot begin to envision a future without our Native foods. President Obama came to Kotzebue last summer, becoming the first American president to visit the Arctic. He walked beside the Chukchi Sea with our city mayor to discuss a $40 million project to protect our shores from erosion. Shores are eroding from storms that have been made worse by climate change and the loss of protective sea ice all over the Arctic. Alaska’s coastal villages are literally beginning to wash away. They have been pleading for help for years, and only now is the federal government considering how to relocate some of them to safer ground, and how to pay for it. During his visit, President Obama told us that he knew he didn’t have to educate us about climate change. “What’s happening here is America’s wake-up call. It should be the world’s wake-up call,” he said. So how can his administration decide to not sell oil and gas leases in the Atlantic Ocean, but propose them for the Arctic Ocean? That decision makes no sense. How will we maintain our way of life if a major oil spill kills the sea that provides for us? We are spiritually connected to the land and sea. You cannot separate Alaska Native communities with the ocean, which is where we get the majority of our Native foods. The federal government should be taking steps to protect the Arctic Ocean and Alaska’s vulnerable coastal villages. Congress should, for once, support the president and fight offshore drilling and climate change to help ensure our survival for the next 10,000 years. I ask the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to realize that our rural, coastal communities depend on a healthy ocean for survival and remove future lease sales in the Arctic Ocean from its five-year plan for offshore drilling. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Leaked Document Reveals Alarming New Environmental Threats of TTIP - EcoWatch
http://www.ecowatch.com/leaked-document-reveals-alarming-new-environmental-threats-of-ttip-1915539193.html Jul 11, 2016 Leaked Document Reveals Alarming New Environmental Threats of TTIP This morning, as the most recent round of trade negotiations between the U.S. and European Union (EU) began in Brussels, the Guardian reported a leaked document from the EU that reveals its intentions to include new, dangerous language in the proposed energy chapter of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). A Sierra Club analysis of the leaked TTIP proposal finds that it would: • Require the U.S. and the EU "to eliminate all existing restrictions on the export of natural gas in trade between" the two parties; • Undermine clean energy policies, such as renewable portfolio standards or feed-in tariffs, by stating that electricity utilities in the U.S. and the EU shall not discriminate "between types of energy" in granting access to the electrical grid; • Obligate the U.S. and the EU to "foster industry self-regulation" on energy efficiency rather than using mandatory requirements that oblige corporations to boost the energy efficiency of their products; and • Threaten protections against destructive extraction of fossil fuels and natural resources in countries outside of the U.S. and EU. "This leaked document goes farther than any past leaked or publicly available TTIP document on energy to reveal the threat that the deal poses to our efforts to protect our climate by fully transitioning to clean energy, Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said. "For example, never before have we seen a more explicit and sweeping assertion that all gas export restrictions in the United States should be wiped out under TTIP—a nightmare that would be a giant leap backward in our fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground. This leak, along with the similarly toxic Trans-Pacific Partnership, shows the immediate need for a new model of trade that protects working families, healthy communities and our climate." The leaked document, is the EU's proposal for a Chapter on Energy and Raw Materials, sent from the European Commission to the Trade Policy Committee of the European Council on June 20. A cover note states that the textual proposal "is to be submitted to the United States in advance of the next negotiation round," which began today. The Sierra Club's analysis on key aspects of today's leak can be found here. This is the latest in a string of uncovered TTIP documents. Other leaked TTIP energy proposals include a September 2013 leaked document and a May 2014 leaked document. The leaked TTIP proposal would: • Require unfettered gas exports The EU uses a note in the leaked text to state that TTIP "must" include "a legally binding commitment to eliminate all existing restrictions on the export of natural gas in trade between" the U.S. and EU (see initial "disclaimer.") This sweeping TTIP obligation would "eliminate," the ability of the U.S. Department of Energy to determine whether it is in the public interest to export liquefied natural gas (LNG)—a fossil fuel with high climate emissions—to the EU, the world's third-largest LNG importer. If included, this TTIP rule would facilitate increased LNG exports, greater dependency on a climate-disrupting fossil fuel, more fracking and expanded fossil fuel infrastructure. • Undermine clean energy policies The leaked TTIP proposal could undermine U.S. and EU policies that encourage clean energy production, such as renewable portfolio standards that require utilities to increase electricity from renewable sources or feed-in tariffs that give wind and solar power producers preferential access to the electrical grid. The EU's TTIP proposal includes a new provision stating that electricity utilities in the U.S. and EU shall not discriminate "between types of energy" in granting access to the electrical grid, even though that is the very purpose of such U.S. and EU policies that require utilities to favor clean energy over electricity from dirty fossil fuels. The leaked text only allows "limited" exceptions to this rule. To qualify for such an exception, a government could have to prove to a TTIP tribunal that its clean energy policy was "necessary," "objective" and "legitimate"—hurdles that public interest policies have failed to meet in past trade challenges (see Chapter on Energy and Raw Materials, Article 4.) • Obligating the U.S. and the EU to "foster industry self-regulation" on energy efficiency Another new EU proposal for TTIP states that the U.S. and EU "shall foster industry self-regulation of energy efficiency requirements" rather than using "mandatory requirements" that oblige corporations to boost the energy efficiency of their products (see Chapter on Energy and Raw Materials, Article 6.2.) The text prescribes this "self-regulating" approach when it "is lik
Re: [Biofuel] Sweden opens world's first "electric road"
I don't think I understand the question. (I also don't have any special
knowledge of the set-up, just what was in the report.)
From other reading, I gather the tri-mode vehicles are seen as
cost-effective for the operators over a period of time, as the
electricity as a fuel is much less expensive than diesel or gasoline.
Tri-mode buses have been used in several places over the past few decades.
Other tri-mode vehicles can recharge while connected to the electric
supply, as well as be powered by it.
Current Swedish diesel price is 13 Krona per litre. (about US$1.56 per
litre or about US$6.00 per gallon)
The road electrification is likely being paid for by the Swedish
government's climate change mitigation funds. Given the overall
objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the goal here
presumably is to switch heavy-use vehicles (e.g., trucks and buses which
run many hours a day) off GHG-emitting fuels to low emissions energy
sources.
Perhaps someone who can read Swedish could do more digging on this.
(Hakan, you still out there?)
Darryl
On 7/9/2016 3:30 PM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
And how much extra traffic is it going to take to pay for all this? -?
From: Darryl McMahon
To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2016, 19:16
Subject: [Biofuel] Sweden opens world's first "electric road"
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1104907_sweden-opens-worlds-first-electric-road#src=10065
[Sweden has a good story on low GHG electricity generation (mostly
hydro, despite what the article says), so switching to e-drive is a big
win on the climate change front. Electrifying roads is a good solution
for short-haul, but I would prefer to see inter-modal solutions based on
electric rail for long-haul transport (while acknowledging we should be
trying to reduce the demand for long-haul transport in general).
Presumably a run like this could be shared by transport trucks and
passenger buses.
images in on-line article]
Sweden opens world's first "electric road"
A 2-kilometer stretch of the E16 freeway near Gävle, Sweden, nicknamed
the e-way might be the world's most advanced stretch of pavement.
Electric current running through power lines above the freeway delivers
energy to specially-modified Scania trucks.
When the big rigs are connected to the power lines, their internal
combustion engines shut off and, as a result, they have no tailpipe
emissions whatsoever. Given that much of Sweden's power is derived from
windmills and solar panels, the environmental impact is minimal.
In concept, the trucks draw power from the lines in much the way that
street cars and trams have for over a century. A pantograph power
collector mounted on the truck's frame behind its cab rubs against the
line and supplies electric power to the trucks. Since there is no
physical lock between the vehicle and the electric line, the truck is
free to move in and out of the lane as necessary.
Scania says the trucks are based on the manufacturer's G360 and that
they feature a biofuel-powered 9.0-liter, 360-horsepower parallel hybrid
powertrain. A 5.0-kilowatt-hour battery gives them a 3.0-km
electric-only range when they are not traveling on the so-called e-way.
The Swedes are no strangers to electrification; they recently won an
all-electric rail car competition, which could point toward an
alternative method of transporting goods in the future.
More Swedish transportation fun at:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104889_most-efficient-all-electric-railcar-competition-won-by-swedes
--
Darryl McMahon
Freelance Project Manager (sustainable systems)
--
Darryl McMahon
Project Manager
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] More oil spilled in Ventura barranca than initially believed
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/ventura/more-oil-spilled-in-ventura-barranca-than-initially-believed-3728a273-59cc-1271-e053-017f587a-386083421.html [The old familiar refrain: the spill was reported by someone other than the oil pipeline operator the initial estimate was low, and a later estimate was higher operations resumed without notifying those living near by there is no time-line for cleaning up the spill ... ] By Arlene Martinez Crimson Pipeline officials have revised the number of gallons thought to have leaked from a pipeline into a Ventura barranca on June 23. The company estimates roughly 45,000 gallons spilled down a steep canyon slope not far from Ventura High School, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Initial estimates pegged the number closer to 30,000 gallons. It's not unusual for estimates to change as cleanup efforts yield increasingly more of the substance. The number could change again, pending the conclusion of the investigation, officials said. "As oily debris is recovered during the cleanup, it is categorized and prepared to be analyzed and quantified," Amy Norris, a spokeswoman with Fish and Wildlife, the lead agency on the spill, wrote in an email. "When a confirmed amount of recovered oil is available, Unified Command will release those totals." A city resident who lives near the spill first reported the oil oozing down Prince Barranca and Hall Canyon around 5:30 a.m. June 23, and Crimson remotely stopped the pipeline. Although emergency responders initially feared it might reach the ocean, they quickly stopped the oil's flow. A company hired by Crimson, the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, has monitored for vapors from the spill and said the air in the vicinity does not pose a health risk to residents. "Continuing air monitoring indicates the air is safe to breathe, and an air monitoring report is available on the CalSpillWatch website," Norris wrote. Fish and Wildlife, the state Fire Marshal's Office and Ventura County District Attorney's Office are jointly investigating the cause of the leak. It originated at a valve that had been replaced the day before by a contractor, Crimson previously said. "There is no timeline on an investigation. The results of the investigation could lead to an enforcement action by the District Attorney," Norris wrote. Crimson reopened the pipeline the night of June 30 after the Fire Marshal's Office certified that doing so would be safe. The company didn't let the city or residents know it would be resuming operations, which didn't go over well with either. The city on the next day subpoenaed all records related to the spill and requested that the company immediately shut down the pipeline. Crimson has until July 18 to comply with the subpoena. It does not plan to shut down the pipeline because of contracts it must satisfy. "We are continuing to work with our state and local government partners toward our common end goals, and we remain committed to acting transparently and including the community during that process," Crimson spokeswoman Kendall Klingler wrote in an email Friday. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Underwater Oil-Well Bolts Are Failing, Causing Alarm - WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-worries-over-subsea-oil-well-gear-1467970202 Underwater Oil-Well Bolts Are Failing, Causing Alarm Massive bolts used to secure gear deep in the Gulf of Mexico have corroded and sometimes snapped By Ted Mann July 8, 2016 5:30 a.m. ET General Electric Co. , oil drillers and U.S. regulators are scrambling to determine why massive bolts used to connect subsea oil equipment keep failing, prompting costly shutdowns and raising safety concerns about hundreds of wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Safety regulators at the Department of the Interior began investigating the matter in 2013, officials said in an interview, after a GE oil-exploration equipment business issued a global recall for faulty bolts on one of its components. The bolts have corroded and sometimes snapped, raising the possibility of a major oil leak. But the U.S. investigation and two recent bolt failures convinced regulators and industry officials that the problem goes beyond GE and its blowout preventers—safety gear used to halt oil-and-gas flow during a well emergency. Flaws also have been found in bolts made by GE’s two main competitors for blowout preventers— National Oilwell Varco Inc. and the Cameron unit of Schlumberger Ltd. —and in bolts used in other areas on subsea wells, said Interior Department officials. “This is what we view as a very critical safety issue,” said Allyson Anderson Book, associate director of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement at the Interior Department. “If your smallest component fails, you can’t expect a sophisticated many-million-dollar piece of equipment” to hold fast and prevent a leak. The failures haven’t resulted in any oil leaks, the regulators said. Like other equipment companies, GE said its bolts have come from subcontractors, which it hasn’t publicly identified. The company said the components are subject to rigorous safety testing before being delivered to customers. A spokeswoman for Fairfield, Conn.,-based GE said the company is working with the Interior Department to address the problems and has supplied replacement parts to customers who have requested them, declining to further elaborate. A spokesman for Schlumberger declined to comment and a spokeswoman for National Oilwell Varco didn’t respond to requests for comment. The review has found bolt failures stretching back at least to 2003, regulators said. “This is a systematic industry problem that requires immediate attention,” the chief of the BSEE wrote to the head of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade group, in a Jan. 22 letter. Regulators say they are working with drilling companies, manufacturers, and the API to craft new standards for minimum hardness and coating of subsea equipment bolts, as well as guidelines for assembly and installation. The BSEE wants companies to replace existing equipment as soon as possible. The API proposes replacing by the end of 2017 any critical bolts that don’t meet the coming hardness standard. An API spokesman said the industry is “working diligently with BSEE and other stakeholders to enhance operations as necessary.” The bolt issue could affect more than 2,400 platforms and oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as 23 off the coast of California, and one active rig on the outer continental shelf in Alaska, a BSEE spokesman said. One reason the scope of the issue remains murky: oil-lease holders aren’t required under current rules to report equipment failures to the enforcement bureau when they are discovered, except if certain conditions are met, such as when oil leaks into the water. That will change on July 28, when new rules crafted in the years since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill go into effect, regulators said. Those regulations will require greater reporting of breakdowns, including bolt failures discovered during regular maintenance, and will require information sharing among competitors about equipment failures. Companies already have begun the process of finding and replacing corroded bolts. The repairs are pinching drillers and U.S. producers, who have been hard hit by the prolonged slump in oil prices. Marc Edwards, chief executive of Diamond Offshore Drilling Co. , which has a fleet of 30 rigs, told investors in June that the company had four unplanned “stack pulls” in the second quarter, where the expensive equipment that sits atop a subsea well must be raised to the surface and repaired. Three of those repairs involved failed bolts, Diamond said. Mr. Edwards estimates that his customers lose between $600,000 and $800,000 a day during such repairs, and his own firm’s revenue from the affected rigs drops to zero during the two to three weeks that drilling is halted. The interruption likely will affect second-quarter results. “Is that material for me? Yes, it is,” Mr. Edwards said. GE is affected, too, because Diamond recently switched to
[Biofuel] Bankrupt Coal Miner Peabody Energy Paid Climate Denialist Craig Idso To Write Greenhouse Gas Reports | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/06/bankrupt-coal-miner-peabody-energy-paid-climate-denialist-crag-idso-write-greenhouse-gas-reports [links and images in on-line article] Bankrupt Coal Miner Peabody Energy Paid Climate Denialist Craig Idso To Write Greenhouse Gas Reports By Graham Readfearn • Wednesday, July 6, 2016 - 03:58 A research center that has produced scores of reports dismissing the dangers of human-caused climate change was being paid by coal company Peabody Energy to produce reports about its greenhouse gas emissions. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) is revealed as having historical financial ties to Peabody in the coal company’s bankruptcy papers. A DeSmog investigation has also uncovered undisclosed financial links between the center, run by veteran climate science denialist Craig Idso, and another contrarian group, the Science and Public Policy Institute. Peabody Energy was revealed as a funder of a web of groups and organisations that have worked to spread doubt over human-caused climate change while fighting rules to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Idso, the chairman and founder of CSCDGC, has written many reports claiming that extra carbon dioxide is a benefit to the planet, while ignoring or downplaying the many negatives. His work was used in a flawed report from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — a grouping of coal miners, transporters and burners — which argued greenhouse gas emissions were a large net financial benefit to society. Other reports from the center include “The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”, “Problems with Model Predictions of Species Extinctions” and “Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment: Boon or Bane of the Biosphere?” Idso’s brother Keith and father Sherwood are the only personnel listed on the center’s website. A 2009 Mother Jones article described the Idsos as the “von Trapp family of climate science denial.” Craig Idso has been a regular speaker at Heartland Institute climate science denial conferences and was a driving force behind the organisation's Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports designed to challenged the UN's IPCC. In December 2014 Idso appeared as a speaker at a conference organized by ALEC — the conservative corporate bill mill which faced a corporate exodus over its climate science denial. Ties to SPPI CSCDGC is registered with the IRS as a not-for-profit organisation where funders can claim tax breaks on their donations. But IRS documents show the CSCDGC's highest paid individual is Robert Ferguson, who was paid $170,000 through the center, according to the latest filings. Ferguson is the president of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which has co-published several reports with Idso’s group. Idso earns $130,000 a year from his center and his wife is paid $120,000 as the center’s secretary. The center declared $670,000 of income in 2014. But the center’s website does not identify Ferguson as working for the center. Neither do the IRS filings identify SPPI as a project, but do indicate Ferguson as the highest paid employee. SPPI’s website has no information about how it is incorporated. Questions to Ferguson, a former Republican staffer, went unanswered. Researcher and DeSmog contributor John Mashey has described SPPI as a front for Idso’s center. In 2014, CSCDGC received a $10,000 grant from the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. According to that foundation’s tax filing, the grant to CSCDGC was to “support the Science & Public Policy Institute”. The IRS revoked SPPI's charity status in 2001 after the organisation had failed to file the required forms for three consecutive years. SPPI lists Idso as a “science adviser” alongside other climate science denialists Australian William Kininmonth, meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and climatologist David Legates. SPPI’s chief policy advisor is British peer Lord Christopher Monckton. The Peabody bankruptcy papers showed a financial relationship, either current or former, between the ailing coal company and Idso’s center. The documents also show either a current or former financial relationship with SPPI. The documents only indicate financial relationships and do not detail dollar amounts, although further documents being released could provide more detail. Idso a Peabody director of environmental science In a 2014 radio interview, Idso was asked if he had “any ties to any energy companies.” He responded: “No I don’t, actually.” In a statement to DeSmog, Idso said he had been hired by Peabody to develop the company’s response to the Department of Energy’s Voluntary Greenhouse Gas reporting program. Idso was appointed Peabody’s director of environmental science in 2001. He said he left the company the following year but continued to work as a consultant “for a few more years” to prepare annual reports as part of the greenhouse
[Biofuel] I Was Sick for a Year After an Oil Spill. Five Years Later, Pipeline Accidents Are Worsening
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36761-i-was-sick-for-a-year-after-the-yellowstone-oil-spill-five-years-later-pipeline-accidents-are-worsening [links and images in on-line article] I Was Sick for a Year After an Oil Spill. Five Years Later, Pipeline Accidents Are Worsening Sunday, 10 July 2016 00:00 By Alexis Bonogofsky, Truthout | Report Early in the morning on July 2, 2011, I walked down the gravel road on our Montana farm to let the goats out to graze for the day. I found an oily rainbow sheen on the Yellowstone River flowing through our hay fields and pasture, plus large clumps of crude oil sticking to trees, cattails and brush. The oily water was in our sloughs, our pond and the creek that runs along the eastern edge of the farm. I checked the local news on my phone and found that an Exxon oil pipeline had ruptured underneath the Yellowstone River upstream. More than 300 people upstream from us were evacuated, but no one had thought to notify those of us further from the spill. The smell of hydrocarbons was overwhelming. In the end, more than 63,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into the Yellowstone River from what we later learned was a "guillotine cut" in Exxon's Silvertip pipeline, which lay in a trench only four to five feet under the Yellowstone River. Snowmelt combined with spring rains had caused heavy flooding, and the river bottom was scoured away, leaving the oil pipeline exposed. All it took was a heavy object being tossed down the river to break the pipeline in half. After spending $135 million on the cleanup, Exxon recovered less than 1 percent of the oil spilled. It took Exxon over an hour to completely shut down the pipeline, according to the report filed by federal regulators. Federal investigators found that damage would have been reduced by about two thirds if the pipeline controllers in Houston had closed the appropriate valve as soon as a problem was detected. It took them three days to assemble a full cleanup response team. On July 4, 2011, my mother drove me to the hospital because I was suffering from nausea, a severe headache that hadn't gone away in two days, dizziness and painful breathing. The doctor diagnosed me with acute hydrocarbon exposure, and for one year after the spill it hurt my lungs to take a deep breath. We are on year five now of trying to rebuild our soil and restore our pastures back to their original condition. After the spill, the state of Montana leaned on the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the federal agency responsible for inspection of pipelines and enforcement of pipeline regulations, to inspect 90 sites where pipelines crossed rivers in Montana. Twenty of those crossings were deemed a high risk for failure and the pipes there were either reburied deep underneath the river with directional drilling or strengthened. And yet four years later, in January 2015, another oil pipeline burst underneath the Yellowstone. Sonar testing showed that about 110 feet of pipeline was exposed along the bottom of the river. In one area, river scour had removed almost an entire foot of dirt and rocks underneath the pipe, leaving it exposed top and bottom for 22 feet. Up to 54,000 gallons of oil spilled into the icy Yellowstone River. The residents in Glendive began smelling oil in their tap water, but no one was told to stop drinking the water until 24 hours after the spill. Volatile organic chemicals in the oil, including cancer-causing benzene, were found in Glendive's water supply. Very little of the oil was recovered before the ice broke up and spring flows washed the oil downstream. This pipeline, according to the inspections by PHMSA after the 2011 spill, was deemed a pipeline at low risk for failure. Luckily, no one was killed in these two incidents in Montana, but oil and gas pipeline failures around the country have caused many deaths, as well as water pollution and billions of dollars in property damage. The State of Pipeline Safety in the United States A year before the 2011 oil spill on the Yellowstone River, a 30-inch natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) exploded in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The explosion and fire killed eight people and injured 58 while destroying 38 homes and damaging 70 others. In an opening statement about the San Bruno accident report, the National Transportation Safety Board chairman summarized the board's findings as "troubling revelations ... about a company that exploited weaknesses in a lax system of oversight and government agencies that placed a blind trust in operators to the detriment of public safety." At the time of the San Bruno blast, just 2,000 miles away in Michigan workers were still cleaning up another pipeline break, which spilled 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, the largest inland oil spill in the nation's history. The lis
[Biofuel] Sweden opens world's first "electric road"
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1104907_sweden-opens-worlds-first-electric-road#src=10065 [Sweden has a good story on low GHG electricity generation (mostly hydro, despite what the article says), so switching to e-drive is a big win on the climate change front. Electrifying roads is a good solution for short-haul, but I would prefer to see inter-modal solutions based on electric rail for long-haul transport (while acknowledging we should be trying to reduce the demand for long-haul transport in general). Presumably a run like this could be shared by transport trucks and passenger buses. images in on-line article] Sweden opens world's first "electric road" A 2-kilometer stretch of the E16 freeway near Gävle, Sweden, nicknamed the e-way might be the world's most advanced stretch of pavement. Electric current running through power lines above the freeway delivers energy to specially-modified Scania trucks. When the big rigs are connected to the power lines, their internal combustion engines shut off and, as a result, they have no tailpipe emissions whatsoever. Given that much of Sweden's power is derived from windmills and solar panels, the environmental impact is minimal. In concept, the trucks draw power from the lines in much the way that street cars and trams have for over a century. A pantograph power collector mounted on the truck's frame behind its cab rubs against the line and supplies electric power to the trucks. Since there is no physical lock between the vehicle and the electric line, the truck is free to move in and out of the lane as necessary. Scania says the trucks are based on the manufacturer's G360 and that they feature a biofuel-powered 9.0-liter, 360-horsepower parallel hybrid powertrain. A 5.0-kilowatt-hour battery gives them a 3.0-km electric-only range when they are not traveling on the so-called e-way. The Swedes are no strangers to electrification; they recently won an all-electric rail car competition, which could point toward an alternative method of transporting goods in the future. More Swedish transportation fun at: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104889_most-efficient-all-electric-railcar-competition-won-by-swedes -- Darryl McMahon Freelance Project Manager (sustainable systems) -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Canada could get third of its electricity from wind | Metering.com
http://www.metering.com/news/canada-electricity-wind/ [Canada already gets about 60% of its electricity from hydro, so increasing the wind fraction to 35%, while continuing to increase generation from biomass, geothermal, tidal and other renewable sources, combined with daily cycle distributed storage, conservation, efficiency and load time-shifting could put Canada at near-zero GHG electricity generation within a generation.] 8 July 2016 Canada could get third of its electricity from wind According to a new report, Canada has the potential to get more than one-third of its electricity from wind generated power without compromising grid reliability. The study (http://canwea.ca/wind-energy/wind-integration-study/), issued by the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) takes a detailed look at national, system-level look at the production costs and benefits of high wind energy penetration in Canada. The paper also helps identify potential operational challenges and the most efficient solutions. According to a release, CanWEA’s report provides utilities, system operators and policymakers with a technical platform that can be used to inform the development of provincial, regional and North American energy policies. Honourable Jim Carr, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources, said: “Understanding the implications of integrating a greater amount of wind energy into Canada’s electrical system contributes to our goal of developing clean energy resources and moving our country towards a low-carbon economy. “The Government of Canada supports clean energy technologies that encourage energy efficiency, bring cleaner renewable energy onto a smarter electricity grid, and promote sustainable economic growth and competitiveness.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Norway still fails to cut its emissions
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2016/06/29/norway-fails-to-cut-emissions/ Norway still fails to cut its emissions June 29, 2016 While several other countries in the European Union have cut their carbon emissions in half, they’ve increased in oil-producing Norway. One critic claims Norwegian politicians have been opposed in principle to making cuts for many years, and none will occur any time soon. A new report from the European Environment Agency (EEA) confirms how poorly Norway is doing in cutting its own emissions. Norway has long favoured paying other countries to cut emissions while failing to do so itself. According to the EEA report, Norway’s carbon emissions increased by 2.4 percent between 1990 and 2014. Newspaper Dagsavisen reported Wednesday that overall emissions in the EU declined by 24.4 percent in the same period. Several countries cut their emissions by half, with Lithuania doing the best by reducing them by 59.6, followed closely by Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Marius Holm, leader of the environmental group Zero, noted that it’s not fair to directly compare those countries’ cuts with Norway because they still had old industrial plants and used lots of coal as a holdover from their years as part of the Soviet Union. They’ve since eliminated much of that, Holm that, which accounts for their impressive emission cuts statistics. Neighbours also shame Norway “But it’s relevant to compare Norway to our neighbours,” he added, and then Norway still compares badly. Denmark, for example, has cut emissions by 27.6 percent, Sweden by 24.4 percent and Finland by 17.1 percent, while Norway’s emissions have risen. “In these countries, there are firm policies to cut emissions,” Holm told Dagssavisen. “Norway could have done the same. Instead there’s been political focus on buying climate quotas, even though they don’t work.” It’s not just Norway’s oil and gas industry that’s to blame. Emissions from vehicular traffic, for example, have increased despite record sales of electric cars. Such emissions have also increased in the EU, as have emissions from use of air conditioning systems. News last week that Oil & Energy Minister Tord Lien wants to delay carbon capture and storage facilities by another two years, in the hopes their costs will come down, will further delay emissions cuts. Despite strict and unpopular new measures to limit driving in Oslo, city politicians can’t hope to reduce emissions in Oslo until carbon capture and storage is finally in place at the city’s garbage processing and thermal power plant at Klemetsrud. City seeks funds for Klemetsrud Now the city is lobbying hard for state funds to ensure the earliest possible opening of a carbon capture and storage facility at Klemetsrud. “We have said all along we rely on cooperation and contributions from the state,” city government leader Raymond Johansen of the Labour Party told newspaper Aftenposten. The state will decide which of three industrial sites will get carbon capture and storage facilities first: Klemetsrud, Norcem’s cement plant in Brevik or Yara’s ammonia plant in Porsgrunn. Feasibility studies show they can be built at all three sites, with actual cost estimates due later this summer. Aftenposten also pointed out on Wednesday that since the City of Oslo won’t be needing state guarantees to pay for a Winter Olympics in 2022, after the state shot down that project based on high costs and lack of public support, perhaps some of the money the city would have spent on sports facilities can be channeled into helping to reserve climate change instead. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Pipeline that spilled 30, 000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura reopens
http://www.vcstar.com/news/local/pipeline-that-spilled-3-gallons-of-crude-oil-in-ventura-reopens-369b2782-90ac-1cdd-e053-017f-385275331.html Pipeline that spilled 30,000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura reopens By Jean Cowden Moore A pipeline that leaked nearly 30,000 gallons of crude oil in Ventura has reopened, just eight days after an early-morning spill on June 23. The pipeline reopened Thursday night after the state fire marshal certified that it was safe, said Tim Gallagher, spokesman for the pipeline's owner, Crimson Pipeline. The certification came after the fire marshal's office inspected the pipeline this week, Gallagher said. But Mark Watkins, Ventura city manager, said he was frustrated that residents weren't notified before the pipeline reopened, especially after a meeting Thursday night when they questioned company, local and state officials about the spill. Residents should be told what caused the spill, how long the cleanup will take, and what Crimson is doing so it doesn't happen again, Watkins said. "It's very frustrating to find out they just put it back into service, and the community wasn't notified," he said. "We expect a higher level of communication in the future." Residents had not been informed of the reopening by 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The agencies involved planned to notify people by email and possibly by going door to door, starting Friday evening, Gallagher said. State regulations required that Crimson start putting crude oil back into the pipeline as soon as it was certified safe, Gallagher said. Before the fire marshal's office inspected the pipeline, workers cleared out any remaining crude oil, using liquid nitrogen, Gallagher said. Then they did the inspection. The inspection satisfied the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said spokeswoman Amy Norris. "If the fire marshal has certified that it's safe, then we're completely comfortable," Norris said. The spill, which started just northeast of Ventura High School, leaked crude oil into a nearby gorge but it did not reach the beach. The oil flowed for about half a mile down the Prince Barranca and Hall Canyon before it was stopped. The cause of the spill, which started at a valve in the pipeline, is still under investigation. The valve had been replaced the day before the incident. Crimson has had 10 spills in the past decade, causing about $5.9 million in property damage, according to the U.S. Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Nestlé Plans to Bottle Water From Drought-Stricken Phoenix
http://ecowatch.com/2016/07/02/nestle-bottle-water-drought-ridden-phoenix/ [Regarding the claim of 40-50 additional jobs in the new Phoenix plant: unless this corresponds to *additional* demand for millions of bottles in Phoenix, presumably those jobs will be off-set by job losses wherever Nestlé currently bottles water to meet existing demand in Phoenix. links in on-line article] Nestlé Plans to Bottle Water From Drought-Stricken Phoenix Lorraine Chow | July 2, 2016 12:43 pm Nestlé is planning to open a bottled water plant in Phoenix. Yes, drought-stricken Phoenix, Arizona. According to the Associated Press, Nestlé Waters will treat the city’s tap water and bottle it under its Pure Life brand. The plan is to extract about 35 million gallons of water in its first year to produce 264 million half-liter bottles. The city’s water services department insists there’s enough water to spare, even though Arizona is in the midst of a historic drought. As Bloomberg writes: Phoenix produced about 95 billion gallons of water in 2015. It gets more than half from Arizona’s Salt and Verde rivers, and a little less than that from a Colorado River diversion, some of which is piped into storage aquifers for emergency use. About 2 percent is groundwater. The Nestlé plant would use about 35 million gallons (or 264 million half-liter bottles) when it opens in the spring, or about 0.037 percent of the volume that comes out of the city’s plants and wells. So with that kind of math, and all the demand for bottled water among thirsty Phoenicians, it looks like there’s plenty to go around—even enough for Nestlé to pour out of the tap, bottle and sell for a few bucks. Unsurprisingly, many people are wondering why it is necessary to bottle water in the middle of a desert when Arizonans can just drink it from the tap. “Arizona is in drought conditions and with more people moving here each day it is imperative that we do everything we can to conserve water,” a Change.org petition signed by nearly 45,000 people states. “Even on the City of Phoenix website, we are reminded that the future of our city water supply is uncertain.” A Facebook group has also been formed to protest the proposed plant. “This plant approval further reveals the breathtaking duplicity of city managers as they attempt to force residents to implement water conservation measures,” wrote Dr. Anton G. Camarota, an Arizona resident and a member of the Facebook group. “The managers state that ‘by watering your lawn wisely, you can conserve a precious resource and save money on your water bill,’ and ‘it is important to conserve water as a lifestyle. It’s everyone’s job to think about water … every time you use it … and use it responsibly.’ At the same time that they promulgate these platitudes, they are selling water to a private company for profit. The managers fail to see that water is not merely a lifestyle choice, in the deserts of Arizona it is the difference between life and death.” Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S., provides water to Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico. In May, water levels shrunk to 37 percent full—the lowest it has ever been. Water levels could dip even further as climate change unfolds, triggering mandatory restrictions. Federal water managers warned that they might have to temporarily reduce Arizona’s allotment in 2018. Sucking up the city’s precious resource is not the only concern. Americans are now drinking water from these single-use plastic items more than soda, potentially creating mounds of plastic waste if the bottles are not properly recycled. Bloomberg reported that Nestlé’s chose to build a plant in Phoenix to cut down transportation costs of moving water into the region. Other factors included water quantity, water quality, regulatory burdens, local concerns and Nestlé’s corporate perspective, according to Nelson Switzer, chief sustainability officer of Nestlé Waters. “We want to be where people want us,” Switzer said. Gauging a community’s welcome (or lack thereof) is a part of the process. “If all of those things together make sense, then we can site,” he continued. The plant is expected to create between 40 to 50 jobs. The company said water scarcity is a real concern, and “in areas where population growth is threatening to exceed available water supplies, the concern is heightened.” If Nestlé builds the plant, Phoenix will be home to four bottle plants, including Pepsi Bottling Co., Niagara Bottling and DS Services of America. Nestlé is also facing opposition over bottling plants from communities in San Bernardino, California, Hood River County, Oregon and Eldred Township, Pennsylvania. Last month, college-bound student Hannah Rousey of Lovell, Maine turned down a $1,000 scholarship money from Nestlé subsidiary Poland Spring due to her objections to bottled water and the company’s environmentally destructive practices.
[Biofuel] High-Level EPA Adviser Accused of Scientific Fraud in Methane Leak Research | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/28/high-level-epa-adviser-accused-scientific-fraud-methane-leak-research High-Level EPA Adviser Accused of Scientific Fraud in Methane Leak Research By Sharon Kelly • Tuesday, June 28, 2016 - 11:02 It's one of the highest-stakes debates in the battle over climate change policy action: how much methane is spewing from oil and gas sites nationwide, and what do we do as a result? If enough of the odorless, colorless methane gas leaks or is vented into the air, scientists say, then burning natural gas — marketed as a green fuel that can help wean the U.S. off of high-carbon fuels — will actually be worse for the climate than coal, long seen as the fuel that contributes the most to global warming. Recently, over 100 community and environmental groups sent a letter urging the Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog to investigate claims that a top methane researcher had committed scientific fraud and charging that he had made false and misleading statements to the press in response to those claims. Earlier this month, NC WARN, an environmental group, presented the EPA Inspector General with evidence it said showed that key research on methane leaks was tainted, and that one of the EPA's top scientific advisors fraudulently concealed evidence that a commonly-used tool for collecting data from oil and gas wells gives artificially low methane measurements. The 68-page complaint dated June 8 laid out evidence that David Allen, a professor of engineering at the University of Texas who served as the chairman of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from 2012 to 2015, disregarded red flags that his methane measuring equipment malfunctioned when collecting data from fracked well sites, a problem that caused his University of Texas study to lowball leak rates. “We used the terms scientific fraud and cover-up because we believe there’s possible criminal violations involved,” said NC WARN executive director Jim Warren. “The consequence is that for the past 3 years the industry has been arguing, based largely on the 2013 study, that emissions are low enough that we shouldn’t regulate them.” Dr. Allen's research is a part of a high-profile but controversial research series sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund that received one third of its funding from the oil and gas industry. In response to the NC WARN complaint, Dr. Allen issued a statement saying that his team's data was unaffected, saying that “we had 2-3 additional, independent measurement systems” other than the error-prone tool. But the new letter to the Inspector General labeled that response misleading, saying that in fact, there “was virtually no back-up” testing and that Dr. Allen's response continued “the pattern of covering up the underreporting of methane emissions”. The sharp rise of the U.S. gas drilling industry over the past decade or so means that it's crucial for policy-makers and the public to know exactly how much methane — the key ingredient in natural gas, which is also a powerful greenhouse gas that can warm the climate 100 times as much as an equal amount of carbon dioxide — leaks or is deliberately vented into the atmosphere by the oil industry. In March, federal energy experts predicted that 2016 will be the first year that the U.S. burns more gas than coal to generate electricity — and if enough of that methane leaks, the switch from coal to gas may spell disaster rather than relief for the climate, scientists warn. The problem with Dr. Allen's research wasn't simply that the team used a faulty tool — the Bacharach Hi-Flow methane sampler is widely used by researchers and the industry — but that Dr. Allen rejected warnings from Touche Howard, the man who invented the technology used in the tool, that the readings were artificially low, without any sound scientific justification for waving off warnings, the complaint says. “The problems Mr. Howard identified have not been openly addressed or corrected, resulting in the failure of the EPA to accurately report methane emissions for more than two years, much less require reductions,” NC Warn, a North Carolina-based environmental group, wrote in its complaint to the EPA's internal watchdog. “Meanwhile, the faulty data and measuring equipment are still being used extensively throughout the natural gas industry worldwide.” While Dr. Allen's research is not the only time that the flawed tool was used to collect data, his two studies have been used by the oil and gas industry and its supporters to support claims that leaks and venting are too low to require federal regulation. “The Allen studies are high-profile studies that have been widely cited (197 times as of April 2016) and presented before White House and Congressional staff,” the complaint to the EPA said, “and, as such, have given policy makers and the public an incorrect view of methane emissions from production s
[Biofuel] High Levels of Toxins Found in Bodies of People Living Near Fracking Sites
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36593-high-levels-of-toxins-found-in-bodies-of-people-living-near-fracking-sites [links in on-line article] High Levels of Toxins Found in Bodies of People Living Near Fracking Sites Monday, 27 June 2016 00:00 By Maureen Nandini Mitra, Earth Island Journal | Report Many of the toxic chemicals escaping from fracking and natural gas processing sites and storage facilities may be present in much higher concentrations in the bodies of people living or working near such sites, new research has shown. In a first-of-its-kind study combining air-monitoring methods with new biomonitoring techniques, researchers detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from natural gas operations in Pavillion, Wyoming in the bodies of nearby residents at levels that were as much as 10 times that of the national averages. Some of these VOCs such as benzene and toluene are linked to chronic diseases like cancer and reproductive and developmental disorders. Others are associated with respiratory problems, headaches, nosebleeds, and skin rashes. "Many of those chemicals were present in the participants' bodies at concentrations far exceeding background averages in the US population," notes the study, titled "When the Wind Blows: Tracking Toxic Chemicals in Gas Fields and Impacted Communities," which was released last week. Some residents of Pavillion have for years been concerned about the rise in health issues that they suspected were connected to emissions from the gas production activities. This tiny town of less than 250 people has been at the center of the growing debate on fracking since 2008 when locals began complaining that their drinking water had acquired a foul taste and odor back in 2008. In 2014, air monitoring data showed some toxic chemical emissions at oil and gas sites in Wyoming were up to 7,000 times the "safe" levels set by US federal environmental and health agencies. In March of this year, Stanford University researchers found evidence that fracking operations near Pavillion were contaminating the local groundwater. Now this new study, conducted by researchers with the national environmental health organization Coming Clean, establishes clearly that at least some of these harmful chemicals are making their way into the bodies of nearby residents. The study focused on measuring ambient levels of a specific family of VOCs named BTEX chemicals -- which include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes -- because these chemicals are known to be hazardous to human health even at low levels. Researchers then used new biomonitoring methods to detect these chemicals in 11 local residents who volunteered to participate in the study by wearing air quality monitors and providing blood and urine samples, and found evidence of eight hazardous chemicals emitted from Pavillion gas infrastructure in the urine of study participants. "The biomonitoring confirmed what we knew," Wilma Subra, an award-winning biochemist and one of the scientists involved in the project, told Earth Island Journal. "This clearly indicates that there is a need of control mechanisms to curb the emissions in order to reduce exposure of those living near these operations." The study leaders, however, also note that because VOCs are so ubiquitous in products and in our homes, it is possible that some of the VOCs detected in participants' bodies came from multiple sources. They are calling for further biomonitoring testing of people living or working near oil and gas sites to better understand how these chemicals travel through the environment and to prevent our exposure to them. "If your drinking water is contaminated with toxic chemicals you might be able to make do with another source, but if your air is toxic you can't choose to breathe somewhere else," Deb Thomas, the director of ShaleTest and one the study leaders, said in a statement. Addendum: In related news, last week, Earthworks, FracTracker Alliance and Clean Air Task Force released OilAndGasThreatMap.com, a new tool that maps the locations of the 92,759 active oil and gas wells, compressors and processors operating in California, and the populations, schools and hospitals within a half mile radius of those facilities. Based on peer-reviewed science and publicly-available data, map shows that 1.3 million Californians live within half-a-mile of an active oil and gas facility. These areas also include 365 schools and 74 medical facilities. The Threat Map allows anyone to search their address to find if they live within the half-mile threat radius. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Canada Legalizes Big Oil's Weapon of Choice for Ocean Life Destruction
Now we wait to see when the oil industry pulls the trigger. Based on my review a few months ago of the relevant science literature, use of Corexit EC9500A will not have a net benefit for the environment, and will almost certainly at removing the spilled oil from the environment. It may make the oil harder to see by media cameras. It will be singularly ineffective on dilbit spills. The announcement in the Canada Gazette. http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-15/html/sor-dors108-eng.php If you want a copy of my letter to Minister McKenna and Environment Canada staff providing the overview of the science which contraindicates the use of Corexit EC9500A for oil spills in Canadian coastal waters, just e-mail me. Darryl McMahon ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/25/transcanada-nafta-keystone-xl-tpp/ [As I have said before, "free trade" agreements are not free for taxpayers, who foot the bill for secret payouts ordered by secret tribunals which reward multi-national corporations for questionable ethical and moral practices. FTAs are about freeing corporations from any accountability to sovereign powers. TTIP and TPP are intended to take these corporate hand-outs and reduced accountability to new levels. The Canadian government has extended the 'public consultation' period on TPP to October 2016. Presumably, they are hoping the public protests will peter out before they proceed to ratifying it despite widespread public opposition. links in on-line article] TransCanada Files NAFTA Suit Demanding More Than $15 Billion for Keystone XL Rejection Michael Brune | June 25, 2016 10:16 am On June 24, foreign oil company TransCanada filed a lawsuit against the U.S. under NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, arguing that the U.S. rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline violated NAFTA’s broad rights for foreign investors by thwarting the company’s “expectations.” As compensation, TransCanada is demanding more than $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers. TransCanada’s case will be heard in a private tribunal of three lawyers who are not accountable to any domestic legal system, thanks to NAFTA’s “investor-state” system, which is also included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The controversial TPP would empower thousands of additional corporations, including major polluters, to follow TransCanada’s example and use this private tribunal system to challenge U.S. climate and environmental policies. TransCanada’s Request for Arbitration follows the Notice of Intent to submit a claim to arbitration that it filed on Jan. 6. TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks. The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis, spotlighting the need for a new model of trade model that supports rather than undermines climate action. We urge our members of Congress to learn from this historic moment and commit to reject the TPP. Here’s more information on the TPP: Environmental opposition to the TPP is mounting. Earlier in June, more than 450 environmental, landowner, Indigenous rights, and allied organizations sent a letter to Congress warning that pending trade deals like the TPP threaten efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Read the Sierra Club’s report on how the TPP would roughly double the number of corporations that could follow TransCanada’s example and challenge U.S. safeguards in private, unaccountable tribunals. The corporations that would gain this ability include hundreds of foreign-owned fossil fuel firms, such as the U.S. subsidiaries of BHP Billiton, one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and one of the U.S.’s largest foreign investors in fracking and offshore drilling. The TPP would nearly double the number of foreign fracking firms that could challenge new U.S. fracking restrictions in private tribunals. The deal also would enable oil and gas corporations with nearly 1 million acres’ worth of U.S. offshore drilling leases to use this private tribunal system to try to undermine new restrictions on offshore drilling. No prior U.S. trade deal has granted such broad rights to corporations with such broad interests in maintaining U.S. fossil fuel dependency. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] 80% of Ocean Plastic Comes From Land-Based Sources, New Report Finds
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/15/ocean-plastic-land-based-sources/ [links and image in on-line article - I recommend looking at the image.] 80% of Ocean Plastic Comes From Land-Based Sources, New Report Finds Lorraine Chow | June 15, 2016 10:01 am Ocean plastic pollution is an increasingly devastating crisis, and this new infographic shows exactly where the plastic trash is coming from, where it ends up and why it’s important to start our fight against this environmental scourge at the beach. The graph, provided by UK-based Eunomia Research & Consulting, shows that more than 80 percent of the annual input of plastic litter, such as drink bottles and plastic packaging, comes from land-based sources. The remainder comes from plastics released at sea, such as lost and discarded fishing gear. Significantly, Eunomia was able to come up with a new estimate of annual global emissions of “primary” microplastics, such as microbeads, fibers or pellets. (“Secondary” microplastics are the result of larger pieces of plastic breaking down into smaller pieces.) The firm calculated that emissions of microplastics range from 0.5 to 1.4 million tonnes per year, with a mid-point estimate of 0.95 million tonnes. Vehicle tires are the biggest culprits, releasing 270 thousand tonnes of debris into our waterways annually. These tiny non-biodegradable pieces of plastic are a cause for worry, as they are being gobbled up by plankton and baby fish like junk food, and works its way up the food chain. Microplastics have been found in in ice cores, across the seafloor, vertically throughout the ocean and on every beach worldwide. As EcoWatch mentioned previously, microplastics are also very absorbent, meaning they pick up the chemicals it floats in. The firm compiled a report of their research that was released earlier this month. The report shows an astounding 94 percent of the plastic that enters the ocean ends up on the ocean floor, with an estimated 70 kilograms of plastic per square kilometer of sea bed on average. The report thus highlights a common misunderstanding in which ocean plastic is often portrayed as a Texas-sized garbage patch floating in the middle of the ocean. According to a press release of the study: Despite the high profile of projects intended to clean up plastics floating in mid-ocean, relatively little actually ends up there. Barely 1% of marine plastics are found floating at or near the ocean surface, with an average global concentration of less than 1kg/km2. This concentration increases at certain mid-ocean locations, with the highest concentration recorded in the North Pacific Gyre at 18kg/km2. By contrast, the amount estimated to be on beaches globally is five times greater, and importantly, the concentration is much higher, at 2,000kg/km2. While some may have been dropped directly, and other plastics may have been washed up, what is clear is that there is a “flux” of litter between beaches and the sea. By removing beach litter, we are therefore cleaning the oceans. Although it wasn’t explicitly stated, the highly publicized “Ocean Cleanup Project” (OCP) comes to mind. The scheme, which is being brought to life by its young Dutch inventor Boyan Slat, aims to clean half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in a decade via a static platform that passively corrals ocean plastics with a V-shaped boom. While Slat and 70 other scientists and engineers have composed a 530-page feasibility report on the project, critics have written off the idea. As Dr. Marcus Eriksen, 5 Gyres co-founder and an ocean scientist whose research was cited in the Eunomia study wrote, “There are no islands of plastic, rather a smog of plastic that pervades the oceans.” Eriksen suggested that Slat move the array upstream to capture trash before it fragments. “Many countries around the world are deploying structures of all kinds to catch trash downstream, from nets to waterwheels, with the last stop at river mouths,” Eriksen wrote. “OCP could contribute their engineering expertise to the growing industry designing systems to tackle waste upstream.” As for how you can help, Dr. Chris Sherrington, principal consultant at Eunomia, explained why beach cleanups are one of the best ways to fight ocean plastic. “When plastic does get into the sea, it’s clear that efforts to remove it from the beaches are extremely valuable,” he said. “They’re generally more accessible than the mid-ocean, there’s more material there overall than there is floating, and it is much more concentrated on beaches.” Sherrington added that policies on cutting plastic use, such as taxes on everyday plastic items and recycling incentives, could stop the waste at the source. “Prevention is usually better than cure, and there’s a lot more we could do to stop plastic from entering the marine environment in the first place,” he said. “Preventing waste and preventing litter can go hand in han
[Biofuel] Quiet Revolution VAWT Total Flop, Says German Paper - Renewable Energy World
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/06/quiet-revolution-vawt-total-flop-says-german-paper.html [Unfortunately, enthusiasm is a poor substitute for good planning, judgment and execution. Such examples then reflect on the rest of the RE community, and the conventional energy industry loves to play up these examples and have the budgets to keep them in the forefront of the MSM message stream. links in on-line artice] Quiet Revolution VAWT Total Flop, Says German Paper June 14, 2016 By Paul Gipe The Rheinischen Post reported that the installation of a small Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) was a total flop and removed. The Quiet Revolution 5 VAWT was installed in 2012 and in the 3.5 years the turbine was in “operation” the school encountered many problems with the Darrieus turbine. This from a summary by Patrick Jüttemann on the German web portal for small wind turbines titled Vertikale Windkraftanlage wird wieder abgebaut – Aus Fehlern lernen. The turbine was installed atop a school in Rommerskirchen, a village northwest from Cologne. The original article in the Post said that most of the time the turbine, what it called a “mixer” for its similarity to an eggbeater, stood still and didn’t produce any electricity. Jüttemann suggests that the failure of the project was due to poor project planning and could provide lessons that others could learn from. Indeed that’s true, but how many lessons of poor project planning do we need before we learn anything new? We knew beforehand that the QR 5 was unlikely to perform well even when sited to best advantage. We knew that putting the turbine on top of a school in the middle of city was a very poor idea. We knew that without competent management and service the project would fail. We knew that RWE, the regional utility that installed the turbine, had invested in Quit Revolution—in Great Britain—when the company overtly opposed wind energy in its own country. We knew that RWE was greenwashing. We knew that an investment by a utility like RWE in a wind company was the kiss of death. And indeed it was. The company has been defunct for several years now. How many times do we have to do this before we learn these very basic lessons? What we can learn from this is that we don’t need any more “experiments.” We’ve been there, done that—two or more decades ago. That contemporary marketers (hustlers?), engineers, and small wind advocates should examine their motives and their understanding of the history of wind energy and why we put wind turbines where we put them. We should be especially leery when a utility comes to our community and says “We’re here to help you develop renewable energy.” That this turbine was doomed to fail—and would give small wind another—and unneeded—black eye was obvious from the beginning—for anyone who had the desire to know. More on why VAWTs have been tried—again and again—and failed every time can be found in Chapter 6 of Wind Energy for the Rest of Us. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Brazil Won’t Buy US GMO Corn, Highlights Worldwide Divide Over GMOs
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/11/brazil-gmo-corn/ [links and images in on-line article] Brazil Won’t Buy US GMO Corn, Highlights Worldwide Divide Over GMOs Lorraine Chow | June 11, 2016 10:38 am While genetically modified (GMO) foods seem to proliferate across the U.S., many other nations do not allow such products to enter or grow within their borders. A Bloomberg article illustrated how the world’s vast patchwork of GMO regulations can deter international trade. Case in point, even though the Brazilian chicken industry is suffering from a domestic corn shortage this year, companies refuse to buy corn from the U.S. because of Brazil’s stringent regulations on GMOs. “In recent years, some of the largest commodity trading companies have refused to take certain GMO crops from farmers because the seeds used hadn’t received a full array of global approvals, something that can lead to holdups at ports or even the rejection of entire cargoes,” the article stated. Brazil happens to be the second largest producer of GMO crops in the world after the U.S., and grows 29 varieties of GMO corn. However, the South American country has had a contentious history over GMOs and does not allow certain varieties to enter the country—the U.S. cultivates 43 types of GMO corn. Brazil also mandates that all products containing GMO ingredients carry a label and, earlier this year, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice fined major food manufacturers including Nestle, PepsiCo and a Mexican baking company for concealing the presence of GMOs in their products. Brazil, the world biggest exporter of chicken and grain traders, is now considering whether to request approval from the government to import GMO crops that aren’t currently permitted, Bloomberg reported. Bloomberg’s article highlights the international divisiveness over genetically altered food and the agri-tech industry, a reflection of general consumer and political unease over the safety and environmental concerns of GMOs and the pesticides they are designed to resist. In the graphic below, the Genetic Literacy Project listed a dizzying mix of countries that have either banned or allowed GMO food cultivation or imports. The group also noted that the vast majority of genetically altered crops come from only a dozen nations that allow cultivation: the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia and the Philippines. Brazil’s case is similar to India, which imported corn for the first time in 16 years this past February due to production shortage issues caused by drought. India received 250,000 tonnes of non-GMO corn from South Korea’s Daewoo International via Ukraine, however as experts warned to Reuters, it is difficult to ensure that the supply is 100 percent non-GMO, sparking fears of GMO contamination. It only takes a few GMO seeds to mix with local varieties to enter India’s food supply chain, an Indian government scientist explained. “The biggest risk of accepting anything less than 99, or 100, percent is that the imported GM corn may eventually get mixed with conventional seeds that farmers sow in India,” the scientist, who asked to not be named, told Reuters. “If, God forbid, any GM seed gets mixed here, it’ll spoil the entire Indian agriculture.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] 7 Charts Show How Renewables Broke Records Globally in 2015
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/03/renewable-investment-broke-records/ [links and images in on-line article] 7 Charts Show How Renewables Broke Records Globally in 2015 Simon Evans, Carbon Brief | June 3, 2016 12:33 pm Global investment in renewable energy reached record levels in 2015, according to a new report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). More surprisingly, perhaps, the report shows that the $286bn poured into green energy was more than double the spending on coal– and gas-fired power. It also shows, for the first time, that more renewable power capacity was added than other sources and that renewable energy investment was mostly in developing countries. Carbon Brief runs through the key findings in seven charts. 1. Record Renewables Investment in renewable energy reached a record $285.9bn in 2015, UNEP and BNEF say. That was up 5 percent on a year earlier and surpassed the previous peak of $279bn in 2011. 2. Low-Carbon Takes Over Investments in low-carbon sources of electricity, such as renewables, large hydro and nuclear, were much higher than for fossil fuel generation. The record $262bn renewable investment in 2015 was more than twice the $130bn that went into coal and gas. In fact, this has been the case for several years, highlighting the extent to which low-carbon, generally and renewables, in particular, have become mainstream. However, it’s worth noting that investments in oil and gas exploration and extraction easily eclipse spending on new electricity generation capacity. Despite huge spending cuts in the wake of the oil price crash, oil and gas investment in 2016 is expected to be $522bn, down from $595bn in 2015. 3. Majority Stake Last year also saw renewables, excluding large hydro, account for more than half of new power generation capacity for the first time. Of the 253 gigawatts (GW) added around the world in 2015, 134GW was from renewables excluding large hydro. The world’s fossil-fired capacity also increased. After accounting for closures, global coal capacity increased by 42GW and gas by 40GW. Nuclear capacity grew by 15GW. 4. Rising Share Despite renewables dominating capacity growth in 2015, it’s worth remembering that the world continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels to generate its power. Renewables supplied 10 percent of global electricity, excluding large hydro. Including large hydro, renewables’ share of global electricity generation rises to more than 20 percent. 5. Developing World Dominates The UNEP report shows, for the first time, that most renewable energy investment was in developing nations. This trend appears to be accelerating as ambition soars in China and India, while stalling across Europe. 6. China’s Surge This regional split is seen even more clearly on the map, below. China, which now spends more on renewables than the U.S. and Europe combined, has ambitious plans to double its wind capacity and treble its solar capacity during its next five-year plan to 2020. In contrast, spending in Europe has more than halved since a 2011 peak and has now fallen back to 2006 levels. U.S. investment has been relatively steady. The recent extension of wind and solar tax credits should ensure this continues. 7. Falling Costs As well as reaching record levels of investment, renewable capacity added in 2015 was the highest ever too. That’s partly thanks to renewables getting cheaper, with each dollar buying more capacity. In 2015, spending was 3 percent higher than in 2011. The 156 gigawatts (GW) added, however, was 56 percent larger than the 100GW installed in 2011. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Norway could entirely interdict fossil fuel cars by 2025
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19827 Norway could entirely interdict fossil fuel cars by 2025 07/06/2016 Norway will apparently prohibit the sale of new fossil fuel cars by 2025. Four of the most important parties of the country have reached an agreement which comprises new gasoline and diesel powered cars during the same period, as mentioned in the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. The proposal is part of the nation’s strategy to turn into one of the most ecologically progressive countries in the world. If it is accepted, the country might be the first in the world to interdict this type of cars. Approximately 24% of the new vehicles vended in Norway are powered by electricity. Earlier this month Norway, which is Europe’s major petroleum producer, declared offshore activities in its continental shelf produced about 13.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2015. In May the country offered 10 new licences to energy firms for oil exploration in the Arctic. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Wind power generation in Ireland rose by 28%
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19815 Wind power generation in Ireland rose by 28% 06/06/2016 Irish wind production rose by 28% in 2015 and presently represents one fifth of all electricity generation in the country. New data from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) demonstrate that gains by the country’s onshore wind farms were compensated by increase in the use of fossil fuels such as coal and peat. This resulted in a net marginal growth in the carbon intensity of power generation. SEAI manager of low carbon technologies Eimear Cotter declared that the figures show the complexity of Irish energy system and the correlation of economic growth, green energy consumption and fossil fuel prices. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Solar surplus sees Chilean consumers receive free electricity | Metering.com
http://www.metering.com/news/solar-surplus-chile-free-electricity/ [Wait, what? Free electricity for taxpayers and ratepayers. Dorothy, we're not in Ontario anymore. Here, free and negative-priced electricity only goes to utilities outside the province, not residents who paid to build the infrastructure.] 6 June 2016 Solar surplus sees Chilean consumers receive free electricity Due to the surplus of solar generation in Chile over recent years, consumers have been offered electricity for free. According to the Independent, solar capacity on Chile’s central power grid, has more than quadrupled to 770 megawatts in the last three years. It is reported that in some parts of the country, spot prices dropped to zero on 113 days in the first four months of this year and is expected to beat 2015’s total of 192 days. While Chile faces several unique challenges, the current situation is said to reflect a broader trend across the world, as governments, citizens and companies look to establish a sustainable path toward clean energy supply. [UK’s poor grid modernisation is curtailing RE integration, says solar body] Carlos Finat, president of the Chile’s renewable association, told Bloomberg that the Chilean government has set the energy sector as a priority, but planning has been focused on the short-term. He added that it is necessary to have a long-term focus to solve these issues. Energy in mining A boom in the country’s mining production and economic growth has also boosted energy demands, and has resulted in the development of 29 solar farms in the central grid, with an additional 15 farms planned. Chile’s energy infrastructure also presents a challenge in that it two primary power grids are isolated from each other. This means that energy cannot be transferred from one grid to another, should the one have an energy surplus. To address this challenge, the government is working to build a 3,000km (1,865-mile) transmission line to link the two grids by 2017. The Chilean government is also planning to develop a 753 km line to address congestion on the northern parts of the central grid, where power surpluses are driving prices to zero. Alex Laskey, president of Opower commented saying, “Fundamental changes have forced the utilities [all over the world] to reconsider their business model. “They have decided that they don’t want to be a commodity provider any longer. What they want to be is an energy services provider.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Oregon derailment likely to reignite oil-by-rail safety concerns | Reuters
http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-derailment-oregon-idINKCN0YQ05L Sat Jun 4, 2016 9:45am IST Oregon derailment likely to reignite oil-by-rail safety concerns By Eric M. Johnson A Union Pacific train carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames along Oregon's scenic Columbia River gorge on Friday in the first major rail accident involving crude in a year. While no injuries were reported, the train remained engulfed in flames six hours after the derailment, officials said. The accident has already renewed calls for stronger regulation to guard communities against crude-by-rail accidents. Union Pacific Corp, owner of the line, said 11 rail cars from a 96-car train carrying crude oil derailed about 70 miles (110 km) east of Portland, near the tiny town of Mosier. Oil spilled from one car, but multiple cars of Bakken crude caught fire, said Oregon Department of Transportation spokesman Tom Fuller. Firefighters were still fighting the flames several hours later. The crude was bought by TrailStone Inc's U.S. Oil & Refining Co and bound for its refinery in Tacoma, Washington, some 200 miles (322 km) northwest of the derailment, the company said. Television footage showed smoke and flames along with overturned black tanker cars snaking across the tracks, which weave through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. "I looked outside and there was black and white smoke blowing across the sky, and I could hear the flames," said Mosier resident Dan Hoffman, 32, whose house is about 100 meters (328 ft) from the derailment. "A sheriff's official in an SUV told me to get the hell out." While rail shipments have dipped from more than 1 million barrels per day in 2014 as a result of the lengthy slump in oil prices, the first such crash in a year will likely reignite the debate over safety concerns surrounding transporting crude by rail. "Seeing our beautiful Columbia River Gorge on fire today should be a wake-up call for federal and state agencies – underscoring the need to complete comprehensive environmental reviews of oil-by-rail in the Pacific Northwest," said U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Ecology officials from Washington state said there was no sign of oil in the Columbia River or Rock Creek. SAFETY MEASURES DELAYED Since 2008, there have been at least 10 major oil-train derailments across the United States and Canada, including a disaster that killed 47 people in a Quebec town in July 2013. The incident comes eight months after lawmakers extended a deadline until the end of 2018 for rail operators to implement advanced safety technology, known as positive train control, or PTC, which safety experts say can avoid derailments and other major accidents. The measures included phasing out older tank cars, adding electronic braking systems and imposing speed limits, all meant to reduce the frequency and severity of oil train crashes. The tank cars involved in Friday's crash were CPC-1232 models, which elected officials have raised concerns about in the past even though they are an upgrade from older models considered less safe. On Friday, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon repeated his call from last year for federal officials to look into whether the newer cars were safe enough. "It's clear with this crash - as it has been for years - that more must be done to protect our communities," Wyden said. Rail operators such as Union Pacific are required under federal law to disclose crude rail movements to state officials to help prepare for emergencies. The rule was put in place after a string of fiery derailments. EVACUATIONS Union Pacific hazardous materials workers responded to the scene along with contractors packing firefighting foam and a boom for oil spill containment. In its latest disclosure with the state, Union Pacific said it moved light volumes of Bakken crude oil along its state network, which includes the Oregon line. In March, it transported six unit trains, which generally carry about 75,000 barrels each. As emergency responders descended on the crash site, Interstate 84 was closed and residents were ordered to leave the area. Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the Columbia Riverkeeper advocacy group, said the crash should raise concerns about Tesoro Corp's proposed 360,000 barrels-per-day railport in Vancouver, Washington, which would be the country's largest. "We are very concerned about additional oil trains passing through our community because of their safety record, the risk of fires, of explosions, the risks of spills," he said. (Reporting by Jessica Resnick-Ault, Jarrett Renshaw, Devika Krishna Kumar, and Catherine Ngai in New York, Erwin Seba in Houston, Curtis Skinner in San Francisco and Eric M. Johnson in Calgary, Alberta; Editing by Matthew Lewis, Leslie Adler and Tom Hogue) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainab
[Biofuel] Beyond Nuclear - Nuclear Costs What's New - Exelon announces three reactor closures: Clinton in 2017, Quad Cities 1 & 2 in 2018
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-costs-whatsnew/2016/6/2/exelon-announces-three-reactor-closures-clinton-in-2017-quad.html [image and links in on-line article] Exelon announces three reactor closures: Clinton in 2017, Quad Cities 1 & 2 in 2018 As anticipated by WTTW, and now confirmed with Exelon Nuclear filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission These three just announced reactor closures now join another already announced reactor closure by Exelon -- Oyster Creek, NJ in 2019. But Ginna, NY and Three Mile Island, PA are also non-competitive, and in serious trouble. Exelon is seeking massive ratepayer subsidies to keep those failing reactors afloat. (See graphic, above.) But, despite Exelon's apparent moves to follow through on closing three reactors in IL, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Exelon could reverse the decision later if lawmakers act." As David Kraft, Director of Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago, has already advised his members, we will need to remain vigilant. June 2, 2016 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Brewery uses edible byproduct of its beer to create ocean-safe six-pack rings
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/20/1528943/-Brewery-uses-edible-byproduct-of-its-beer-to-create-ocean-safe-six-pack-rings [video, images, links in on-line article] Brewery uses edible byproduct of its beer to create ocean-safe six-pack rings By Walter Einenkel Friday May 20, 2016 · 12:20 PM EST Down in Florida, the Saltwater Brewery has come up with a seemingly no-brainer solution to one of the more distressing environmental issues of the day—plastics in the ocean. Marine animals, including birds, are killed every year by plastics, either suffocating by getting caught in them or by ingesting smaller plastics. Saltwater Brewery’s idea is to turn their classic six-pack packaging into something edible, so if it finds its way into the ocean, it will not only be safe for the life down there, it will be mildly healthy. Saltwater Brewery in Delray Beach, Fla., recently released edible six-pack rings, a brand-new approach to sustainable beer packaging. These six-pack rings are 100 percent biodegradable and edible—constructed of barley and wheat ribbons from the brewing process, this packaging can actually be safely eaten by animals that may come into contact with the refuse. Besides being biodegradable and edible, this innovative technology is still as resistant and efficient as the plastic packaging it replaces. It is, understandably, more expensive to produce, but many customers are willing to pay the difference knowing that it’s better for the environment and animal life. However, if more breweries would implement this technology, the production cost would lower and be competitive with the current plastic options, saving hundreds of thousands of marine lives. Unchecked, plastics will outweigh the fish in our oceans by 2050. Saltwater Brewery is a small fish in the pond that is plastic manufacturing, but they have a good idea. “We hope to influence the big guys,” Chris Goves, Saltwater Brewery’s president, said. “And hopefully inspire them to get on board,” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to Congress during Bush era | Business | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/exxonmobil-climate-change-scientists-congress-george-w-bush ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to Congress during Bush era Exclusive: 2001 intervention adds to evidence that oil company was aware of the science and its implications for government policy and the energy industry Suzanne Goldenberg Wednesday 25 May 2016 ExxonMobil moved to squash a well-established congressional lecture series on climate science just nine days after the presidential inauguration of George W Bush, a former oil executive, the Guardian has learned. Exxon’s intervention on the briefings, revealed here for the first time, adds to evidence the oil company was acutely aware of the state of climate science and its implications for government policy and the energy industry – despite Exxon’s public protestations for decades about the uncertainties of global warming science. Indeed, the company moved swiftly during the earliest days of the Bush administration to block public debate on global warming and delay domestic and international regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to former officials of the US Global Change Research Program, or USGCRP. The Bush White House is now notorious for censoring climate scientists and blocking international action on climate change by pulling the US out of the Kyoto agreement. The oil company is under investigation by 17 attorney generals for misleading the public about climate change, and is facing a shareholder revolt at its annual general meeting on Wednesday by investors pressing Exxon for greater disclosure about the effect of climate change on its profits. In early 2001, however, after Al Gore lost the White House to George Bush, Exxon officials apparently saw a chance to influence the incoming administration, according to former officials of the research program. The government agency was set up in 1990 and charged with producing definitive reports to Congress every four years on the effects of climate change on the US. In the mid-1990s, as part of its legal mandate, USGCRP began organizing monthly seminars on climate science for elected officials and staffers in Congress. On 29 January 2001, nine days after Bush’s inauguration, Arthur Randol, a former senior environmental advisor at Exxon, telephoned Nicky Sundt, then communications director for the research program, to inquire about the future of the lecture series. A few days earlier, Sundt had emailed a survey to congressional staffers seeking suggestions for the next lecture series. Exxon had not been on his distribution list, and Sundt said he was surprised to receive a call from Randol. “I thought it was very unusual, if not inappropriate, for a fossil fuel lobbyist to be calling me directly days after the administration was sworn in only directly to instruct me on how we would be communicating to the Congress on climate change,” Sundt told the Guardian. “This is ExxonMobil reaching into the federal government science apparatus and seeking to influence the communication of science.” Sundt, who now directs the WWF-US climate science programme (although he said he was not speaking on behalf of the organisation), said he made notes of the phone call. The briefings had then been running for a number of years and were well regarded by Republican as well as Democratic staffers, according to Bryan Hannegan, a Senate staffer and scientist who went on to work for the Bush administration and is now at the National Renewable Energy Lab. But the Exxon lobbyist saw it differently. “I very specifically remember him suggesting that the seminars were what he called ‘agenda-driven’, and he indicated that with the new administration and the Congress that – if the seminars continue – he hoped to see a different balance of viewpoints,” Sundt said. That was Sundt’s only encounter with Randol. He told his USGCRP colleagues about the telephone call but did not speak out publicly until now. In retrospect, Sundt said the telephone call was the first sign of the energy industry’s efforts to squash the agency’s reporting about climate change, and the broader debate about global warming, during the George W Bush era. Bush went on to pull the US out of the Kyoto climate change agreement, and White House officials were later found to have played down scientists’ warnings about the dangers of climate change. Randol, who left Exxon in 2003 after 25 years with the oil company, was known to have played a key role in such efforts – even before Sundt came foward. On 6 February 2001, not long after his phone call to Sundt, Randol wrote a memo urging the Bush administration to demand the removal of Bob Watson, a well-regarded climate scientist, as head of the UN’s climate science panel, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Randol describes Watson as “hand-picked by Al Gore”. “Restructure the U
[Biofuel] Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America - The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-found-to-be-a-leading-source-of-air-pollution-in-north-america/article30151841/ [Oh-oh! Science. This story does not take into account burning off over 500,000 hectares - or 1,250,000 acres - about the area of Prince Edward Island - of surrounding boreal forest starting a few weeks ago. The burn area is still growing.] Oil sands found to be a leading source of air pollution in North America IVAN SEMENIUK - SCIENCE REPORTER The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:39PM EDT Last updated Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:53AM EDT A cloud of noxious particles brewing in the air above the Alberta oil sands is one of the most prolific sources of air pollution in North America, often exceeding the total emissions from Canada’s largest city, federal scientists have discovered. The finding marks the first time researchers have quantified the role of oil sands operations in generating secondary organic aerosols, a poorly understood class of pollutants that have been linked to a range of adverse health effects. The result adds to the known impact of the oil sands, including as a source of carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. It also comes on the same day that the Bank of Canada delivered a sobering message about the country’s economy, saying the devastating Alberta wildfires that hit Fort McMurray – leading to production cuts in the oil industry and the destruction of thousands of buildings – will cause a drop in Canada’s gross domestic product in the second quarter. Given the economic circumstances and the political sensitivities currently surrounding the oil sands, the air pollutant study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, offered the strongest test yet of the Trudeau government’s promise to allow scientists in federal labs to speak freely with journalists about their results. The pollutants the scientist measured are minute particles that are created when chemical-laden vapours from the mining and processing of bitumen react with oxygen in the atmosphere and are transformed into solids that can drift on the wind for days. While researchers have long thought that the oil sands must be a source of such particles, the new results show that their impact on air quality is significant and of potential concern to communities that are downwind. “It’s another aspect that can and probably should be considered” in assessing the oil sands’ environmental footprint, said John Liggio, an atmospheric chemist with Environment and Climate Change Canada and lead author of the study. Using an aircraft bristling with sophisticated sensors, Dr. Liggio and his colleagues flew back and forth repeatedly through the largely invisible plume of emissions that extends from the oil sands in order to record the concentrations of a wide range of pollutants. The measurements were made in the summer of 2013, and gathered during nearly 100 hours of flying time over the oil sands and adjacent boreal forest. “It’s not for the faint of heart – or stomach,” Dr. Liggio said of the low-level flights he and his colleagues endured during the study. The airborne data, supported by further work with computer models and laboratory experiments, show that 45 to 84 tonnes of secondary organic aerosols are formed by the oil sands a day. By comparison, Canada’s largest urban area, which includes Toronto and surrounding municipalities, generates 67 tonnes a day, much of it derived from car and truck exhaust. “The take-away is that there’s more that’s emitted into the atmosphere than we’ve fully appreciated,” said Jeffrey Brook, an air-quality researcher with Environment and Climate Change Canada who participated in the oil sands study. In 2014, the federal and provincial governments jointly issued standards for long-term average exposure to fine particulate matter. The emissions of secondary organic aerosols measured from the oil sands do not appear to exceed those long-term standards, but they do suggest that people living within reach of the emissions are experiencing elevated levels of fine particles in the air they breathe. Scientists are still trying to understand the complex health effects those particles can trigger when inhaled, but they have been linked in previous studies to lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The oil sands aerosols are also similar in abundance to those that U.S. researchers recorded rising from the massive oil spill caused by the Deepwater Horizon drilling-rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. “However, the oil spill lasted a few months. The Alberta oil sand operations are an ongoing industrial activity,” said Joost de Gouw, a research physicist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who led the oil spill measurements. Dr. de Gouw called the Canadian team’s work “convincing,” and added that air-quality researchers were
[Biofuel] Energy East pipeline spill could affect Quebec drinking water supply | Montreal Gazette
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/energy-east-pipeline-spill-could-affect-drinking-water-warn-teachers Energy East pipeline spill could affect drinking water, warn teachers Presse Canadienne Published on: May 26, 2016 | Last Updated: May 26, 2016 1:30 PM EDT Water treatment teachers say they fear for the supply of drinking water to several municipalities in Quebec in the event of a major spill from the Eastern Energy pipeline. The majority of wastewater treatment plants in the metropolitan area have no spare water intake, in case of such an event, and they have only a supply of water for 12 to 16 hours, the teachers stressed Thursday at a press conference in Montreal. The teaching staff of the National Centre therapy training water of the Commission scolaire des Trois-Lacs is one of two centres specializing in this field in Quebec. It produced a 40-page draft on the Energy East TransCanada pipeline, evaluating what would be the impact on drinking water from a potential major oil spill. Guy Coderre, one of the presenters , did not pull any punches, saying the “flushgate” in Montreal — which concerned only the discharge of waste water, not drinking water — the Saguenay flood and drinking water problems experienced in the wake of the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic would be nothing compared to what might happen to the water supply in case of a major spill of East Energy pipeline. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Small offshore oil spills put seabirds at risk: Industry self-monitoring is failing, say researchers -- ScienceDaily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160526095451.htm [image in on-line article] Small offshore oil spills put seabirds at risk Industry self-monitoring is failing, say researchers Date: May 26, 2016 Source: York University Summary: Seabirds exposed to even a dime-sized amount of oil can die of hypothermia in cold-water regions, but despite repeated requests by Environment Canada, offshore oil operators are failing when it comes to self-monitoring of small oil spills, says new research. Chronic pollution from many small oil spills may have greater population-level impacts on seabirds than a single large spill, suggest researchers. Seabirds exposed to even a dime-sized amount of oil can die of hypothermia in cold-water regions, but despite repeated requests by Environment Canada, offshore oil operators are failing when it comes to self-monitoring of small oil spills, says new research out of York University. Chronic pollution from many small oil spills may have greater population-level impacts on seabirds than a single large spill, suggest researchers Gail Fraser and Vincent Racine of York U's Faculty of Environmental Studies. However, seabirds are rarely considered in the monitoring of small spills from offshore oil production projects in Newfoundland and Labrador even though Environment Canada has asked that they be included. In an article published in the international journal, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Fraser and Racine looked at how offshore oil operators monitored and responded to small spills (less than 1,000 litres) for three production projects off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. In three high-profile environmental assessments Environment Canada repeatedly requested that impacts on seabirds be monitored following small spills, but this has not happened. "Industry self-monitoring of spills has failed to collect information that would allow researchers to understand the impact of chronic oil spills on seabirds," said Fraser, who along with Racine is calling for independent observers on the offshore platforms. "Many seabird populations are declining and understanding sources of mortality is critical to their conservation." Fraser and Racine looked at reporting and monitoring of spills between 1997 and 2010. The researchers obtained operator spill reports under an Access to Information request. They found there were 220 daytime spills. Reporting on the presence or absence of seabirds was done in only 11 (five per cent) of the cases. The Canadian Wildlife Service's seabird survey protocol should be followed when a spill occurs, but none of the reports showed evidence of that. The time it takes for a small spill to dissipate was also not in the spill reports and this information is required to estimate possible interactions of oil spilled with seabirds. "The lack of information on seabirds during oil spills indicates a need for third-party observers," said Fraser. The joint federal and provincial Newfoundland & Labrador the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) is responsible for administering environmental assessment follow-up procedures, including monitoring and responses to oil spills. The C-NLOPB has repeatedly rejected calls for independent, third party observers on platforms while seemingly being incapable of enforcing Environment Canada's recommendations. However, during the White Rose environmental assessment process the C-NLOPB publicly acknowledged "that should such circumstances arise, it is fully prepared to adopt a different regulatory approach, including consideration of full-time on-site oversight of the operations concerned." While the circumstances were not defined, Fraser argues that "A failure to collect information on seabirds during oil spills for 13 years is sufficient to demand the regulatory approach be changed to include third-party observers." Story Source: The above post is reprinted from materials provided by York University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. Journal Reference: Gail S. Fraser, Vincent Racine. An evaluation of oil spill responses for offshore oil production projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: Implications for seabird conservation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2016; 107 (1): 36 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.026 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Big oil companies to invest in green energy
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19717 [While I see the Statoil and Total moves as genuine moves to ride the shift away from fossil fuels to renewables, my read of of the ExxonMobil investment in CCS and fuel cells is a way to vacuum up taxpayer dollars to support two dead-end paths, both of which are intended to extend the life of the fossil fuel energy economy. I see the Saudi move as highly instructive. As the world's swing oil producer, they are planning to continue exporting oil to world markets, while moving their own infrastructure to renewables.] Big oil companies to invest in green energy 26/05/2016 Big oil companies are stepping up its investments in renewables and clean energy, being hit by declining oil prices and plunging profits. Oil majors like Total, ExxonMobil, Statoil and Shell have announced a series of “green investments” in wind farms, electric battery storage systems and carbon capture and storage (CCS). These moves come after Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude exporter, said it plans to sell off parts of its national oil company and diversify its economy away from petroleum. On Monday 9 May, French oil giant Total announced a $1 bn takeover of Saft Groupe, which specialises in batteries for the transport, industry and defence sectors. Total has also acquired a majority share in SunPower, a leading solar concern. ExxonMobil has recently unveiled plans to investigate fuel cell technology in order to build carbon capture and storage facilities and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from power installations. The moves by ExxonMobil and Total come three months after Norway’s oil and gas giant, Statoil, announced a $200m, four-to-seven-year investment in energy storage, renewables, efficiency and smart grids. It is believed, that this example will soon be followed by Shell. The Dutch-Anglo oil company has created a separate division, New Energies, to invest in renewables and low-carbon power, to be formally announced at a strategy briefing on 7 June. Last week, Shell said it is bidding in a partnership to build two wind farms off the Dutch coast. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Oil profits, pipelines and the human cost of regulatory capture | rabble.ca
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/behind-numbers/2016/05/oil-profits-pipelines-and-human-cost-regulatory-capture [links in on-line article] Oil profits, pipelines and the human cost of regulatory capture By Bruce Campbell May 24, 2016 The Canadian public overwhelming believes that government's first priority is to protect their health, safety and the environment. They do not trust corporations to regulate themselves, believing that they will privilege profits over safety. (See the CCPA report "Canada's Regulatory Obstacle Course" for polling data.) Only after a major disaster does the public lose confidence in government's ability to protect them. And only then do flaws in regulatory regimes come to light. Despite the rarity of such events, the regulatory failures behind major disasters have common features that interact with and reinforce each other. It's because of these commonalities that we can link the U.S. financial crisis, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and 1982 Ocean Ranger oilrig disasters, nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, the 1992 Westray Mine explosion, and of course the devastating 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic. In each case we find vague regulations, a lack of inspections (to verify compliance with safety measures), the inability to enforce the rules or penalize those caught breaking them, corporate unwillingness to follow up on violations of company rules, and evidence of regulatory capture. This last element is fundamental, but too frequently ignored. Regulatory capture exists where regulation is routinely designed to benefit the private interest of the regulated industry at the expense of the public interest. A regulator can be deemed captured when industry is routinely able to shape the regulations governing its operations, block or delay new regulations, and remove or dilute existing regulations that may adversely -- and usually inadvertently -- affect costs. Yet strangely, the concept is largely invisible in the lexicon of policy-makers. When I mentioned regulatory capture last week before the Senate transport committee, one senator thought I was talking about the Stockholm Syndrome. There is substantial evidence (about which I've written elsewhere) that regulatory capture was a contributing factor in the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster. There are also signs it has infected other sectors. Drug safety expert and CCPA research associate Joel Lexchin identified the mid-1990s as a turning point for pharmaceutical regulation in Canada -- the moment public safety was subsumed under Big Pharma's bottom-line interests. Under government orders to cut costs, Health Canada began charging user fees to drug companies for reviewing new drug applications. As a result, the regulator became dependent on the companies it was regulating for a big portion of the money needed to run the drug regulatory system. More recently, a CBC investigation exposed how tax accountants, including KPMG executives, were wining and dining Canada Revenue Agency officials at the same time that they were being investigated for a tax avoidance scheme in the Isle of Man. Independent researcher Ellen Gould has uncovered similar evidence of collusion between the U.S. Coalition of Services Industries (CSI) and government negotiators from a number of countries involved in Trade in International Services Agreement (TISA) negotiations, to which Canada is a party. In fact, most trade agreements are written by and for the corporations whose activities they will eventually regulate, with no or very little input from other affected groups. Under the last government, the Canadian public got used to stories of regulatory capture in the energy sector, though it was rarely explicitly named as such. Former BC Hydro chairman Mark Eliesen withdrew from the Kinder Morgan pipeline hearings, claiming the National Energy Board was captured by the oil and gas industry, and sacrificing the public interest for private infrastructure needs. In his investigative series for the National Observer, journalist Mike de Souza found separate instances of the NEB agreeing to either remove potentially incriminating paragraphs or neutralize the language in audits of Enbridge and TransCanada pipeline spills. (The NEB approved the doubling of the Kinder Morgan pipeline on May 19, declaring it "in Canada's public interest.") Regulatory capture thrives in an environment where government is ideologically committed to free-market deregulation. Previous Liberal governments have advanced the project stealthily, using nuanced terms like "smart regulation." The Harper government put deregulation on the front burner, launching a "Red Tape Reduction Commission" mandated to reduce the costs of regulation to business. The commission's eventual report was the basis of the government's 2012 Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (CDRM), which established marching orders for deregulation across government.
[Biofuel] Oil pipeline near Tracy spills thousands of gallons of crude - SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oil-pipeline-near-Tracy-spills-thousands-of-7940489.php [Same story, different day. [Oil company / operator] does not know the cause of the leak, but figures they can fix it in a day. Follow up items will tell us the amount spilled is greater than the original estimate, the repair and clean-up will take longer than orginally stated, and we will learn the actual party who discovered the problem is not the operator.] Oil pipeline near Tracy spills thousands of gallons of crude By Kurtis Alexander Updated 4:30 pm, Monday, May 23, 2016 About 50 hazardous materials responders were on the scene of an apparent oil pipeline rupture Monday along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border near Tracy, cleaning up a spill reported to be as much as 21,000 gallons. The leak in the underground pipe, which was reported by Shell Pipeline Co. after a line between Coalinga (Fresno County) and Martinez lost pressure Friday, was spilling crude oil into the soil but was not near any waterways where the problem would escalate. Shell officials said they have since shut down their San Pablo Bay Pipeline and have a response team on-site clearing contaminated soil and monitoring local air, water and ground conditions with local and state authorities. The effort is concentrated near Interstate 580 and West Patterson Pass Road. The cause of the apparent rupture has not been identified, but Shell officials said they expected it to be fixed Monday. There is no timeline for when the oil flow will be turned back on. “Our primary focus continues to be the safety and health of the responders, for the protection of the environment and to minimize any further impact as a result of this release,” Ray Fisher, a company spokesman, said in an email to The Chronicle. “We are committed to the safe and thorough response and management of this incident.” The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, which is leading the cleanup, did not return calls from The Chronicle. Neighboring Alameda County officials reported in a filing with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services that 500 barrels of oil had been discharged into the ground, but none into waterways. -- Darryl McMahon Project Manager ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Senators want more liability for oil spills
http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Senators-want-more-liability-for-oil-spills-380437301.html Senators want more liability for oil spills Posted: Sun 9:16 PM, May 22, 2016 Michigan Senators are asking the Department of Transportation to make sure oil pipelines beneath the Great Lakes are classified as offshore. This is so the owners of the pipeline would have to pay the full cost of a cleanup for an oil spill. Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow requested the classification in a letter sent to the U.S. Transportation Secretary on Tuesday, referring to the Enbridge pipeline that runs underneath the Straits of Mackinac. The Senators are urging for the change because under the Oil Pollution Act, liability cleanup costs for onshore operations are capped at $634 million. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] ‘Fundamentally unstable’: Scientists confirm their fears about East Antarctica’s biggest glacier - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/18/fundamentally-unstable-scientists-confirm-their-worries-about-east-antarcticas-biggest-glacier/ [image, video and links in on-line article] ‘Fundamentally unstable’: Scientists confirm their fears about East Antarctica’s biggest glacier By Chris Mooney May 18 Scientists ringing alarm bells about the melting of Antarctica have focused most of their attention, so far, on the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet, which is grounded deep below sea level and highly exposed to the influence of warming seas. But new research published in the journal Nature Wednesday reaffirms that there’s a possibly even bigger — if slower moving — threat in the much larger ice mass of East Antarctica. The Totten Glacier holds back more ice than any other in East Antarctica, which is itself the biggest ice mass in the world by far. Totten, which lies due south of Western Australia, currently reaches the ocean in the form of a floating shelf of ice that’s 90 miles by 22 miles in area. But the entire region, or what scientists call a “catchment,” that could someday flow into the sea in this area is over 200,000 square miles in size — bigger than California. Moreover, in some areas that ice is close to 2.5 miles thick, with over a mile of that vertical extent reaching below the surface of the ocean. It’s the very definition of vast. Warmer waters in this area could, therefore, ultimately be even more damaging than what’s happening in West Antarctica — and the total amount of ice that could someday be lost would raise sea levels by as much as 13 feet. “This is not the first part of East Antarctica that’s likely to show a multi-meter response to climate change,” said Alan Aitken, the new study’s lead author and a researcher with the University of Western Australia in Perth. “But it might be the biggest in the end, because it’s continually unstable as you go towards the interior of the continent.” The research — which found that Totten Glacier, and the ice system of which it is part, has retreated many times in the past and contains several key zones of instability — was conducted in collaboration with a team of international scientists from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. A press statement about the study from the U.S. group, based at the University of Texas at Austin, described the study as showing that “vast regions of the Totten Glacier in East Antarctica are fundamentally unstable.” Indeed, the Totten Glacier watch has been ramping up lately: Scientists have already documented that warm ocean waters can reach the glacier’s base and that the enormous ice shelf that currently stabilizes it, extending over the top of the ocean, is melting from below. The glacier is thinning quickly, and its grounding line, where the ice shelf descends and meets the seafloor, has retreated inland three kilometers between 1996 and 2013 in some areas. Finally, recent research has suggested that Totten can only lose a tiny 4.2 percent of its remaining ice shelf before the structure starts losing the ability to brace the larger glacier, holding it in place. It all points to a region of enormous vulnerability, and one that is already undergoing change. “In a warming world, West Antarctica and regions of East Antarctica that are below sea level will be the most likely to change,” says Robin Bell, an Antarctic expert with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, who reviewed the new study for The Post. In the new research, researchers took aircraft-based measurements across the vastness of Totten Glacier, and the extremely deep and thick ice canyons behind it — which scientists call “subglacial basins” — in order to understand a critical yet invisible feature: precisely what the layers of rock beneath the ice are really like. This, in turn, provides a clue to the behavior of this region in past warm eras. When marine-based glaciers move back and forth across a seascape repeatedly, they grind against the seafloor and dig up piles of looser sediment, such as sandstone, depositing them in a new location. But when glaciers move more quickly, sediment beneath them remains more undisturbed. The radar, magnetic and gravity measurements conducted in the study found key regions where Totten Glacier and the connected systems of ice behind it lie atop plenty of sediment — suggesting the glacier retreats rapidly in these areas. But it also detected areas where there isn’t much sediment at all, suggesting that it grinds away in these locations a great deal, or in the words of UT-Austin’s Jamin Greenbaum, one of the researchers behind the study, is able to “ping-pong back and forth” over long time periods. The gist is that while Totten may be in a relatively stable configuration now, if it retreats far enough, then it can start an unstable backslide into deep undersea
[Biofuel] Portugal Powered For Four Days Straight Entirely By Renewable Energy | IFLScience
http://www.iflscience.com/portugal-powered-four-days-straight-entirely-renewable-energy [links in on-line article] Portugal Powered For Four Days Straight Entirely By Renewable Energy May 19, 2016 | by Josh L Davis Just a few days after it was found that Germany was producing so much energy from renewables that they effectively had to pay consumers to use it, yet another country has hit another renewable milestone. Portugal managed to keep its lights on for four consecutive days, powered only by renewables. Data analysis of the country’s national energy network figures reveal that all electricity consumption was covered by solar, wind, and hydro power from 6.45 a.m UTC on Saturday, May 7 until 5.45 p.m UTC Wednesday, May 11. This impressive feat is just one of a number to have come out of Europe over the last year or so, from Germany last week, to Denmark last year breaking its own record by generating 42 percent of its electricity in 2015 by wind power alone. “This is a significant achievement for a European country, but what seems extraordinary today will be commonplace in Europe in just a few years,” explains James Watson, the CEO of SolarPower Europe, to The Guardian. “The energy transition process is gathering momentum and records such as this will continue to be set and broken across Europe.” The country has come a long way in its commitments to reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and switching to more sustainable energy sources. With the milestone being hit in the spring, the energy companies hope that summer will be equally as successful. And all this from a country that only three years ago generated half of its energy from burning fuel, and almost a third from nuclear. By last year, however, they managed to turn things around, so that now renewables on average account for just under half of all electricity generation. “These data show that Portugal can be more ambitious in a transition to a net consumption of electricity from 100% renewable, with huge reductions in emissions of greenhouse gasses, which cause global warming and consequently climate change,” said the Portuguese sustainability NGO, Zero, in a statement. The recent 107-hour stretch has been put down not just to favorable weather conditions, but also better management of the energy grid. Portugal just goes to show that it is entirely possible to rapidly shift from a nation heavily reliant on fossil fuels, to one which can be powered in large parts by renewables, despite what many opponents say. This milestone is another marker, of which many more will come over the following months and years, as more and more nations not just in Europe but around the world embrace clean energy. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Anti-Nestle ballot measure: Bid to block Cascade Locks water plant succeeds (election results) | OregonLive.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2016/05/anti-nestle_ballot_measure_in.html Anti-Nestle ballot measure: Bid to block Cascade Locks water plant succeeds (election results) By Kelly House | The Oregonian/OregonLive on May 17, 2016 at 9:11 PM, updated May 17, 2016 at 10:03 PM Hood River County voters have said yes to a measure that would effectively block Nestlé Waters' plan to bottle water in Cascade Locks by banning large water bottling operations in the county. Partial returns Tuesday showed the measure winning with 68 percent of the vote. The measure's backers celebrated with cheering and speeches in Hood River, while a Nestle spokesman expressed regret while noting "we respect the democratic process." Nestlé for seven years has sought a way to bottle water from Oxbow Springs, which gurgles out of hillside just outside the Columbia River Gorge town of Cascade Locks. The company hopes to build a $50 million bottling plant at the town's port, where 100 million gallons annually of Oxbow Springs water would be bottled under the Arrowhead brand. Additional Cascade Locks municipal water would be sold under the company's Pure Life brand. But the plan has faced opposition from the start, despite widespread support among the town's leadership. Measure 14-55 was the latest wave of backlash in a yearslong battle. Julia DeGraw, an organizer for Food and Water Watch, a national group leading the Nestle opposition in Oregon, called Tuesday's victory "proof that voters are smart." "When you talk to them about something as crucial as their water, which is necessary for an agricultural economy, right after they have a drought, there is not enough misinformation the opposition can throw at voters to make them buy it," DeGraw said. Critics oppose Nestle on environmental and ideological grounds. Some argue against the waste inherent in selling water in plastic bottles, while others say Nestlé's plan amounts to privatizing a public resource for corporate profits. Some target Nestlé specifically as a bad actor that exploits small, economically depressed communities while failing to deliver on promises of financial salvation. Members of the Warm Springs tribe, who consider Oxbow Springs a sacred site, say state leaders could be violating their tribal treaty rights by agreeing to let Nestlé take the spring's water. Nestle's supporters, meanwhile, see the company's interest in Cascade Locks as a much-needed win for a community that has struggled for decades to fill the economic hole created when Oregon's timber industry contracted. Water, they argue, is one of the city's few abundant resources. Nestle's proposal to trade water for jobs and, eventually, property taxes (the city expects to provide tax abatements), sounds like a solid deal to them. The company expects to employ up to 50 people, and once it begins paying property taxes, the revenue will nearly double Cascade Locks' property tax base. Debora Lorang, who spearheaded a group that fought the ballot measure, noted a significant portion of Cascade Locks voters opposed the measure. "We want to be able to repair our town infrastructure," Lorang said. "There was a brown-out yesterday for no good reason." It's unclear what the election loss means for Nestlé. Aurora del Val, leader of the Local Water Alliance, which sponsored the ballot measure, said she expects Nestle to sue. DeGraw expressed confidence that the measure is legally-defensible. "It was written knowing full well we were going up against he world's biggest multinational food and beverage company," she said. In a statement Tuesday, Nestle spokesman Dave Palais said company leaders are "disappointed," but gave no hint of the company's plans in Oregon. "While we firmly believe this decision on a county primary ballot is not in the best interest of Cascade Locks, we respect the democratic process," he said. Lorang, meanwhile, cautioned that the fight over Nestle's right to set up shop in Cascade Locks "ain't over 'til it's over." She raised legal questions about county voters' ability to weigh in the city matters. "We could still see this be overturned in court," she said. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] National Research Council GMO Study Compromised by Industry Ties
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/16/gmo-study-compromised-industry-ties/ [links in on-line article] National Research Council GMO Study Compromised by Industry Ties Wenonah Hauter | May 16, 2016 12:45 pm One day before the National Research Council (NRC) is scheduled to release a multi-year research report about genetically engineered (GMO) crops and food, Food & Water Watch has released an issue brief detailing the far-reaching conflicts of interest at the NRC and its parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences. Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs charts the millions of dollars in donations the NRC receives from biotech companies like Monsanto, documents the one-sided panels of scientists the NRC enlists to carry out its GMO studies and describes the revolving door of NRC staff directors who shuffle in and out of agriculture and biotech industry groups. The new issue brief also shows how NRC routinely arrives at watered-down scientific conclusions on agricultural issues based on industry science. While companies like Monsanto and its academic partners are heavily involved in the NRC’s work on GMOs, critics have long been marginalized. Many groups have called on the NRC many times to reduce industry influence, noting how conflicts of interest clearly diminish its independence and scientific integrity. More than half of the invited authors of the new NRC study are involved in GMO development or promotion or have ties to the biotechnology industry—some have consulted for or have received research funding from, biotech companies. NRC has not publicly disclosed these conflicts. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the NRC is required to form balanced committees of scientists to carry out its research—and to disclose any conflicts of interests. Yet the NRC failed to even disclose the conflicts of the members of this deeply unbalanced committee. The NRC’s own conflicts-of-interest policy acknowledges its responsibility for conducting balanced science and the organization frequently trumpets its role in providing policy makers with independent, objective scientific advice on topics like GMOs. Congress chartered the parent organization of the NRC, the National Academy of Science, to offer objective guidance to the government that could be used to shape rules and regulations. Food & Water Watch found similar industry influence in NRC’s work on other agricultural topics. The new issue brief documents conflicts of interest and industry bias in a 2015 NRC report on animal agriculture, authored by industry representatives from Monsanto and Smithfield Foods and funded by industry groups like Tyson Foods and the National Pork Board. In April 2016, the NRC began a new, in-depth study on improving regulations of GMOs that, once again, is very heavily biased toward industry perspectives. Agribusiness companies like Monsanto have an outsized role at our public universities, at peer-reviewed journals and the NRC. We won’t have good public policy on new technologies like GMOs until these rampant conflicts of interest are addressed. In response to the industry influence at the NRC, Food & Water Watch calls for the following changes: Congress should expand and enforce the Federal Advisory Committee Act to ensure that the scientific advice the NRC produces for the government is free of conflicts of interest and bias. Congress should immediately halt all taxpayer funding for agricultural projects at the NRC until meaningful conflicts-of-interest policies are enforced. The NRC should no longer engage funders, directors, authors or reviewers that have a financial interest in the outcome of any of the NRC’s work. The NRC should prohibit the citation of science funded or authored by industry, given the obvious potential for bias. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] SkyTruth: Oil Spill Response Is A Joke
http://blog.skytruth.org/2016/05/oil-spill-response-is-joke.html [While we are seeing - again - the oil industry duplicity in pretending they have have monitoring, prevention and response tools in place, what really annoys me is that we have a truly innovative and effective oil skimmer technology, tested by third parties, recognized by the Canadian Coast Guard as a real advance, but cannot convince anyone to actually buy it and use it. If somebody really wants to address this issue for oil spill recovery, please get in touch with me. links and images in the on-line article] Monday, May 16, 2016 Oil Spill Response Is A Joke But not a very funny joke: Thank you, Shell, for demonstrating quite convincingly over the past 4 days that oil spill cleanup is nothing more than a convenient fantasy. At about 11am local time last Thursday, Shell reported about 90,000 gallons of oil leaked from a pipeline 90 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico in the Glider field, one of their recent cutting-edge deepwater developments in water 3,400' deep. Oil from wells in the Glider field flows through a single pipeline to the Brutus tension-leg platform (TLP) about 7 miles away. Apparently this innovative "cost-effective flow assurance method" sprang a leak. Here are a few unfortunate things we've learned from this: Pipeline leak detection is unreliable. This spill was discovered accidentally by a helicopter pilot flying over the area who happened to spot the slick. That's right: a modern pipeline at a high-tech deepwater development project leaked thousands of gallons of oil, and that leak was accidentally discovered. Not because high-tech telemetry on the pipeline signaled an alarm due to a drop in pressure; not because flow metering detected a difference between what was going in one end of the pipe vs. what was coming out the other. How long would this leak have continued, if not for the sheer luck of having a vigilant pilot happening by? Oil spill response vessels grossly underperform. As of yesterday, 5 spill response vessels (4 oil skimming vessels and a work boat named the Harvey Express) were dispatched to tackle the slick as it drifted steadily west away from the source of the spill in Green Canyon lease block 248. The first to arrive, a fast-response boat named the H.I. Rich, showed up about 11pm Thursday. Two other skimmers, Deep Blue Responder and Louisiana Responder, arrived at 2am and 3am on Friday morning, May 13. The last one to the party, Mississippi Responder, took 26 hours to make it out to the slick, arriving at 11pm on the 13th. By that time the slick had drifted more than 30 miles away from the Glider field. These skimmer vessels are rated to remove thousands of barrels of oily water per day: 12,500 bpd for the H.I. Rich, and a combined 39,220 bpd for the others. At 42 gallons per barrel, that's a total capacity of more than 2 million gallons per day for these 4 vessels. Sounds pretty good, huh? By noon on Sunday, based on the arrival times of the skimmer vessels that we tracked using their AIS broadcasts, more than 6 million gallons should have been collected and this 90,000 gallon oil spill should have been long gone. Yet on Sunday the Coast Guard reported only 50,000 gallons of "an oily-water mixture" had been recovered. Video taken Sunday during an overflight by Dr. Ian MacDonald of Florida State University with pilot Bonny Schumaker of On Wings of Care shows thick stringers of emulsified oil in a slick several miles long, similar to what Greenpeace (pics) and our Gulf Monitoring Consortium partner Jonathan Henderson (video) encountered on Saturday. Dr. MacDonald observed that the response vessels seemed to be missing the thickest parts of the slick and were generally making very little headway, despite operating under fairly calm conditions (average wind speed of 7 knots recorded at Brutus TLP over this time period), nearly ideal for oil cleanup operations. Federal permits for deepwater drilling rely on wishful thinking. Since the BP / Deepwater Horizon spill, companies applying to the federal government for permission to drill in our public waters are required to calculate a worst-case scenario oil spill should they, for example, lose all control of a well as BP did in 2010. Then they must present a response plan that asserts they have the capacity and ability to adequately respond to that spill. The most recent plan [warning: humongous, unwieldy PDF file] for Green Canyon block 248, dating from 2013, envisions a worst-case spill averaging 15.3 MILLION gallons of oil per day -- every day -- for up to 92 days. The response plans to match these massive potential spills rely on oil skimmers performing at their rated capacity. Yet by noon Sunday, after two full days of cleanup response with four of these vessels and 130 workers, only 50,000 gallons of oil and (mostly) water had been recovered, possibly even wor
[Biofuel] Ontario to spend $7-billion on sweeping climate change plan - The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-spend-7-billion-in-sweeping-climate-change-plan/article30029081/ [Wow! Now to figure out how they square this with a recent decision to fund more nuclear fleet rebuilds and new builds. Or how this aligns (it doesn't) with recent federal government musings on driving forward with new pipeline projects from the Alberta tar sands - currently shutting down and evacuating due to being surrounded by monster forest fires - to oceanside bulk tanker terminals on the Atlantic and Pacific. With this funding and plan, Ontario could well be on the road to getting off oil before the Energy East pipeline which is intended to cross the province is completed. Of course, none of the oil to be sent to the Atlantic is actually intended to displace any oil currently imported for use in eastern Canada (Ontario and points east).] environment Ontario to spend $7-billion on sweeping climate change plan ADRIAN MORROW And GREG KEENAN TORONTO — The Globe and Mail Published Monday, May 16, 2016 5:00AM EDT Last updated Monday, May 16, 2016 4:30PM EDT The Ontario government will spend more than $7-billion over four years on a sweeping climate change plan that will affect every aspect of life – from what people drive to how they heat their homes and workplaces – in a bid to slash the province’s carbon footprint. Ontario will begin phasing out natural gas for heating, provide incentives to retrofit buildings and give rebates to drivers who buy electric vehicles. It will also require that gasoline sold in the province contain less carbon, bring in building code rules requiring all new homes by 2030 to be heated with electricity or geothermal systems, and set a target for 12 per cent of all new vehicle sales to be electric by 2025. While such policies are likely to be popular with ecoconscious voters, who will now receive government help to green their lives, they are certain to cause mass disruption for the province’s automotive and energy sectors, which will have to make significant changes to the way they do business. And they have already created tension within the government between Environment Minister Glen Murray and some of his fellow ministers who worry he is going too far. The 57-page Climate Change Action Plan was debated by Premier Kathleen Wynne’s cabinet Wednesday and subsequently obtained by The Globe and Mail. Stamped “Cabinet Confidential,” the document lays out a strategy from 2017 to 2021. It contains about 80 different policies, grouped into 32 different “actions.” Each action has a price tag attached to it, as well as an estimate of the amount of emissions it will cut by 2020. The Globe had previously uncovered details of the plan, but this is the first time the full blueprint has been revealed. The strategy is scheduled to be further reviewed by cabinet ministers and fine-tuned, sources said, with public release slated for June. The many new programs will be paid for out of revenue from the province’s upcoming cap-and-trade system, which is expected to be approved by the legislature this week and come into effect at the start of next year. Together, the cap-and-trade system and the action plan are the backbone of the province’s strategy to cut emissions to 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, 37 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050. “We are on the cusp of a once-in-a-lifetime transformation. It’s a transformation of how we look at our planet and the impact we have on it,” reads a preamble to the plan signed by Ms. Wynne. “It’s a transformation that will forever change how we live, work, play and move.” Highlights include: $3.8-billion for new grants, rebates and other subsidies to retrofit buildings, and move them off natural gas and onto geothermal, solar power or other forms of electric heat. Many of these programs will be administered by a new Green Bank, modelled on a similar agency in New York State, to provide financing for solar and geothermal projects. New building code rules that will require all homes and small buildings built in 2030 or later to be heated without using fossil fuels, such as natural gas. This will be expanded to all buildings before 2050. Other building code changes will require major renovations to include energy-efficiency measures. All homes will also have to undergo an energy-efficiency audit before they are sold. $285-million for electric vehicle incentives. These include a rebate of up to $14,000 for every electric vehicle purchased; up to $1,000 to install home charging; taking the provincial portion of the HST off electric vehicle sales; an extra subsidy program for low– and moderate-income households to get older cars off the road and replace them with electric; and free overnight electricity for charging electric vehicles. The province will also build more charging stations at government buildings, including LCBO outlets, and
[Biofuel] Germany got 100% renewable power for a day
http://www.energymarketprice.com/?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19615 Germany got 100% renewable power for a day [... and the grid did not fail, and the economy did not collapse. Despite U.S. mainstream media reports, data shows Germany is not a particular sunny or windy place. Again, electricity from renewables is so inexpensive, wholesale market prices dropped to zero, and below, so some large customers were actually being paid to use electricity.] 17/05/2016 Renewable energy has briefly touched and slightly surpassed 100% on Sunday, marking a milestone for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy to spur renewables while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuels. On Sunday at 2 p.m. local time, wind and solar contributed to 45.5 GW of renewable capacity to meet demand of 45.8 GW, according to provisional data by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin. For several 15-minute periods on Sunday, power prices turned negative, falling as low as $57/MWh, according to analysts Epex Spot. This means that commercial customers were being paid to consume electricity for few hours. On May 15, high winds and prolonged periods of sunshine during the middle of the day meant that clean energy met pretty much 100% of Germany’s power needs at that time, after having reached 95% on the previous Sunday, May 8. In 2015, the average renewable mix was 33%. Germany plans to reach 100% of renewable energy by 2050, and Denmark’s wind turbines already at some points generate more electricity than the country consumes, exporting the surplus to Germany, Norway and Sweden. However, Germany’s power surplus on Sunday wasn’t all good news. The power system is still too rigid for power suppliers and consumers to respond quickly to price signals. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Another One Bites the Dust: DOE Pulls Carbon Capture Project’s Funding · Environmental Leader · Environmental Management News
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/16/another-one-bites-the-dust-doe-pulls-carbon-capture-projects-funding/ May 16, 2016 Another One Bites the Dust: DOE Pulls Carbon Capture Project’s Funding By: Jessica Lyons Hardcastle Funding for a large carbon capture and storage project in Texas has been pulled by the US Department of Energy. This move will effectively kill the Texas Clean Energy Project, the project’s developer, Summit Texas Clean Energy, told Inside Climate News. In February the DOE denied Summit Texas Clean Energy’s request for an $11 million advance. And in the agency’s budget request for the fiscal year 2017, the DOE asked Congress to suspend the $240 million pledged to the project. This is the fifth carbon capture and storage project the DOE has backed away, according to Inside Climate News. The Texas Clean Energy Project would capture 2 million tons of CO2 annually — or 90 percent of emissions — from a coal-gasification plant. The DOE’s inspector general’s office issued a report on the CCS project last month, sounding alarm bells about the developer’s inability to secure commercial funding for the long-delayed plant. “Although construction of the plant was originally planned for completion in June 2014, the Project remains in the project definition phase,” it said. “Additionally, we found that the Department had taken actions that increased its financial risk in the Project.” While carbon capture and storage technology is expected to play a major role in reducing existing coal-fired power plants’ emissions, the technology remains expensive and unproven. Government policies that support carbon capture and storage are the “missing ingredient” in faster adoption of the technology, according to researchers and NGOs as well as energy majors. BP and Shell have called for a carbon price, which they say would make carbon capture economical. Earlier this month ExxonMobil and FuelCell Energy said they are working together to advance a carbon capture technology that could “substantially reduce costs” associated with carbon capture. But commercial development is still years away. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Current Ontario Electricity Generation Data
Every once in a while, I like to check out the IESO generation data (http://www.ieso.ca/). I just popped in for a peak. Generation stats for 2:00 this afternoon, Eastern Daylight Time. Biofuel86 MW Solar 228 MW Wind1,553 MW Hydro 4,697 MW Nuclear 7,125 MW Gas 1,063 MW Current wholesale supply price: FREE! ($0.00 cents/kWh) Note, this is during the peak pricing period in Ontario (weekdays 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.) So, with about half of Ontario's nuclear fleet currently off-line for a variety of reasons, the low cost of renewables (currently supplying 44%) has driven the market price of electricity here to zero. Nuclear is supplying 48%, and fossil fuels (natural gas) are supplying the remaining 7%. About 750 MW (5%) of the current generation is being exported (net). Message: green the grid, reduce peak usage and save all Ontario electricity ratepayers money. -- Darryl McMahon Freelance Project Manager (sustainable systems) ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] This scientist just changed how we think about climate change with one GIF - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/11/this-scientist-just-changed-how-we-think-about-climate-change-with-one-gif/ [Please take 1 minute and watch the GIF animation. videos and image gallery in on-line article] This scientist just changed how we think about climate change with one GIF By Chris Mooney May 11 Ed Hawkins spends his days doing, you know, climate science. A professor at the University of Reading in the UK, he has published widely on the overturning circulation in the north Atlantic Ocean, as well as trends for sea ice in the Arctic and how to predict future temperatures, among other topics. And he contributed to the most recent mega-report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which everybody cites for pretty much everything in this area. He’s now famous, though, for something quite different. This: [GIF animation https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/729753441459945474] As of early Wednesday, the startling animation had been retweeted over 3,200 times, covered separately here in the Post and by many, many other outlets — our own Jason Samenow called it the “most compelling global warming visualization ever made” — and even used as an example of how the IPCC itself could improve its dreary and often faulted communications, in an interview with its new head, Hoesung Lee. “I can’t quite believe it,” says Hawkins, who says that his university’s servers were “struggling a bit” Tuesday morning as large numbers of people were apparently watching the animation. “It was just designed to try and communicate in a different way. As scientists I think we need to communicate, and try different things, and this was just one of those trials, and it has turned out very well,” Hawkins says. (He credits Jan Fuglestvedt, a fellow researcher at the University of Oslo, with suggesting the idea of a spiral to him). [The vicious cycle that makes people afraid to talk about climate change] At a time when scientists, nonprofits, and universities are more and more focusing on communicating research results better, Hawkins basically just hit a grand slam — and not through some clever turn of phrase or some new metaphor or framing, but rather, through viral data visualization. The image has resonated for a number of reasons — one of them being, as Hawkins says, that it “doesn’t require any complex interpretation.” It uses data that was always there, of course — data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center which document the globe’s average temperature anomaly monthly and annually going back to the year 1850. (Two U.S. agencies, NASA and NOAA, do the same but only go back to 1880). Hawkins took these monthly temperature data and plotted them in the form of a spiral, so that for each year, there are twelve points, one for each month, around the center of a circle – with warmer temperatures farther outward and colder temperatures nearer inward. At the same time, he took the pre-industrial baseline temperature to be the average temperature from 1850 to 1900, and put out markers for where a 1.5 degree Celsius rise above that temperature would be, and where at 2 degree Celsius rise would be, in the form of larger, red concentric circles. And then, of course, he made the whole thing animated and tweetable. The 1.5 and 2 degree C markers are increasingly focal in climate policy, since the world pledged to try to avoid them — especially 2C, but also 1.5, if at all possible — in the recent Paris climate agreement. What Hawkins’ animation shows is that, well, we’re moving that direction, and especially with the temperatures of 2016, 1.5 degrees looks quite close. Granted, we wouldn’t actually be fully there until the average temperature stayed at that level — a brief excursion across the red line wouldn’t cut it. Nonetheless, the animated spiral approach makes global warming instantly visible, and shows that the danger zones aren’t so far away. (Another analysis, by Climate Central, suggests we have already temporarily breached 1.5 C this year, but this used a different baseline and the NOAA and NASA datasets). More analytically, Hawkins has published research suggesting that the world could cross the 2 degree threshold by the year 2060, if emission levels stay high. Clearly, the 1.5 degree threshold is even closer. If global warming appears to burst outward toward the end of the animation, that’s for two reasons, says Hawkins. The first is that from the 1950s through the 1970s, scientists believe that sulfate aerosols from air pollution helped counter the warming effects of carbon dioxide and keep the planet, temporarily, cooler than it might have been otherwise. But when that pollution was cleared away, around the 1970s, a sharper warming trend began. “The warming from the greenhouse gases emerged, and you can see that in t
[Biofuel] 3 Ways Millennials Can Divest From Fossil Fuels
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/11/climate-leadership-grad-class/ [14-minute video in on-line article Spoiler alert: here are the 3 things. 1) Stop investing in climate change. 2) Drop coal, oil and gas from your investment portfolio. 3) Roll a portion of your portfolio into climate solutions like clean energy, agriculture, local business, and many more. I liked this line: If you are a student at a school which refuses to divest, change schools. Sterling College will welcome you with open arms.] 3 Ways Millennials Can Divest From Fossil Fuels Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. | May 11, 2016 2:54 pm I delivered powerful words to the Sterling College graduating class of 2016 on May 7. I spoke on the need for climate leadership in the 21st century in order to have a graduating class in 2116. I mentioned how the climate change movement is for everyone and that we must act now. I emphasized the need to divest and #BreakFree from the fossil fuel industry. Lastly, I gave the listening audience three ways that they can divest from fossil fuel just like the small Sterling College. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] OPPD CEO: Shut down Fort Calhoun nuclear plant by end of the year - Omaha.com: Money
http://www.omaha.com/money/oppd-ceo-shut-down-fort-calhoun-nuclear-plant-by-end/article_f8b86658-184e-11e6-b852-8f5144170b67.html [Even with subsidies for nuclear in place, and coal prices at rock bottom due to falling demand, this utility is switching away from both because they are no longer economically viable. The replacements include wind power and natural gas. See this article and another below. video in on-line article] OPPD CEO: Shut down Fort Calhoun nuclear plant by end of the year Posted: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:45 am | Updated: 2:44 pm, Thu May 12, 2016. By Cole Epley / Only in the World-Herald The Omaha Public Power District would permanently shut down its nuclear power plant at the end of the year under a plan its chief executive is presenting to the utility’s board Thursday. That means engineers at Fort Calhoun Station would split their last atom in 2016. Omaha Public Power District President and Chief Executive Tim Burke on Thursday morning is telling the utility’s board of directors it no longer makes financial sense to continue operations at Fort Calhoun, which is the smallest nuclear power plant in the U.S. Burke will recommend to the board at its monthly meeting that OPPD cease operations at Fort Calhoun by the end of the year. The board will consider its options and will reconvene to make a decision on June 16. In an interview, Burke told The World-Herald on Wednesday that regulatory pressure to reduce carbon emissions, a goal to make rates more competitive and depressed prices on the wholesale electricity market influenced management’s recommendation to shut down the plant. From September 1973 through March 2012, the plant accounted for more than 34 percent of OPPD’s annual electricity generation. The plant in recent years has been under the microscope of U.S. regulators: Problems at Fort Calhoun came to a head when the plant was taken off line for refueling in April 2011, then suffered a fire and reeled from troubles related to the historic flooding of the Missouri River that year. Soon after that, federal regulators found dozens of safety deficiencies and put the plant in an intense oversight program to address "significant performance and/or operational concerns." After power production ceased in April 2011 and regulators ratcheted up oversight, OPPD in 2012 entered a 20-year, $400 million contract with Exelon; that Chicago-based nuclear company is the largest of its kind in the U.S. and now runs the Fort Calhoun plant for OPPD, which continues to own the plant and has its own staff of around 650 workers connected to its operation. Many of those workers would lose their jobs, though not all immediately because powering down a plant can take years. Burke said that was the toughest part of the decision to make the recommendation to close the plant. "To see the way those men and women worked, to see them put their lives and souls into keeping the plant safe during the flood, and the manner in which they restored the plant ... they started the plant back up and have made continued improvements and performed their jobs," Burke said in the interview. "We’re not recommending to cease this because of performance because we’ve seen performance as high as it’s been in years, by all measures," he said. The plant restarted in December 2013 and has operated under a normal level of federal regulatory oversight since April of last year. The plant’s now-rectified regulatory issues aren’t the reason for the recommendation to power down, though, Burke said. It’s simply become too expensive from a cost-benefit perspective to operate the country’s smallest nuclear plant, he said. The utility spends $250 million each year to produce energy and maintain facilities at Fort Calhoun. That’s a hurdle, Burke says, when it comes to achieving its goal of taking rates from about 7 percent below the regional average to 20 percent below that average. And the utility’s revenues have been falling. First, there is lower demand for electricity as customers move toward energy efficiency. Second, the utility is getting less money for the excess power it generates that it sells on the open market. Recently, an oversupply of natural gas and increased regional wind energy production has made it increasingly difficult for OPPD to make up for revenue shortfalls associated with flat or falling demand for electricity, Burke said. Even though the utility in 2015 sold more energy to off-system customers than it did in 2014, year-over-year revenues from those sales were down 12 percent. That’s due in part to the added expense and overhead that accompanies nuclear power generation; utilities competing with OPPD in the open market that generate excess power via natural gas, for example, have a leg up on the local utility because their fuel is cheaper and they don’t have the increased regulatory scrutiny or physical infrastructur
[Biofuel] This Country Generated So Much Renewable Energy It Paid People to Use It
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/11/germany-renewable-energy/ [Negative wholesale prices are a regular event in the Ontario electricity market, especially on week-end nights. This is because the Ontario nuclear fleet is so huge, we simply cannot ramp the amount of generation down enough to match in-province demand. So, we have to export power to other neighbouring jurisdictions rather than shutting down reactors at low demand periods. The only way we get them to agree to shutting down some of their baseload supply capacity is to pay them to take the power. Unfortunately, Ontario does not see fit to encourage its own citizens to shift load to benefit from free or negative cost electricity, say for heating water, charging electric vehicles, putting all those cordless tools on timers to only charge at night, etc. This occurs despite a pumped energy storage system which literally pumps the water of Niagara Falls back up to an upstream reservoir. Imagine the situation if we actually encouraged people to turn off unneeded lights at night - which is likely why Ontario has one of the lamest electricity conservation programs in the industrialized world. Oh, and having roughly 90% of the electricity supplied by intermittent renewables did not crash the national grid. links and images in on-line article] This Country Generated So Much Renewable Energy It Paid People to Use It Lorraine Chow | May 11, 2016 10:41 am On May 8—a particularly sunny and windy day—Germany’s renewable energy mix of solar, wind, hydropower and biomass generated so much power that it met 88 percent of the country’s total electricity demand, or 55 GW out of 63 GW being consumed. This means, as Quartz reported, “power prices actually went negative for several hours, meaning commercial customers were being paid to consume electricity.” “We have a greater share of renewable energy every year,” said Christoph Podewils of Agora Energiewende, a German clean energy think tank. “The power system adapted to this quite nicely. This day shows again that a system with large amounts of renewable energy works fine.” According to Quartz, industrial customers such as refineries and foundries were able to earn money by consuming electricity because nuclear and coal plants were unable to shut down production during the spike and had to continue selling power to the grid. Germany’s power system “is still too rigid for power suppliers and consumers to respond quickly to price signals,” the publication noted. Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, is one of the global leaders of clean energy as it attempts to phase out fossil fuels. The country has an ambitious goal of hitting 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. The European country already hit a milestone on July 25, 2015 when solar, wind and other sources of renewable energy met 78 percent of the day’s energy demand. That beat its previous record of 74 percent in May 2014. Renewables supplied nearly 33 percent of German electricity in 2015, according to Agora Energiewende. To compare, the U.S. receives around 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Osha Gray Davidson, author of Clean Break, a book about Germany’s transition to carbon-free energy, said that Germany is a model for the U.S., “because manufacturing accounts for much more of the German economy than the American economy and they have 80 million people—much larger than a country like Denmark, which gets more of its power from renewables but has a much smaller industrial base and has a population of five and a half million people.” CleanTechnica reported that the rural German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein already generate more renewable power than households and businesses in each state consume. Germany is also aiming to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent in 2020 and by 80 to 95 percent in comparison with 1990 levels by 2050. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] EPA Begins Crackdown on Methane Emissions | InsideClimate News
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12052016/epa-begins-crackdown-methane-emissions-oil-gas-gina-mccarthy-paris-climate-accord [So, next we need a map of the U.S. for sites and volumes of methane emissions sources, an enforcement team and tool set for them to mandate corrections, and then a set of tools and techniques for fixing leaks, capturing emissions, and preventing them from reaching the atmosphere. Simply burning the captured emissions to generate electricity (combined cycle plants, please), or heat buildings (after super-insulating and weather-sealing) or water (preferably as temperature maintaining after solar pre-heating) would probably eliminate the need for fracked natural gas in the U.S. and Canada.] EPA Begins Crackdown on Methane Emissions New regulations cover new oil and gas facilities, but methane from existing sites remains unregulated, a crucial step to reaching greenhouse gas reduction goals. By Phil McKenn The Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules on Thursday to significantly reduce methane emissions from new oil and gas facilities as well as those undergoing modifications. The regulations are the first federal standards aimed at curbing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, emitted by oil and gas production. The rules, which were first proposed last year, will require oil and gas companies to monitor and limit the release of methane into the atmosphere at production, processing and transmission facilities. The new standards are part of an Obama administration goal to reduce methane emissions from the industry by 40-45 percent by 2025. "Today, we are underscoring the Administration's commitment to finding common sense ways to cut methane—a potent greenhouse gas fueling climate change—and other harmful pollution from the oil and gas sector," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a statement. "Together these new actions will protect public health and reduce pollution linked to cancer and other serious health effects while allowing industry to continue to grow and provide a vital source of energy for Americans across the country." Reducing emissions of methane, the primary component of natural gas, is key to combatting climate change. Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period, and 34 times more powerful over 100 years. The new standards would also cut associated pollution including volatile organic compounds like benzene, which is a carcinogen. The rules are "an important step to protect our climate and the health of nearby communities," Lauren Pagel, policy director at the environmental group Earthworks, said in a statement. Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced a partnership with Canada to cut methane from existing oil and gas operations. Those rules will be equally important, environmentalists said. "We need to build on today's announcement by extending these same level-headed standards to thousands of existing facilities that are still exempt despite generating millions of tons of methane pollution a year," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. The Bureau of Land Management will finalize rules later this year that would reduce methane from new and existing oil and gas wells on federal lands. Most oil and gas development, however, occurs on privately owned land. "Even when they are finished with this current round, 75 percent of the oil and gas equipment would still not be regulated," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental organization. "They cannot achieve their international commitments and targets without regulating existing sources." The EPA also said on Thursday it will begin collecting information from oil and gas companies on emissions from existing infrastructure and available control measures, a first step in crafting a new regulation for existing facilities. McCarthy said this will continue through 2016, ruling out the possibility of enacting those regulations before the end of the Obama administration early next year. The rules would then be subject to the next president's policies. Environmental advocates said they would continue to pressure the agency to move quickly on the new rules. "We will remain steadfast in our efforts urging EPA to move expeditiously on its commitment to address existing sources of this highly potent greenhouse gas," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. The methane regulations are part of a larger pledge made by the administration under the Paris climate agreement agreement to cut overall greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and other pollutants, by 26 to 28 percent from the 2005 level by 2025. Current and pending methane regulations do not, however, address methane from agriculture, the second-largest source of the gas in the U.S. afte
[Biofuel] U.S. oil industry bankruptcy wave nears size of telecom bust | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shale-telecoms-idUSKCN0XV07V [In April, it was major coal companies filing for bankruptcy. This month, it appears to be the turn of oil companies. I suspect the next few months will see the disappearance of several Canadian mid-size oil patch players in the wake of the Fort McMurray forest fire. Latest surge of violence in Nigeria will also claim some corporate victims, although nothing like the number of people being injured and killed.] Wed May 4, 2016 9:27pm EDT Related: World, Environment U.S. oil industry bankruptcy wave nears size of telecom bust HOUSTON | By Ernest Scheyder and Terry Wade The rout in crude prices is snowballing into one of the biggest avalanches in the history of corporate America, with 59 oil and gas companies now bankrupt after this week's filings for creditor protection by Midstates Petroleum and Ultra Petroleum. The number of U.S. energy bankruptcies is closing in on the staggering 68 filings seen during the depths of the telecom bust of 2002 and 2003, according to Reuters data, the law firm Haynes & Boone and bankruptcydata.com. Charles Gibbs, a restructuring partner at Akin Gump in Texas, said the U.S. oil industry is not even halfway through its wave of bankruptcies. "I think we'll see more filings in the second quarter than in the first quarter," he said. Fifteen oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy in the first quarter. Some oil producers appear to be holding on, hoping the price of crude stabilizes at a higher level. In February, oil slumped as low as $27 a barrel from peaks above $100 a barrel nearly two years ago. U.S. crude has recovered somewhat, and on Tuesday was trading a little below $44 a barrel. [O/R] Until recently, banks had been willing to offer leeway to borrowers in the shale sector, but lately some lenders have tightened their purse strings. A widely predicted wave of mergers in the shale space has yet to materialize as oil price volatility makes valuations difficult, and buyers balk at taking on debt loads until target companies exit bankruptcy. The telecom and energy boom-and-bust cycles have notable parallels. Pioneering technology brought an influx of investment to each industry, a plethora of new, small companies issued high levels of debt, and a subsequent supply glut sapped pricing just as demand fell sharply. Neither this crash nor the telecom crack-up in the early 2000s rival the housing and financial bust in 2007-2009 in terms of magnitude and economic impact. But losses for energy investors in the stock and bond markets in the last two years are significant. It remains unclear how long it will take to get through the worst of the declines, and who will be left standing when it is over. A 60 percent slide in oil prices since mid-2014 erased as much as $1.02 trillion from the valuations of U.S. energy companies, according to the Dow Jones U.S. Oil and Gas Index, which tracks about 80 stocks. This has already surpassed the $882.5 billion peak-to-trough loss in market capitalization from the Dow Jones U.S. Telecommunications Sector Index in the early 2000s. In the debt market, there are also signs that lots of money could be lost this time around, especially in high-yield bonds. During its boom, U.S. oil and gas companies issued twice as much in bonds as telecom companies did in the latter part of the 1990s through the early 2000s. Between 1998 and 2002, about $177.1 billion in new bonds were sold in the U.S. telecommunications sector; less than 10 percent were junk bonds. U.S. oil and gas companies sold about $350.7 billion in debt between 2010 and 2014, the peak years of the oil-and-gas boom, with junk bonds making up more than 50 percent of all issuance, according to Thomson Reuters data. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Elon Musk: We Must Revolt Against the Unrelenting Propaganda of the Fossil Fuel Industry
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/ [links and video in on-line article] Elon Musk: We Must Revolt Against the Unrelenting Propaganda of the Fossil Fuel Industry Lorraine Chow | May 5, 2016 11:18 am During an interview at the World Energy Innovation Forum (WEIF) at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory Wednesday, Elon Musk criticized fossil fuel subsidies as well as the alleged “propaganda” tactics deployed by Big Oil and Gas to tarnish his companies, including Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX. “The fundamental issue with fossil fuels is … every use of fossil fuels comes with a subsidy,” Musk said in his talk with forum organizer and DBL Partners venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis. According to the Tesla CEO, cheap oil and gasoline prices not only prevent drivers from switching their gas-guzzlers to electric cars, it also deters the fight against climate change. Musk explained that the well-funded fossil fuel industry isn’t even paying for their contribution to environmental destruction. “It would be like if you could just dump garbage in the street and not pay for garbage pickup,” he said. Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.” Musk suggested that a carbon tax would help curb Dirty Energy’s emissions but passage of such a policy would be “hugely politically difficult” and that politicians usually pick the easier path of providing subsidies for electric cars, “even though gas cars are getting a bigger subsidy.” Although the electric vehicle maker said he was “encouraged by the Paris talks,” he still thinks that the transition to clean energy and sustainable transportation isn’t happening quickly enough. Musk gave an example of how the fossil fuel industry has been feeding negative stories to the press about his many companies. As Electrek explained: The CEO implied that the LA Times article from last year that misleadingly asserted that Musk’s companies received $4.9 billion in subsidies originated from the fossil fuel industry. Musk suggested that the report was planted to counter the IMF study that found that the fossil fuel industry was receiving the equivalent of ~$5 trillion in subsidy a year. Both reports came out around the same time. “After the IMF came out with their study showing that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $6 trillion a year [it’s was actually $5.3 trillion in 2015]–like $6 trillion per year,” Musk said. “Then some representatives from the oil and gas industry added up all the incentives that Tesla had received and will receive in the future, which happens to coincide with the $6 billion figure.” “We need to appeal to the people–educate people to sort of revolt against this and to fight the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry which is unrelenting and enormous,” he concluded. Earlier in his talk, Musk also predicted that autonomous cars are the future of transportation. “It’s going to become common for cars to be autonomous a lot faster than people think,” Musk said, adding that half of all new cars will have self-driving technology within seven to 10 years. “It’ll just be something where it’s odd if it’s not in your car. Like not having GPS or something like that, but even bigger. It’ll just be normal,” he said. The entire interview was captured by Electrek in the video below. Musk’s discussion about the fossil fuel industry starts around the 18:30 mark. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Big Oil Told to Adapt or Die
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/09/big-oil-adapt-or-die/ [links in on-line article] Big Oil Told to Adapt or Die Kieran Cooke, Climate News Network | May 9, 2016 9:11 am At best, big oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and BP face a period of gentle decline, but will ultimately survive. At worst, if they do not adapt and change direction, “what remains of their existence will be nasty, brutish and short.” That’s the core message of a research paper on the oil corporates by one of the UK’s leading energy experts, Paul Stevens, a senior research fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Present management strategies within the oil majors have failed to deliver value to shareholders and profits are declining sharply, Stevens said. Impact on Climate Meanwhile, growing public and governmental concerns over fossil fuels and their impact on the climate, together with a sharp drop in prices, are threatening the survival of the international oil companies (IOCs). “The IOCs cannot assume that, as in the past, all they need to survive is to wait for crude prices to resume an upward direction,” Stevens warned. “The oil markets are going through fundamental structural changes driven by a technological revolution and geopolitical shifts. The old cycle of lower prices followed by higher prices can no longer be assumed to be applicable.” Stevens says the business model adopted by the IOCs has failed. They have to downsize and many of their assets will have to be sold off. Above all, the corporate culture of these once-mighty conglomerates has to change. Although growing international pressure to take action on climate change and falling prices have together led to a decline in the IOCs’ fortunes, the rot set in many years ago, says the research paper. Up to the early 1970s, the IOCs had it all their own way, controlling most aspects of oil exploration, production and distribution. But the rise of state-controlled energy companies asserting control over national resources severely diminished the IOCs’ power. Starting in the 1990s, the IOCs embarked on a high-risk strategy: they invested in increasingly higher-cost and more technologically-challenging projects. This was built on a “quasi-religious” belief in perpetually rising oil demand, the paper says. Finding new reserves was all-important. Those who invested in the IOCs hoping for high returns on their money have been disappointed. “Overall, there can be little doubt that, from an investor’s point of view, the IOCs have been failing to perform,” the study says. The 2008 financial crisis made investors nervous about putting their money into large, high-risk, long-term projects—such as Arctic oil exploration. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—when millions of barrels of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico—escalated industry costs and further environmental concern about the activities of the oil majors. In the first eight months of 2015 alone, the stock prices of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP dropped by as much as a third. Over the past two years, nearly US$400 billion of new oil projects have been shelved. Attempts at diversification—into coal, nuclear, supermarkets and hotel chains—have been largely unsuccessful. The IOCs have also invested in renewable energy sources, including solar and wind. But Stevens writes: “These efforts were relatively short-lived and many IOCs have subsequently pulled out of such ventures.” Limiting Emissions There are doubts over whether the oil companies have the necessary technical and managerial skills to operate successfully in what is rapidly becoming a decentralized energy system. The IOCs also find themselves burdened with “stranded assets”—fossil fuel deposits that cannot be exploited if international agreements on limiting greenhouse gas emissions are going to be fulfilled. The demise of the oil majors has been predicted before, yet the companies live on. Despite recent setbacks, they are still financially powerful, with considerable political influence in many areas. Billions of dollars of pension funds are tied up in the IOCs. Although their shares have taken a pounding on the stock exchanges, their combined market worth still dwarves the gross domestic product of many countries. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Army Corps Denies Permits for Biggest Proposed Coal Export Terminal in North America
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/10/army-corps-cherry-point/ Army Corps Denies Permits for Biggest Proposed Coal Export Terminal in North America Mary Anne Hitt | May 10, 2016 8:24 am This is big—for our climate, for clean air and water, for our future. It’s also big because the U.S. government is honoring its treaty obligations. After a five-year struggle that engaged hundreds of thousands of people, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a landmark decision Monday to deny federal permits for the biggest proposed coal export terminal in North America—the SSA Marine’s proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, a coal export facility at Xwe’chi’eXen (also known as Cherry Point), Washington. In January 2015, the Lummi Nation asked the Army Corps to reject the project because it would violate U.S. treaty obligations to project the tribe’s fisheries and ancestral lands. This is a huge win for the Lummi Nation and its Northwest community allies over the coal companies. The Army Corps made the right choice and did its duty by upholding treaty rights and honoring the U.S. government’s commitment to those treaties. Time and again, Pacific International Terminals has shown disregard for the Lummi Nation and its allies, who have for years voiced concerns about the project’s public health, economic and environmental impacts. I have had the great honor of joining tribal leaders in the Northwest and the Power Past Coal coalition over the many years of this struggle. The Sierra Club is proud and honored to stand in solidarity with these Tribal Nations and community partners in the fight against coal exports in the Pacific Northwest. I’ve been inspired and electrified by the hundreds of thousands of activists across the region who have spoken out at public hearings, written letters, submitted comments and rallied for clean energy instead of coal exports. It’s encouraging to see this fossil fuel project that poses great risks and harm to communities, the environment and local economies, receiving the thorough scrutiny it deserves. Northwest families deserve and will accept nothing less than this kind of leadership that protects our health, safety, local economy and climate. This decision comes on the heels of the recent bankruptcy of Peabody Coal and the news last week that the U.S. crossed the milestone of 100,000 megawatts of coal plant retirements since 2010. Peabody was banking on this project as a major customer for its coal and this announcement deals another blow to promises by coal executives that they have a revival on the horizon—claims that we recently challenged in this open letter to the coal industry and industry analysts. This is a historic win, but there is a lot more work to do. We will continue to fight until our communities are no longer threatened by these dangerous coal export proposals. Specifically, we will maintain our opposition to this project as long as the developers continue pursuing it and we will leave no stone unturned in our opposition to Millennium Bulk Logistics in Longview, which will have public hearings and a comment period this month and the Fraser Surrey project in British Columbia. We will continue to fight Arch Coal, Cloud Peak, Peabody Energy and other coal companies that would jeopardize our health, safety, local economies and natural resources—like Lighthouse Resources’, Millennium Bulk Terminals, which wants to force a coal export facility into Longview. These dirty and dangerous projects will not move forward and we will strive to pursue pathways for justice for all communities as justice was upheld today. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Refugees Stuck in Australia's Processing Facilities Set Themselves on Fire
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35965-refugees-stuck-in-australia-s-processing-facilities-set-themselves-on-fire [links in on-line article] Refugees Stuck in Australia's Processing Facilities Set Themselves on Fire Tuesday, 10 May 2016 00:00 By Lizabeth Paulat, Care2 | Report International attention is being drawn to Australia's asylum and refugee policy, as two brutal self-immolations have highlighted numerous human rights flaws. The first refugee to set himself on fire was a young Iranian husband and father named Omid, who later succumbed to his injuries. The latest attempt, by a 21-year-old Somali woman named Hadon, now has many looking to Australia and wondering what on Earth is going on. It's important to understand Australia's policy towards refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. With wide support from elected representatives, it states that anyone who comes to Australia via boat should be taken to island facilities off the mainland -- one of them located in the Republic of Nauru and the other on the island of Manus in Papua New Guinea. Here, refugees, asylum seekers and migrants often wait in limbo for years, in dangerous conditions. Reports detail multiple instances of riots, murders, suspected sexual assault of children and adults, trauma and PTSD among detainees. Most are not given any timelines or hopes that they will make it out of the camp. Rather, after fleeing persecution in often traumatic circumstances, they are essentially put in an island prison for an indefinite period. Many say this causes mass hopelessness and increased suicide risk. The immigration minister, Richard Dutton, however, does not see it that way. Rather he sees the refugee advocates as being responsible for the self-immolation of these two asylum seekers. He told the press: "I've previously expressed my frustration, and anger frankly, at advocates and others who are in contact with those in regional processing centers. And who are encouraging some of those people to behave in a certain way. Believing that that pressure exerted on the Australian government will see a change in our policy in relation to our border protection measures." He went on to say that no actions taken by advocates or refugees in regional processing centers would cause the government to change its course. It's a move that Sarah Mares, a child psychologist who has visited these detention centers, says will lead to increased trauma and risk. In an article she writes for the Guardian, Mares says that inhumane and toxic environments have already proven fatal: "Omid set himself on fire in despair at continuing indefinite detention on Nauru despite having been found to be a refugee and despite having a wife and young child. How could he have done this? We need to try and imagine how he felt. He set himself on fire in front of UNHCR representatives who were on Nauru to conduct a monitoring visit into the deteriorating mental health of those held in offshore camps. We may try to comprehend, but we cannot possibly accept that he was brought to this by our policies." Many human rights advocates have criticized Australia's policy and some regional partners have tried to help out. Earlier this year New Zealand offered to take 150 refugees from their detention centers, but Australia refused. Their reasoning? Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that, "Settlement in a country like New Zealand would be used by the people smugglers as a marketing opportunity." New Zealand has said their offer stills stands. Papua New Guinea has also stepped out, declaring that the Manus Island detention center would be shut down, as the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has called for all 2,000 detainees from both island facilities to be moved to the mainland. Arepresentative with UNHCR in Australia says the recent incidents showed a need for a mental health intervention: "These are highly predictable outcomes of prolonged detention, and they're really symptomatic of the fact that people have now lost all hope." However, despite both regional and international pressure, Australia's reticence to let refugees onto the mainland doesn't show any sign of changing anytime soon. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Rail Safety Report Card: Only 225 Of Over 100, 000 Unsafe Tank Cars Were Retrofitted in First Year | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/09/report-card-only-225-out-over-100-000-unsafe-tank-cars-retrofit-first-year [links and graphics in on-line article] Rail Safety Report Card: Only 225 Of Over 100,000 Unsafe Tank Cars Were Retrofitted in First Year By Justin Mikulka • Monday, May 9, 2016 - 15:12 A year ago, when Federal regulators announced new rules for “high hazard” trains moving crude oil and ethanol, the oil industry protested that the rules were too strict. The main point of contention made by the American Petroleum Institute (API) was that the requirement to retrofit the unsafe DOT-111 and DOT-1232 tank cars within ten years did not allow enough time to get the job done. Meanwhile, according to information recently provided to DeSmog by the Association of American Railroads, only 225 of the tank cars have been retrofitted in the past year. So, the API may have been onto something because at that rate it will take roughly 500 years to retrofit the entire fleet of DOT-111s and CPC-1232s based on government and industry estimates of fleet size of approximately 110,000. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Oil%20Tank%20Car%20Fleet%20Size.png As DeSmog reported earlier this year, the FAST Act transportation bill that passed in 2015 required that all DOT-111s that have not been retrofitted be retired from crude oil service by 2018. But the bill included the option that “The Secretary may extend the deadlines…if the Secretary determines that insufficient retrofitting shop capacity will prevent the phase-out of tank cars.” However, prior to the new rule being finalized, Greg Saxton — a representative of leading tank car manufacturer Greenbrier — testified in Congress that there was sufficient shop capacity to meet the timeline noting that,“This is an aggressive timeline, we believe it is achievable.” Saxton also made the assertion that the lack of new regulations was the issue that was delaying the safety retrofits. “The only thing holding the industry back is the government’s inaction on proposed new tank car design standards and a deadline for having an upgraded rail tank car fleet.” Now a year after the new rule was announced, with a mere 225 cars undergoing the safety upgrades, it would appear that was not the only thing holding back the industry. DeSmog reached out to the Railway Supply Institute, leading oil-by-rail carrier BNSF, and Greenbrier to inquire about the lack of retrofits to date and asked if shop capacity was an issue, but did not receive any response. The Association of American Railroads and the Federal Railroad Administration were unable to provide information on shop capacity. Unlike Safety, Public Relations On Schedule Despite not actually making any significant safety improvements to the unsafe DOT-111 tank cars — tank cars called an “unacceptable public risk” by a member of the National Transportation Safety Board — the public relations effort to push the idea that the issue has been addressed appears to be successful. In an article published in Chicago Magazine in April 2016, the risks of oil-by-rail were covered in detail. However, that article included the following statement, “Those first-generation tank cars, called DOT-111s, have almost all been subjected to new protections, including having their shells reinforced with steel a sixteenth of an inch thicker than used in earlier models.” But 225 tanker cars clearly does not qualify as “almost all” of the DOT-111 oil tank car fleet. An article published shortly after the FAST Act was signed ran with the headline, “New Highway Bill Includes Tough Rules for Oil Trains.” Again, this would seem like overstating the reality of what the bill included. As DeSmog has noted before, the oil and rail industries are very good at public relations when it concerns this topic. However, as when BNSF said they were buying 5,000 new tank cars that would exceed all safety standards, it often never results in anything more than a press release and some media coverage. BNSF never purchased the 5,000 tank cars. Unsafe Tank Cars Can Carry More Oil and Bring Higher Profits In January, Christopher A. Hart, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board, presented his remarks on the NTSB’s safety “Most Wanted List” and once again mentioned the risk of the DOT-111s in moving crude oil. “We have been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not yet occurred in a populated area,” Hart said. “But an American version of Lac-Megantic could happen at any time.” Why would the industry want to take this risk? Could it be because unsafe cars are more profitable? The more oil a tank car can haul, the more profitable that oil train will be. The way rail works is that the weight of the car plus the weight of the cargo can only combine to be a certain amount. If your tank car weighs less, you can put in more oil becaus
[Biofuel] Duke Study Finds A "Legacy of Radioactivity, " Contamination from Thousands of Fracking Wastewater Spills | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/08/duke-university-study-finds-legacy-radioactivity-water-and-soil-contaminated-thousands-fracking-wastewater-spills Duke Study Finds A "Legacy of Radioactivity," Contamination from Thousands of Fracking Wastewater Spills By Sharon Kelly • Sunday, May 8, 2016 - 11:08 Thousands of oil and gas industry wastewater spills in North Dakota have caused “widespread” contamination from radioactive materials, heavy metals and corrosive salts, putting the health of people and wildlife at risk, researchers from Duke University concluded in a newly released peer-reviewed study. Some rivers and streams in North Dakota now carry levels of radioactive and toxic materials higher than federal drinking water standards as a result of wastewater spills, the scientists found after testing near spills. Many cities and towns draw their drinking water from rivers and streams, though federal law generally requires drinking water to be treated before it reaches peoples' homes, and the scientists did not test tap water as part of their research. High levels of lead — the same heavy metal that infamously contaminated water in Flint, Michigan — as well as the radioactive element radium, were discovered near spill sites. One substance, selenium, was found in the state's waters at levels as high as 35 times the federal thresholds set to protect fish, mussels, and other wildlife, including those that people eat. The pollution was found on land as well as in water. The soils in locations where wastewater spilled were laced with significant levels of radium, and even higher levels of radium were discovered in the ground downstream from the spills' origin points, showing that radioactive materials were soaking into the ground and building up as spills flowed over the ground, the researchers said. The sheer number of spills in the past several years is striking. All told, the Duke University researchers mapped out a total of over 3,900 accidental spills of oil and gas wastewater in North Dakota alone. Contamination remained at the oldest spill site tested, where roughly 300 barrels of wastewater were released in a spill four years before the team of researchers arrived to take samples, demonstrating that any cleanup efforts at the site had been insufficient. “Unlike spilled oil, which starts to break down in soil, these spilled brines consist of inorganic chemicals, metals and salts that are resistant to biodegradation,” said Nancy Lauer, a Duke University Ph.D. student who was lead author of the study, which was published in Environmental Science & Technology. “They don't go away; they stay.” “This has created a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites,” she said. The highest level of radium the scientists found in soil measured over 4,600 Bequerels per kilogram [bq/kg] — which translates to roughly two and half times the levels of fracking-related radioactive contamination discovered in Pennsylvania in a 2013 report that drew national attention. To put those numbers in context, under North Dakota law, waste over 185 bq/kg is considered too radioactive to dispose in regular landfills without a special permit or to haul on roads without a specific license from the state. And that radioactive contamination — in some places over 100 times the levels of radioactivity as found upstream from the spill — will be here to stay for millennia, the researchers concluded, unless unprecedented spill clean-up efforts are made. “The results of this study indicate that the water contamination from brine spills is remarkably persistent in the environment, resulting in elevated levels of salts and trace elements that can be preserved in spill sites for at least months to years,” the study concluded. “The relatively long half-life of [Radium 226] (∼1600 years) suggests that [Radium] contamination in spill sites will remain for thousands of years.” Cleanup efforts remain underway at three of the four sites that the Duke University research team sampled, a North Dakota State Health Department official asked to comment on the research told the Bismarck Tribune, while the fourth site had not yet been addressed. He criticized the researchers for failing to include any in-depth testing of sites where the most extensive types of cleanup efforts had been completed. The four sites the researchers sampled instead included the locations of two of the biggest spills in the state's history, including a spill of 2.9 million gallons in January 2015, and two areas where smaller spills occurred in 2011. The samples from the sites were collected in June 2015, with funding from the National Science Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. Over the past decade, roughly 9,700 wells have been drilled in North Dakota's Bakken shale and Bottineu oilfield region — meaning that there has been over one spill reported to regulators for
[Biofuel] Clinton Commits: No Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35974-clinton-commits-no-tpp-fundamentally-rethink-trade-policies [links in on-line article] Clinton Commits: No Trans-Pacific Partnership Tuesday, 10 May 2016 00:00 By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed Going into the West Virginia primary, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out in opposition to a "lame duck" vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This takes her beyond her previous statements mildly opposing TPP. Clinton also made a strong statement criticizing our country's trade agreements in general. As reported in The Hill, in "Clinton opposes TPP vote in the lame-duck session," Clinton replied to a questionnaire from the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign, which consists of more than 25 labor, environmental and human rights organizations. When asked, "If elected President, would you oppose holding a vote on the TPP during the 'lame duck' session before you take office?" she replied, "I have said I oppose the TPP agreement -- and that means before and after the election." There has been concern that TPP will come up for a vote in the lame-duck session of Congress after the election, and before the next Congress is sworn in. This special session enables votes with little accountability to the public. Members who have been voted out can vote in ways that help them get lobbying jobs and members who were re-elected with corporate money can reward their donors. A statement from the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign describing Clinton's responses, explains the importance of Clinton opposing a "lame duck" vote, "The Democratic candidates agree that attempting to sneak the TPP through during lame duck is completely and totally inappropriate," said Michael Shannon, director of the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign. "Popular opposition to job-killing trade agreements is at an all time high. The votes clearly do not exist to pass the TPP before the election, and TPP proponents' plan to try to get just-voted-out-of-office, looking-for-corporate-lobby-work Congress members to rubber stamp it after the election is something that more-and-more politicians are speaking out against." The Washington Post explains, in "Clinton does not back Obama trade vote in postelection congressional session," that this will make it more difficult for President Obama to push TPP through the lame-duck session: Opponents of the pact said Clinton's response on the questionnaire, coming ahead of Oregon's Democratic primary on May 17, represents a more definitive statement of opposition to the 12-nation Pacific Rim accord than she has given before. It could present new hurdles for the Obama administration, which is viewing a likely brief session of Congress after the Nov. 8 election as its last chance to get the deal ratified by lawmakers before the president leaves office in January. Clinton's statement helps, but there are still concerns about the TPP being pushed through after the election, and the administration and Republican leaders in Congress are working on this. The Washington Post again: White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that administration officials are in contact with Republican leaders in Congress over the timing of a potential vote. "The political calculation I would acknowledge is complicated. It doesn't fall cleanly along party lines," Earnest said. "So we're going to work in bipartisan fashion to develop a strategy that will lead to success." Boosts Clinton's Credibility on Trade Clinton has suffered from a credibility problem, especially on the issue of trade. Clinton made no clear statement supporting or opposing TPP during the "fast-track" fight over trade promotion authority, which "greased the skids" for the passage of TPP. Then, in October, just before the first Democratic debate, she "took the issue off the table" with a mild statement opposing TPP. Clinton's October statement used wording that people felt left lots of wiggle room to change positions later. She said "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it." This left "as of tomorrow" open if the agreement wasn't "what she had learned." She said, "I don't believe it's going to meet the high bar I have set." This left her open to support TPP if it was changed a bit so she could claim the bar was higher. She also refused to lobby members of Congress to vote against TPP. The mild wording left the door open for people to question her commitment and credibility. This may have been in order not to alienate the "donor class" and it may have been because she supports "free trade." The result was that not even people like the head of the Chamber of Commerce believed her, saying he was sure she would turn around and support TPP once the election was over. Her hedged position also left her open to criticism from opposing candidate Bernie Sanders. Her surprise loss in the Mic
[Biofuel] Big Oil Abandons $2.5 Billion in U.S. Arctic Drilling Rights - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/big-oil-abandons-2-5-billion-in-u-s-arctic-drilling-rights [video in on-line article] Big Oil Abandons $2.5 Billion in U.S. Arctic Drilling Rights Jennifer A Dlouhy May 9, 2016 — 10:00 PM EDT Updated on May 10, 2016 — 11:16 AM EDT After plunking down more than $2.5 billion for drilling rights in U.S. Arctic waters, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and other companies have quietly relinquished claims they once hoped would net the next big oil discovery. The pullout comes as crude oil prices have plummeted to less than half their June 2014 levels, forcing oil companies to slash spending. For Shell and ConocoPhillips, the decision to abandon Arctic acreage was formalized just before a May 1 due date to pay the U.S. government millions of dollars in rent to keep holdings in the Chukchi Sea north of Alaska. The U.S. Arctic is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but energy companies have struggled to tap resources buried below icy waters at the top of the globe. Shell last year ended a nearly $8 billion, mishap-marred quest for Arctic crude after disappointing results from a test well in the Chukchi Sea. Shell decided the risk is not worth it for now, and other companies have likely come to the same conclusion, said Peter Kiernan, the lead energy analyst at The Economist Intelligence Unit. "Arctic exploration has been put back several years, given the low oil price environment, the significant cost involved in exploration and the environmental risks that it entails," he said. 80 Percent All told, companies have relinquished 2.2 million acres of drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea -- nearly 80 percent of the leases they bought from the U.S. government in a 2008 auction. Oil companies spent more than $2.6 billion snapping up 2.8 million acres in the Chukchi Sea during that sale, on top of previous purchases in the Beaufort Sea. Shell relinquished 274 Chukchi leases and others in the neighboring Beaufort Sea. In doing so, the company forfeits what it paid the U.S government for the rights to drill in those tracts -- and the millions of dollars it spent on annual rent since then. "These actions are consistent with our earlier decision not to explore offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future," Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said by e-mail. The decision also reflects the high costs of operating off Alaska’s northern coast and evolving regulatory standards, Smith said. Other energy companies have followed Shell out of the Arctic, according to Interior Department records obtained by the conservation group Oceana under a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by Bloomberg News. ConocoPhillips formally relinquished its 61 Chukchi Sea leases on April 26, and spokeswoman Christina Kuhl said the company will end Interior Board of Land Appeals proceedings that aimed to extend their life. Statoil dumped 16 Chukchi Sea leases and its working interest stakes in 50 others in the U.S. Arctic last November, conceding the portfolio was "no longer considered competitive." Iona Energy Inc., a Canadian oil and gas company that began insolvency proceedings last November, ceded its one lease in the Chukchi Sea on March 31. Italy’s Eni SpA also gave up four leases in the Chukchi Sea on April 28. Shell indefinitely halted oil exploration in the U.S. Arctic, but is seeking an extension of leases that begin to expire in 2017. That legal battle, playing out in the Interior Board of Land Appeals, will continue. Final Lease Shell is holding on to one parcel in the Chukchi Sea: the tract it drilled last year. Smith said Shell is maintaining that lone lease -- at a potential cost of $132,456 over the next four years -- because there is value in the data the company gathered during its 2015 exploratory drilling. Companies generally have to give the U.S. government the geological information they glean from oil and gas development in federal waters, but they can get an extra two to 10 years to turn over that data as long as they still hold the territory. The rash of relinquishments means "we are an important step closer to a sustainable future for the Arctic Ocean," said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, which opposed government decisions to authorize oil development in the area and wants science to guide industrial development there. "Hopefully, today marks the end of the risk, litigation and expense caused by the push to drill in the Arctic Ocean." Now, only 535,586 acres remain locked up in the Chukchi Sea. Besides Shell’s one lease there, the tracts are in the hands of just one oil producer: Spain’s Repsol SA. Spokesmen for the company did not return requests for comment. The news was a blow to political leaders in Alaska, which derives much of its revenue from oil development. Democratic Governor Bill Walker said in a statem
[Biofuel] Gas - An energy renaissance that Europe shouldn’t ignore | Engerati - Generation
http://www.engerati.com/article/gas-energy-renaissance-europe-shouldn%E2%80%99t-ignore [Reminds of 'city gas' from the 1800s. While Europe may be embracing 'green gas', in U.S. and Canada, we are not even looking at putting renewably-sourced methane into the distribution system. Bio-methane remains islanded and the main distribution network is all fossil. Capturing natural gas which is now vented from fossil fuel production, or from permafrost melt would also be beneficially captured and added to the distribution system - displacing other extreme gas production, e.g., via fracking. This energy is dispatchable for electricity generation purposes, heating buildings, and can be used in heat engines for transportation use.] Gas - An energy renaissance that Europe shouldn’t ignore Green Gas has a key role to play in Europe’s decarbonisation and future energy mix. Gas hasn’t always been as widely available as electricity as an energy source, but the potential of power to gas from renewables, the growing use of biogas and the availability of natural gas are fast changing this. Gas is predicted to play an increasingly important role in our energy system of the future. [Gas Entering A Golden Age. (http://www.engerati.com/article/gas-entering-golden-age)] This is especially true for green gas. A new report, “A sustainable Europe: Green Gas, Green Grids, Green Future” [April 2016], launched on behalf of the European Networks Association (ENA) and GEODE, an association made up of European independent distribution companies of gas and electricity, highlights the mammoth potential for “green gas” generated from renewable sources. It highlights the fact that green gas should be considered as a ‘key ingredient’ when looking for solutions to the challenges that policymakers face including security of supply, sustainability and consumer needs. Green gas –powering a cleaner future Gas is redefining itself as a renewable energy source-it is no longer considered a predominantly fossil fuel based energy source. Green gas, produced by sewage, manure, food waste, and fuel crops, as well as by-products from chemical processes, is found to be cleaner than fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide generated by burning green gas does not elevate carbon emissions levels because, unlike fossil fuel energy, the carbon source of green gas was previously in circulation above ground, and is therefore already a part of the natural carbon cycle. Green gas even has a number of advantages over other clean energy sources such as solar and wind. For instance, green gas does not have an intermittent nature unlike solar and wind-it can be produced without interruption. It can also be easily stored. These benefits alone make it a good choice for a strong renewable energy mix. Interest in biomethane grows The most promising type of green gas is biomethane—specifically the methane produced from the anaerobic digestion of organic matter (animal excrement). This can be used as vehicle fuel or injected into the gas grid. In fact, 10 European countries are already using biomethane for their energy needs. The good news about the production of biomethane is that it is virtually free of harmful emissions and it has the potential to generate a lot of electricity. For instance, excrement from five cows or 30 pigs can heat an average home in Denmark for one year. Biogas can also be produced from waste organic materials, including biomass from, for instance, forestry waste. The report emphasises that it is not advocating that land be set aside to grow crops for biofuels, but that the focus should be on re-mobilising agricultural waste like straw or husks. The report notes, for instance, that one lorry full of household-produced organic waste is enough to heat about 30 typical homes in Denmark for a month. A 2015 report by the International Gas Union concluded that 1TWh of biogas can be produced for every million people. With 500 million people in the EU, that gives a potential of 500TWh. That means that biogas could theoretically account for over 10% of non-fossil fuelled transport in Europe, according to IGU which concludes that this could be achieved by 2020 with the right policies. This has major implications for the rapidly expanding electric vehicle market, where biomethane could eventually replace traditional petrol to create zero-emission driving. Sweden is already leading the way in the technology. The proportion of biomethane in natural gas fuel sales for gas-run vehicles in the country is now 73%. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Exclusive: Release of Inspection Reports From TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline Expose Risk of Future Spills | DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/03/exclusive-release-inspection-reports-transcanada-s-keystone-pipeline-expose-risk-future-spills [links and images in on-line article] Exclusive: Release of Inspection Reports From TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline Expose Risk of Future Spills By Julie Dermansky • Tuesday, May 3, 2016 - 03:58 The US government agency responsible for interstate pipelines recorded a catalog of problems with the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline and the Cushing Extension, a DeSmog investigation has found. Inspectors at the US Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) observed TransCanada’s contractors violating construction design codes established to ensure a pipeline’s safety, according to inspection reports released to DeSmog under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Evan Vokes, former TransCanada materials engineer-turned-whistleblower, told DeSmog the problems uncovered in the reports show issues that could lead to future pipeline failures and might also explain some of the failures the pipeline had already suffered. Vokes claimed PHMSA was negligent in failing to use its powers to shut down construction of the pipeline when inspectors found contractors doing work incorrectly. “You cannot have a safe pipeline without code compliance,” Vokes said. The Keystone and the Cushing Extension are part of TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline network, giving the company a path to move diluted Canadian tar sands, also known as dilbit, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Keystone pipeline network is made up of the Keystone Pipeline (Phase I), that runs from Hardistry, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, and the Keystone-Cushing extension (Phase ll), from Steele City to Cushing, Oklahoma. There, it connects to the southern route of the Keystone XL, renamed the Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), that runs from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast in Texas. The final phase of TransCanada’s network, the Keystone XL, (Phase lV), originating in Alberta, is meant to connect to the Gulf Coast pipeline. But KXL is blocked for now since President Obama rejected a permit TransCanada needs to finish its network. According to the inspection reports PHMSA provided, its inspectors observed TransCanada violating construction design codes established to assure a pipeline’s safety. Inspectors wrote that some contractors working on the Keystone were not familiar with the construction specifications. The reports show that when PHMSA inspectors found improper work, they explained the correct procedures — such as telling welders the correct temperature and speed they needed to weld at according to specifications. In one instance, a PHMSA inspector found a coating inspector using an improperly calibrated tool, so the PHMSA representative instructed him on the proper setting. The inspection reports also describe regulators identifying visible problems with pipe sections as they were placed in ditches, and of ditches not properly prepared to receive the pipe. “Regulators did nothing to stop TransCanada from building a pipeline that was bound to fail,” Vokes told DeSmog after reviewing the construction inspection reports for the Keystone 1 pipeline and the Cushing Extension. According to Vokes, those welders and inspectors should have been fired because problems with welds and coatings can lead to slow and hard to detect leaks. “It is impossible to believe the welders and inspectors cited in the PHMSA reports were operator qualified, which is a mandated requirement by PHMSA,” Vokes said. TransCanada insists it used qualified contractors. Matthew John, a communications specialist for TransCanada, told DeSmog: “In fact, the Special Permit conditions for Keystone Phase 1 and the Cushing Extension included a requirement for TransCanada to implement a Construction ‘Operator Qualification’ program. We only use highly trained and specially certified contractors in the construction of the Keystone System.” But the PHMSA inspection reports cast doubt on the effectiveness of the ‘Operator Qualification’ program. Vokes said: “How is it possible that PHMSA could find multiple violations at multiple sites on multiple days in multiple years?” “It isn’t a regulator’s job to instruct contractors how to comply to code,” Vokes said. “If the construction crew was not familiar with the correct procedures, they shouldn’t have been allowed to continue constructing the pipeline.” Part of Vokes’s job as a pipeline materials engineer was to ensure TransCanada adhered to the accepted codes of pipeline construction set by institutions such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. “Straying from the adopted code is not only illegal, but it compromises the integrity of a pipeline,” he said. Vokes says that during his five years with the company he did his best to get TransCanada to identify and
[Biofuel] Clinton, Wyoming and the EPA are all betting on carbon capture | Bloomberg Government
http://about.bgov.com/blog/clinton-wyoming-and-the-epa-are-all-betting-on-carbon-capture/ [This sounds like fresh cover to protect burning of more fossil fuels for several decades into the future, flying in the face of our knowledge that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). CCU (Carbon Capture and Use) as defined here would include EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery), which we know actually INCREASES the amount GHGs produced, while qualifying for taxpayer support as a GHG reduction measure. "Forget capture and sequestration, and start thinking about carbon capture and use. The New York Times reports today that turning CO2 into a recyclable, renewable resource is the next frontier for researchers, and one that the X Prize is offering $20 million to whomever can crack the code. “The ultimate goal of researchers in this field is to turn the waste product of fuel-burning into new fuel,” the newspaper said. “But developing devices that can efficiently and economically convert large amounts of CO2 will require overcoming many hurdles, not the least of which is all the energy required to split carbon dioxide molecules.” Separately, Wyoming is investing $21 million on a test center near Gillette to compete for that X Prize." We should just skip this sham, and move directly to zero-emission renewables - now cheaper than oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear for electricity generation, without subsidies, without air and water pollution, without GHG emissions, without radioactive spent fuel and decommissioning costs. links and images in on-line article] Clinton, Wyoming and the EPA are all betting on carbon capture May 3, 2016 Mark Drajem Today’s Agenda Hillary Clinton’s pledge to put coal “out of business” dogged her at campaign stops in Kentucky and West Virginia yesterday, with one out-of-work coal employee pressing her about how she could now boast of pledging to be a friend to Appalachia. She told Bo Copley in Williamson, West Virginia that she didn’t intend to say she would cause those job losses: “What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time,” she said, according to NBC. “What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say.” Clinton, who has a plan to invest billions of dollars in hard-hit mining communities, said in March, “We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” That quip in a CNN forum has been shared throughout Appalachia, and prompted protests of both Hillary and Bill Clinton in the region yesterday. The anger highlights the challenge Democrats face in November to win over working-class voters in those once reliably Democratic states — while also supporting federal efforts to address climate change. In coal country, those two goals are seen as contradictory. During her events in Kentucky and West Virginia, Clinton highlighted her plan to bring jobs to those areas, preserve the pensions of miners — and also to support research into carbon capture and sequestration. With that the country can “try to see how we can get coal be a fuel that can be continued to be sold and continued to be mined.” (Read more about Clinton’s coal-country confrontation, here.) Voters go the polls today in Indiana, the state that consumes more coal than all but two others, Texas and Illinois. Indiana isn’t the coal producer that West Virginia is, but its use of the fuel has made the Clean Power Plan and other pollution rules toxic in that state. Still, coal miners in West Virginia or coal-heavy utilities in Indiana should not expect the GOP to be able to resurrect coal, Bloomberg Intelligence Analyst Rob Barnett says. Yes, both the Clean Power Plan and the moratorium on new coal leases are vulnerable to be changed by the next president, he said, but other rules — on mercury and cross-state pollution, for example — aren’t going anywhere. “A Republican presidential victory in 2016 would almost certainly produce more coal-friendly leaders” at EPA and Interior, Barnett said. “And if an anti-coal rule is remanded back to an agency, the next president’s administration would probably attempt to weaken its requirements.” Still, the challenge is, well, huge: Coal shipments by rail are down year-to-date by a third from 2015; bringing Bo Copley’s job back is going to require a heckuva lot more than halting a few EPA rules. The EPA isn’t backing off its faith in carbon-capture technology. There may be no plant using it in the U.S. and the SaskPower project in Canada had to shutter for months to work out some bugs, but the agency maintains there’s absolutely no reason for it to reconsider its requirement that new coal plants capture some of their carbon emissions. The agency turned down an appeal by utilities to scrap the CCS requirement in its 111(b) rule, arguing the C
[Biofuel] The price of solar power just fell 50% in 16 months – Dubai at $.0299/kWh!
[If you still have any investment remaining in fossil fuels, take note of this recent news. Solar electricity on non-subsidized tender at below 3 cents (U.S.) per kWh. Then, consider the subsidies we taxpayers and ratepayers still provide to oil production in Canada and the U.S., and nuclear fission generation.] Dubai received a bid of $.0299/kWh for 800MW of solar power. This price represents the lowest yet recorded for solar power. Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) has received 5 bids from international organisations for the third phase of the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, said HE Saeed Mohammed AlTayer, MD & CEO of DEWA. The lowest recorded bid at the opening of the envelopes was US 2.99 cents per kilowatt hour. The next step in the bidding process will review the technical and commercial aspects of the bids to select the best one. In the USA, in 2014 and with incentives, utility scale solar projects averaged $.05/kWh. On this bid alone, five companies bid below $.045/kW – without subsidies! http://electrek.co/2016/05/02/price-solar-power-fell-50-16-months-dubai-0299kwh/ ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Indian example shows solar power cheaper than coal - and half the price of nuclear - BizNews.com
https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2016/04/20/indian-example-shows-solar-power-cheaper-than-coal-and-half-the-price-of-nuclear/ April 20, 2016 Indian example shows solar power cheaper than coal – and half the price of nuclear It will be two years next month since India ended a six decade obsession with socialism and elected the reformist Narendra Modi Government. Already its market-driven policies are delivering dividends beyond a new baseline economic growth rate of 7.5%. Modi’s Energy Minister Piyush Goyal is all over the media this week claiming Indian solar power is now cheaper than coal. He points to the sustained drop in solar costs punctuated by a recent auction of 420MW in the northern state of Rajasthan (population 73m) where solar hit a record low of 4.34 Rupees per MW (ZAR 94c) . Coal costs between three and five Rupees. Even more interesting for South Africans is the way solar is killing nuclear. An 84 page analysis by Deutsche Bank India puts the price of installed nuclear power a few cents higher than the new solar price. Nuclear’s capital cost per MW, however, is now double that of solar. Not surprisingly, India is betting big on solar power, with a massive ramp up from the current 6 750 MW to 100 000 MW in the next five years, supported by a further 40% fall in capital costs. In the light of such overwhelming evidence (and the uranium-invested Guptas having left for Dubai) we expect an announcement soon officially abandoning SA’s crazy idea of a $100bn nuclear programme. = http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/india-energy-minister-says-solar-power-now-cheaper-coal-29756 India energy minister says solar power now cheaper than coal By Giles Parkinson on 21 January 2016 Print Friendly The latest auction of solar energy capacity in India has achieved a new record low price of 4.34 rupees/kWh, prompting the country’s energy minister Piyush Goyal to say that solar tariffs are now cheaper than coal-fired generation. The results of a reverse auction tender of 420MW of solar capacity conducted by the Rajasthan government revealed this week that Finnish group Fortum Energy bid the lowest price of 4.34 rupees/kWh for a 70MW solar PV plant. It is the lowest price obtained so far in India, which aims to install more than 100GW of solar by 2022, and was hailed by Goyal as a sign that solar power is now cheaper than coal power. “Through transparent auctions with a ready provision of land, transmission and the like, solar tariffs have come down below thermal power cost,” Goyal said in a tweet. In a later tweet, Goyal said: “We are moving rapidly towards realising the clean energy vision of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.” In a week in which it was revealed that China’s coal consumption for electricity had slumped 3.5 per cent last year, it is a further bad sign for Australia’s coal exporters. The Fortum bid betters the previous low of 4.63 rupees/kWh made by the US-based SunEdison, the world’s biggest developer of renewable energy power plants, for a 500MW plant in Andra Pradesh last November. Like many such auction results, the Sun-Edison bid was dismissed as irrational. But it was matched a month later in a different auction in December by SkyPower. Fortum’s offer was also no outlier. The bid was nearly matched by Rising Sun Energy (which bid 4.35 rupees for two blocks), France’s Solairedirect (also two blocks for 4.35 rupees a unit) and Yarrow Infrastructure ( a 70MW plant for 4.36 rupees). “This (Rs 4.34 a unit) is the lowest solar tariff so far in India. This has happened because of confidence in the balance sheet of NTPC and solar parks that come with all clearances and confidence in the market,” new and renewable energy joint secretary Tarun Kapoor said. The bids are also not subject to price indexation. Tim Buckley, from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) wrote last month that this means a potential 5 per cent annual real price decline is contractually in place for the next 25 years, a significant long tail advantage of renewable energy. Fossil fuels by comparison offer prohibitive price variability and currency devaluation risks. “India currently has over 4.4GW of installed utility solar capacity, and solar consultancy Bridge to India estimates another 16GW of tenders have been allocated or are in the process of tendering, much which we expect to be operational by 2017 at the latest. Rooftop solar is also on a steep upward trajectory in 2016,” Buckley wrote. “After only 1GW of solar installs in each of 2013/14 and 2014/15, IEEFA estimates 2015/16 installs will more than double to 2.5GW, double again in 2016/17 to 5-6GW and then 9GW by 2017/18. By 2021/22, we forecast cumulative installs of solar to exceed 80GW – close to the Indian Government’s target of 100GW set one year ago.”
[Biofuel] Cessna 182 crosses country on biofuel - AOPA
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/April/27/Cessna-182-crosses-country-on-biofuel [image and links in on-line article] Ross McCurdy and his son, Aedan, in front of the Cessna 182 bioplane they flew across the United States. Photo courtesy of McCurdy. Ross McCurdy, a science teacher from Ponaganset High School in Glocester, Rhode Island, has flown to Santa Monica, California, and back in a 1980 diesel-powered Cessna 182 owned by a New Jersey flying club using a 50-50 mix of Jet A and Camelina plant-seed oil, also known as the Siberian oilseed. There was little danger; even United Airlines uses a 70-30 biofuel mix (30 percent biofuel) on its flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco. McCurdy had his 12-year-old son, Aedan, along for the flight and was joined by other pilots. One of those helped McCurdy with Aspen avionics installed in 2014 in the aircraft that was converted to SMA diesel power in 2009 by the Paramus Flying Club in Caldwell, New Jersey. It uses a 230-horsepower SMA SR305 diesel engine. The fuel meets ASTM standards for aviation use and was provided by the U.S. Air Force. McCurdy returned to North Central State Airport in Providence, Rhode Island, April 25 following 50 hours of flight in 10 days, consuming nearly 600 gallons of fuel. While the Camelina plant is native to Europe and Central Asia, the seed for the Air Force fuel was grown in Montana by Sustainable Oils, McCurdy said, that was formed to grow and do research on Camelina oil. It has previously been used in U.S. Navy jet fighters for research. It was then processed by Honeywell UOP (Universal Oil Products) for the Air Force, McCurdy said. McCurdy stashed five-gallon cans of the oil at fuel stops across the nation but had a tailwind on the return trip giving him a ground speed of 160 knots true airspeed that allowed him to overfly some of the stops. He is planning to get the oil shipped back to him for future flights so he can set a fuel efficiency record and/or fly around the world on sustainable fuel. He did not file for national or world records prior to his trip to California and back, but might do so for the fuel efficiency flights. McCurdy said engine indications were normal throughout the flight. He was accompanied from Texas to California and back by Thierry Saint Loup, an SMA Engines vice president. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] America's Most Notorious Coal Baron Is Going to Prison. But He Still Haunts West Virginia Politics. | Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/jim-justice-don-blankenship-booth-goodwin-west-virginia [videos in on-line article] America's Most Notorious Coal Baron Is Going to Prison. But He Still Haunts West Virginia Politics. Don Blankenship is looming large over the contentious governor's race. —By Tim Murphy | Fri Apr. 29, 2016 6:00 AM EDT As CEO of Massey Energy, central Appalachia's largest coal producer, Don Blankenship towered over West Virginia politics for more than a decade by spending millions to bolster Republican candidates and causes. That chapter came to an end in April, when Blankenship was sentenced to a year in prison for conspiring to commit mine safety violations in the period leading up to the deadly 2010 explosion at Massey's Upper Big Branch mine. But even in absentia, he casts a long shadow over state politics. For evidence, look no further than the contentious Democratic primary for governor. The campaign pits Jim Justice, a billionaire coal operator and high school basketball coach, against two opponents—state Senate Minority Leader Jeff Kessler, and Booth Goodwin, the former US attorney who prosecuted Blankenship. Justice holds a double-digit lead in the polls and (not unlike another billionaire running for office this year) is spending much of his time arguing that his 10-figure net worth will insulate him from special interests. But when he was asked about the Blankenship conviction at a campaign stop earlier this month, he ripped into Goodwin for what he considered to be a sloppy, opportunistic prosecution. "I think we spent an ungodly amount of money within our state to probably keep Booth Goodwin in the limelight and end up with a misdemeanor charge," Justice told WOAY TV. "If that's all we are going to end up with, why did we spend that much money to do that?" Blankenship originally faced up to 30 years for making false statements to federal regulators, but he was convicted on only the least serious of three counts—the misdemeanor conspiracy charge. In Goodwin's view (and in the minds of plenty of Blankenship's critics), his light sentence is the product of weak mine safety laws, not lax prosecution. As he told the Charleston Gazette-Mail, "It is not our fault that violating laws designed to protect workers is punished less harshly than violations of laws designed to protect Wall Street." (Nor was the Blankenship case a one-time gimmick—prior to that trial, Goodwin also secured the convictions of a handful of Blankenship's subordinates at Massey.) Goodwin fired back at Justice in a fundraising email to supporters. He referred to Blankenship as Justice's "good friend," alleging that Justice "took him as his personal guest to the 2012 Kentucky Derby two years after the horrific Upper Big Branch mine explosion," and that he attended a gala that night with Blankenship, hosted by then-Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, "while the families of the UBB miners who were killed were still suffering their loss." (A Beshear spokesman told the Louisville Courier-Journal at the time that Blankenship attended Derby Day events as Justice's guest, which Justice's campaign denies.) For good measure, he noted that Justice, like Blankenship, had racked up a huge tab of mine safety violation fines, some $2 million of which had gone unpaid and were considered "delinquent" prior to the start of the campaign. (Justice began paying off the fines after an NPR investigation made the total bill public.) On Monday, Goodwin's campaign went after Justice again, releasing an ad based on the front-runner's remarks about the Blankenship prosecution. In the spot, Judy Jones Petersen, the sister of a miner who died at UBB, speaks straight to the camera and suggests that the two coal operators have more in common than Justice would like to admit. "I don't really understand why Mr. Justice would step out against the integrity of this incredible prosecution team," Petersen says. "He of all people as a coal mining operator should understand the plight of coal miners, but I think that unfortunately the plight that he understands best is the plight of Don Blankenship." She goes on to call Goodwin a "hero" for prosecuting Blankenship. Justice, for his part, is running his own ad—touting an endorsement from the United Mine Workers praising him for his record on safety and job creation. The union's president, Cecil Roberts, previously called the UBB disaster "industrial homicide," and fought Blankenship over mine safety and workers' rights for three decades. His message is a not-too-subtle contrast with Blankenship and Massey: "Jim is one of the good coal operators." Don't expect Blankenship's shadow to shrink as the race heats up. The Democratic primary is set for May 10—two days before the notorious coal boss reports to federal prison. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofu
[Biofuel] Large parts of Great Barrier Reef 'dead in 20 years'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/large-parts-barrier-reef-dead-20-years-scientists-030028189.html [image gallery with on-line article] Large parts of Great Barrier Reef 'dead in 20 years' AFP April 29, 2016 Sydney (AFP) - Large parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef could be dead within 20 years as climate change drives mass coral bleaching, scientists warned Friday. The World Heritage-listed reef is currently suffering its worst bleaching in recorded history with 93 percent of corals affected due to warming sea temperatures. Experts from the government-backed ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science said in a study that if greenhouse gases keep rising, similar events will be the new normal, occurring every two years by the mid-2030s. Given reefs need some 15 years to completely recover from bleaching of this magnitude, the centre said "we are likely to lose large parts of the Great Barrier Reef in just a couple of decades". Researchers found climate change had added 1.0 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming to the ocean temperatures off the Queensland coast in March, when corals were first noted turning white. "These extreme temperatures will become commonplace by the 2030s, putting a great strain on the ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef,” said lead author Andrew King. "Our research showed this year’s bleaching event is 175 times more likely today than in a world where humans weren’t emitting greenhouse gases. We have loaded the odds against the survival of one of the world’s greatest natural wonders.” Bleaching is a phenomenon that turns corals white or fades their colours as they expel tiny photosynthetic algae, threatening a valuable source of biodiversity, tourism and fishing. They can recover if the water temperature drops and the algae are able to recolonise them. The study is yet to be peer-reviewed, but the centre took the unusual step of releasing it early because the reef is in such a dire predicament. "We are confident in the results because these kind of attribution studies are well established but what we found demands urgent action if we are to preserve the reef,” said King. "For this reason, we felt it was vital to get our findings out as quickly as possible." Earlier this month, researchers at Australia's James Cook University said only seven percent of the huge reef had escaped the whitening, following extensive aerial and underwater surveys. The damage ranges from minor in the southern areas -- which are expected to recover soon -- to very severe in the northern and most pristine reaches of the 2,300 kilometre (1,430 miles) site off Australia's east coast. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, who published a controversial study in 1999 forecasting such an event, said his predictions were now looking conservative. "Reefs need time, around 15 years, to completely recover from a coral bleaching event of this magnitude,” Hoegh-Guldberg said. “Recovery rates are being overwhelmed by more frequent and severe mass coral bleaching.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Will Pennsylvania Cut Oil and Gas Air Pollution?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35849-will-pennsylvania-cut-oil-and-gas-air-pollution [links and video in on-line article] Will Pennsylvania Cut Oil and Gas Air Pollution? Friday, 29 April 2016 00:00 By Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks | News Analysis Oil and gas field residents ask important questions, such as "Are the wells and facilities polluting the air?" and "Is that why I'm sick?" Unfortunately, industry representatives and some elected officials often give dismissive answers, like "Natural gas is clean" and "There's only anecdotal evidence of health problems." Well, hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and much community air testing later, it's getting harder to hide an essential fact: oil and gas development causes air (and water) pollution and harms health. Increasingly, there's also visual evidence, thanks to infrared cameras that make pollution invisible to the naked eye, visible to the world. On April 28, Earthworks released a video that clearly demonstrates why stronger protections against oil and gas air pollution are needed. It shares the stories of three Pennsylvania residents living with wells, compressor stations, and pipelines. David Brown of the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project also weighs in on the risks of exposure to air pollution. Earthworks created the video as part of a broad effort with partner organizations to secure state and federal protections against oil and gas air pollution. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced a proposal to curb methane emissions from gas wells, equipment, and processing and transmission facilities. The state clearly has a problem: in 2014 alone, oil and gas producers reported releasing 100,000 metric tons of methane pollution, enough to heat nearly 65,000 homes. Addressing methane also means curbing a host of health-harming pollutants released along with it. There's nitrogen oxide, which causes smog and in turn respiratory problems, as well as hazardous substances such as benzene, a known carcinogen, and toluene, which is related to kidney and liver problems. And at 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane reductions are necessary to combat climate change. "As a mother living with fracking in my community, I'm deeply concerned about the impacts that air pollution from shale gas development has on the health of children -- who are particularly vulnerable, as they are still developing," says Patrice Tomcik of the Mars Parent Group in Butler County. "Harmful pollution can be emitted during all stages of gas development. My children and all families living near existing gas development will benefit from cutting methane along with toxic co-pollutants. Pennsylvania's children deserve a healthy environment today and for years to come." It remains to be seen when Pennsylvania's methane proposals will be finalized, what they will accomplish, and the degree to which operators will be held accountable for the pollution they cause. Strong public involvement will be necessary to ensure that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issues binding measures covering both existing and new sources of pollution and a wide range of processes and facilities, and is empowered with the staff and resources needed to enforce them. The oil and gas industry and some Pennsylvania legislators are currently hoping to derail popular well site regulations that have been in the works for over four years. They could try to do the same and stop any new air pollution rules as well -- which is why there's no time to waste in taking action. "The gas and oil industry likes to paint communities and the people that speak out against environmental violations, half truths, and health impacts as radicals," says Lois Bower-Bjornson of Washington County, PA. "I ask you, who are the radicals? The oil and gas industry is being allowed to radically alter our lives, properties, and health forever. It's high time the state takes action." ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] How New England Students Are Taking Fossil Fuel Divestment a Step Further
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35847-how-new-england-students-are-taking-fossil-fuel-divestment-a-step-further [links in on-line article] How New England Students Are Taking Fossil Fuel Divestment a Step Further Friday, 29 April 2016 00:00 By Abby Cunniff, Waging Nonviolence | Op-Ed In the past few weeks students across the country have been demanding that their schools stop profiting from oil, coal and gas companies. As student organizers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, we believe that we can stigmatize the fossil fuel industry by mobilizing students around issues of climate change. But making changes on campus is not enough; we know that we need to participate in local fights against fossil fuel companies to strengthen our largely symbolic campaigns. The fight in our own backyard is Spectra Energy's project to expand its "Algonquin" pipeline, which carries fracked gas from Appalachia to Boston. Spectra is constructing about 35 new miles of piping and expanding the existing pipeline to be more than twice its current width within just a few hundred feet of a nuclear power plant. The fight against Spectra may seem like a new climate fight, but it represents only the most recent version of climate colonialism and environmental racism. Spectra's "Algonquin" pipeline follows in the legacy of violence against indigenous peoples in New England and contributes to climate devastation occurring throughout the world. Spectra's decision to use a derivation of Algonquian, a major language grouping in New England, is initially quite confusing. However, when we start to identify multiple instances of businesses using indigenous words for commercial products, we can see that there is a definitive pattern. Companies have seen that stealing tribes' names and words is often profitable, and corporate appropriation of indigeneity plays a large role in erasing our understanding of the indigenous people who are alive today. When asked about Spectra using an indigenous word for their pipeline, Mahtowin Muhro for United American Indians of New England responded by saying, "Do they think it is somehow honoring indigenous people to call it that? We cannot imagine that anyone at [Spectra] knows anything about indigenous lives or nations or values." The "Algonquin" pipeline successfully reminds us of the caricature of the "natural and docile Indian," and distracts from the fact that expanding this methane gas pipeline close to a nuclear power plant could create an explosion estimated near the size of Fukushima. It also distracts from the fact that methane gas is 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide in disrupting the global temperature. This disruption is what causes drought, storms, and sea-level rise across the world and heavily affects the Global South in a continuation of colonial violence. To understand the patterns of global climate destruction, we looked to Naomi Klein's discussion of Black Lives Matter and climate policy. During the period of national unrest last year, she wisely stated, "If we refuse to speak frankly about the intersection of race and climate change, we can be sure that racism will continue to inform how the governments of industrialized countries respond to this existential crisis." We know that the United Nation's failure to create meaningful climate policy has solidified the fact that white and wealthy people's lives are treated as more valuable than others. People in Southeast Asia are watching their homelands slowly go underwater, as people in other parts of the Global South are suffering from oil spills, drought, extreme storms and various forms of climate destruction. In the United States, we know that wealthier and predominantly white communities are less affected by hazards related to fossil fuel extraction and pollution. The 2010 BP oil spill devastated communities along the Gulf Coast, and coal mining continues to endanger the lives of people in Appalachia. To make sense of the immense amount of climate destruction, we began to think of climate change in the context of global colonialism, which has historically decided whose lives matter and whose lives do not. This colonial mindset is especially relevant in New England where indigenous peoples have faced scalping and murder, in addition to disease and land theft at the hands of settler societies. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] We're still learning the impacts of the BP oil spill | HoumaToday.com
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20160429/OPINION/160429644/-1/news300?Title=We-re-still-learning-the-impacts-of-the-BP-oil-spill We're still learning the impacts of the BP oil spill Published: Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:01 a.m. Last Modified: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:24 p.m. It’s been more than six years since April 20, 2010, when an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers and touched off a months-long catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In all that time, the oil industry, the government and researchers have studied the impact of the spill and wondered about the long-term effects it will have on the people, plants and animals of the Gulf and the Gulf Coast. And one group argues that we still don’t know many of the answers. Oceana, an environmental advocacy group, released a report earlier this week that points out many of the lingering effects and highlights the ongoing need for monitoring of the ecological fallout from the spill. For instance, the reports says: — Scientists have found hydrocarbons from the spill in 90 percent pelican eggs tested in Minnesota. Chemical dispersant used on the spill was found in 80 percent of the eggs. They worry that prolonged exposure to these chemicals will have negative effects on generations of pelicans. — Kemp’s ridley sea turtles suffered tens of thousands of deaths from the spill, a fact that leaves the species more vulnerable than ever. — The spill has negatively affected the mortality and reproduction rates of bottlenose dolphins in the Barataria Bay. — The spill poses a an ongoing danger to a host of Gulf fish species that are important to both the food web in the ocean and the economic success of the Gulf Coast fishing industry. Altogether, the list of troubling consequences should do several things. It should remind us of the delicate balance that exists between human development and the nature around us. It also should remind us that such a devastating event will have to be monitored for years or even decades to appreciate the full effect — and we might not know even then. The states and the federal government have come to the end of their court fight against BP, and the sides have settled on fines and payments that must be made for the oil giant’s part in this disaster. But the people of the Gulf Coast, those who have so much to gain or lose based on the Gulf’s health or illness, must continue to be vigilant of the rich natural resource we all share. We might never know the full impact that the oil spill caused, but the accumulation of knowledge about such an important part of our history, our culture and our economy can only be a valuable asset in the future. The BP oil spill is still an event that evokes a broad range of emotions, particularly from those of us who had such a close view of it. And the effort to know more about what it did and is doing continues to be a worthwhile pursuit. Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, not of any individual. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Niger Delta villagers turn to European courts, seeking redress for oil spills – FSRN
https://fsrn.org/2016/04/niger-delta-villagers-turn-to-european-courts-seeking-redress-for-oil-spills/ [video and audio in on-line article] Niger Delta villagers turn to European courts, seeking redress for oil spills · April 29, 2016 Environmentalists rate Nigeria’s Niger Delta as one of the most polluted oil producing regions in the world. For more than fifty years, frequent oil spills have plagued the area, mainly from Western oil companies’ installations. Pollution from crude spills has rendered farmlands, forests and fish ponds unproductive. But villagers rarely receive compensation when they seek redress in court. Many say the companies, especially the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell, have used their powerful influence to escape liability for the oil spills and resulting environmental damage. Now, villagers from Niger Delta are seeking justice through European courts. Sam Olukoya reports. A stone’s throw away from where youth play traditional drums in the Ikot Ada Udo village square is the scene of a major oil spill from a Shell facility, which changed the lives of many here for the worse. “During the spill, the oil flooded everywhere,” says Friday Akpan, looking over the scene of the disaster. “The whole of this place was completely flooded with crude oil. It damaged every crop. The spill was so much, was so serious, the whole thing was so alarming, till it touches the neighboring villages. It was unbearable.” Akpan said the spilled oil spread into forests and farmlands and flowed into his forty seven fish ponds: “Immediately [after] the spill took place, the rain water carries the oil down to the pond. Forty seven fish ponds, and since the pond is at a sloping portion, the whole oil was pushed into the ponds and it damaged all the fish I got from the Ministry of Agriculture. I did not get anything from the ponds.” It’s a familiar story in villages across the Niger Delta, where spills from Western oil companies’ pipelines and facilities have wrecked the livelihoods of those who depend on local farmland and waterways. Children swim in a river in Oruma, where villagers say they have yet to recover from an oil spill that occurred in 2005. Local resident Alali Efanga says the spill destroyed his fish ponds, leaving him with no other source of income. “After this oil spill, Shell, when their oil spill occurred, all hopes have been lost. For now I live from hand to mouth,” says Efanga. “My children too, they are drop outs. I could not take care of their school fees, I could not also take care of their medical bills. If that those fish ponds were there, by now definitely life will be better than this.” Attempts to seek reparations and damages via Nigerian courts have been largely unsuccessful as foreign oil companies wield considerable financial influence within the country. So Niger Delta residents affected by oil spills are seeking justice in European courts. In March, residents of two villages filed a lawsuit against Shell in a British court. One of them is the Bille community, which villagers say has been so badly devastated by spills that crude oil is seeping into their property. The other village is the Ogali community, where residents argue incessant pollution has made the water dangerous for drinking, swimming or fishing. Instituting cases against Shell in Europe has yielded some positive results for Niger Delta villagers. A legal challenge in a British court from one Ogoni village forced Shell last year to agree to an out of court settlement of $77 million. Shell had refused to compensate the villagers prior to legal action. Another success story is that of Akpan, the fisherman from Ikot Ada Udo. In January 2013, a lower court in the Netherlands ruled that Shell Nigeria’s subsidiary should pay him compensation for the oil spill that polluted his fish ponds. In December last year, he got a landmark judgment from another Dutch court, which ruled that Shell can be sued in the Netherlands for the actions of its subsidiaries in other parts of the world. Shell is, however, appealing both judgments. Akpan received legal assistance from the international environmental organization, Friends of the Earth. Suing Shell in Europe may give hope to a few victims, but thousands of others, like Abo John, say they are too poor to seek compensation from the company. “So this our community, we suffered a lot in short. My father’s pond got spoiled. We are suffering because of poverty,” John says. “If not we would have sued these people to court on our own personally, but because of poverty, we cannot take any of them, that is the Shell, to any place.” Relief is unlikely to come soon for Niger Delta residents affected by oil spills. A report by the United Nations Environment Program shows that, even if current pollution is stopped in Ogoniland, the clean-up of the area will take up to thirty years at a cost of $1 billion. Ogoniland co
[Biofuel] Leak of Cancer-Causing Chemical Forces Residents of Canada’s 'Chemical Valley' Indoors | VICE News
https://news.vice.com/article/leak-of-cancer-causing-chemical-forces-residents-of-canadas-chemical-valley-indoors [video and links in on-line article] Leak of Cancer-Causing Chemical Forces Residents of Canada’s 'Chemical Valley' Indoors By Hilary Beaumont April 28, 2016 | 6:00 pm Around dinner time yesterday, sirens wailed in Sarnia, Ontario, warning residents to get inside as a cancer-causing chemical leaked into the air from a nearby Shell refinery. People shut their doors and windows tight to stop the benzene, a sweet-smelling, highly-flammable carcinogen, from seeping into their homes. Roads near the plant were temporarily closed, but have since re-opened. Residents are now free to leave their homes. Air monitoring is underway and crews are investigating the cause of the leak, according to a hazardous materials alert. It's an all-too-familiar song and dance for locals, who have dubbed the industry-saturated area "Chemical Valley." The region is home to about 40 percent of Canada's petrochemical industry, according to a 2007 Ecojustice report, and in 2011 the World Health Organization crowned Sarnia's air the worst in Canada. The air smells of gasoline, asphalt, and bad eggs, according to VICE Canada's documentary on the issue. "It does happen a lot, but I think yesterday's was a little bit scarier because it was benzene and they sounded the alarms for a long time and people were freaking out a bit more than a usual spill," Vanessa Gray told VICE News of the frequent industrial hazard alerts her community experiences. For years, the resident of Aamjiwnaang First Nation has been raising awareness about the toxic industry next door to the reserve. On her way to dinner at her family home Wednesday, Gray noticed a heavy smell in the air. "But that's normal," she said. "Once in awhile you always smell something weird." When the alarms went off during dinner, they didn't stop, which meant it wasn't a drill. Gray's family made sure the windows and doors were closed, tuned into the radio for updates and played Yahtzee until the "shelter in place" warning was over. "It was really scary because I was there with my family, and I saw their faces and could tell they were a little afraid," she said. Found in crude oil, gasoline and cigarette smoke, benzene can cause anemia by preventing bone marrow from producing enough red blood cells, and can also damage the immune system, according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP). The World Health Organization states that benzene causes cancer, and "no safe level of exposure can be recommended." Inhaling high levels of benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, irregular heartbeat, headaches, tremors, confusion and unconsciousness, the CDCP says, and in very high levels, benzene can kill. Other than causing cancer, long term exposure to benzene can cause excessive bleeding and can increase the chance of infection. For women, inhaling benzene can lead to irregular periods and shrink their ovaries. Aamjiwnaang residents say they have higher rates of cancer, and Gray says her family members have been directly affected. According to the Globe and Mail, hospital case data from the 1990s showed the overall cancer rate for men living in Sarnia was 34 percent higher than the provincial average. Shell spokesperson Cameron Yost told VICE News the company is continuing its investigation into Wednesday's incident, and the "shelter in place" warning was "a precautionary measure." Air quality in Sarnia is now normal, Yost said. "The safety of our community members and employees remains our number one priority, and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience our neighbors may have experienced during this incident," Yost said. It's not the first time a leak at the Shell plant near Sarnia has set off alarm bells. In January 2013, the same plant leaked gas that caused residents to complain of irritated eyes, sore throats and nausea, according to the Sarnia Observer. The leak of mercaptan, which smells of dirty socks but isn't dangerous, was caused by corrosion in a line at the Shell refinery. The company was also charged with releasing hydrogen sulphide, the Observer reported, but the charge was dropped. The company pleaded guilty and was charged $500,000. The company also had to pay $200,000 to Aamjiwnaang. The company's lawyer said in court the company regretted the incident, had learned from the leak and had put preventative measures in place to stop it from happening again, the Observer reported. But Shell isn't alone. In Sarnia last year, there were 16 alerts of hazardous material leaks, industrial fires and air quality warnings. Spilled and leaked substances included hydrogen sulfide, methyl chloride, hydrocarbons and benzene. If industry causes harm to the people nearby or the land, they should shut down operations altogether, Gray argues. "Indigenous people have
[Biofuel] VW and Shell Join Forces For Biofuel | The News Wheel
https://thenewswheel.com/vw-and-shell-join-forces-for-biofuel/ [Hard to know if this is really cause for enthusiasm when the proponents are both reeling from scandals related to their core businesses - Dieselgate and Niger Delta decades of oil pollution. Couple that with the EU report that says biofuels create more GHG emissions than fossil fuels, and the whole thing looks rather suspicious. I suppose they'll come out in favour of hydrogen as a transport fuel next. It still fascinates me that no auto manufacturer has shown any interest in an electric-biofuel hybrid, given the supposed level of interest in reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector. As for the claim that older combustion vehicles can be retrofitted to run on biofuels, I have seen little evidence of that to date. AFAIK, no North American spark ignition vehicle can run on E100; at least 15% gasoline is required for engine starting. While some diesel vehicles can move to B100 (in warm weather) by changing fuel hoses, many will require changes to fuel pumps or even fuel injectors, per current OEM automaker literature. links in on-line article] When it comes to helping our planet, there seems to be two camps in the automotive world, with one advocating for electric cars, and one group looking to biofuels. The Paris Climate Conference last year agreed on some pretty strict emissions targets for 2025 and 2030, and the EU is currently putting plans in place to meet the standards. The government is leaning towards advocating for electric cars, while Volkswagen and Shell are setting their sights on biofuels. Each side of the debate has its pros and cons. For example, cars that run solely on electric have no emissions from the actual vehicle, and charging is easy with quick charging stations. Electric cars, though, aren’t entirely sin free, as the power plants used to create the electricity for the cars create a fair amount of pollution on their own, especially if they are powered by coal or nuclear energy. Biofuels have emissions, but do not rely on fossil fuels retrieved from the earth with damaging processes. Another big thing going for biofuels is that there are already so many fossil fuel vehicles on the road today. While switching to electric cars would require new car purchases, older vehicles could be modified to run on biofuels while the world prepares the massive infrastructure required for a switch to all-electric cars. The Auto Fuels Coalition, led by VW and Shell, released a study that is very optimistic about the use of biofuels and how they could be best used to help the environment to support their claims. Time will which solution the European Union decides to work towards. Either way, it’s exciting to see governments working towards actually lowering greenhouse emissions to help our planet as much as possible. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Renewables Swamp Natural Gas in First Quarter 2016 - Renewable Energy World
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/04/renewables-swamp-natural-gas-in-first-quarter-2016.html [Now, imagine what would be happening if there was a real carbon tax on electrical generation. U.S. data - links in on-line article] Renewables Swamp Natural Gas in First Quarter 2016 April 28, 2016 By Kenneth Bossong New Renewable Energy Generating Capacity — 1,291 MW New Natural Gas Generating Capacity — 18 MW Nothing at All from Coal, Oil or Nuclear Washington DC — Setting a new lopsided quarterly record, renewable sources (i.e., wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower) outpaced — in fact, swamped — natural gas by a factor of more than 70:1 for new electrical generating capacity placed in-service during the first three months of calendar year 2016. According to the latest just-released monthly "Energy Infrastructure Update" report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Office of Energy Projects, nine new "units" of wind provided 707 MW, followed by 44 units of solar (522 MW), 9 units of biomass (33 MW), and one unit of hydropower (29 MW). By comparison, only two new units of natural gas (18 MW) came on line. There was no new capacity reported for the quarter from coal, oil, nuclear power, or geothermal steam. Further, solar (75 MW), wind (72 MW), and biomass (33 MW) accounted for 100 percent of new generating capacity reported by FERC for just the month of March. Solar and wind were the only sources of new capacity in January as well. Renewable energy sources now account for 18.11 percent of total available installed generating capacity in the U.S.: water — 8.58 percent; wind — 6.39 percent; biomass — 1.43 percent; solar — 1.38 percent; and geothermal steam — 0.33 percent. For perspective, when FERC issued its first "Energy Infrastructure Update" in December 2010, renewable sources accounted for just 13.71 percent. Moreover, the share of total available installed generating capacity now provided by non-hydro renewables (9.53 percent) not only exceeds that of conventional hydropower (8.58 percent) but is also greater than that from either nuclear power (9.17 percent) or oil (3.83 percent).* While often touted as being a 'bridge fuel,' natural gas is increasingly becoming an unnecessary bridge to nowhere. As renewables continue to rapidly expand their share of the nation's electrical generation, it's becoming clear that natural gas will eventually join coal, oil, and nuclear power as fuels of the past. * Note that generating capacity is not the same as actual generation. Electrical production per MW of available capacity (i.e., capacity factor) for renewables is often lower than that for fossil fuels and nuclear power. According to the most recent data provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, actual net electrical generation from utility-scale renewable energy sources totaled about 14.3 percent of total U.S. electrical production as of January 31, 2016 (see eia.gov). However, this figure understates renewables' actual contribution because neither EIA nor FERC fully accounts for all electricity generated by distributed, smaller-scale renewable energy sources such as rooftop solar (e.g., FERC acknowledges that its data just reflect "plants with nameplate capacity of 1 MW or greater"). ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Vattenfall demands Sweden to abolish nuclear tax to save reactors
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19431 [More evidence nuclear fission cannot compete on cost. Especially if required to meet safety standards and accumulate funds for decommissioning and disposal of nuclear waste caused by reactor operations. Raising prices for electricity is becoming less of an option with time as renewables and energy storage are now setting the price in electricity markets.] Vattenfall demands Sweden to abolish nuclear tax to save reactors 28/04/2016 State-owned Swedish utility Vattenfall called on Wednesday to end tax on nuclear power in Sweden to avoid early closure of its loss-making nuclear reactors and probable increase in electricity prices. Vattenfall and Germany's E.ON have already settled to close four out of ten Sweden's nuclear reactors earlier than previously intended because of low productivity. The Swedish utility runs seven nuclear reactors at Ringhals and Forsmark electricity plants in collaboration with Finland's Fortum and Germany's E.ON. E.ON runs three reactors at Oskarshamn power plant, counting one reactor which was forever shut last year. Nordic average spot electricity prices dropped to 15-year low of 21 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh), while nuclear power plant operators have to pay a specific tax on nuclear capacity, which representes 7 euros per MWh. While profitability reduce, operators have had to implement pricey post-Fukushima safety improvements, such as independent core cooling systems, an insurance against external electricity loss. Nuclear power plants produce approximately 40 percent of electricity in Sweden, aiding to avoid prices spikes in the hydropower-reliant region during arid years. Vattenfall expects to turn into carbon neutral by 2050 and is vending its contaminating lignite power plants in eastern Germany. Nuclear contributed to around a quarter of Vattenfall's total production of 173 TWh in 2015. Its share in Vattenfall's power mix might increase by almost 35 percent, if the government authorizes the sale of lignite power plants in Germany, according to Reuters calculations. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] PetrolPlaza Scandinavian Special. Sweden: The land of biofuels - PetrolPlaza - News
http://www.petrolplaza.com/news/industry/MiZlbiYxOTk1MyYmMQ%3D%3D PetrolPlaza Scandinavian Special. Sweden: The land of biofuels Posted / Last update: 26-04-2016 Sweden has become a world leader in renewable fuels. Around 15% of all fuel sold is some kind of biofuel, which in some cases allows for a 90% reduction of greenhouse emissions. We speak with Swedish industry experts to find out more. Watch our video interviews on the link below. http://www.petrolplaza.com/tv/petrolplaza/MiZlbiYxOTk1NiYmMSZtb2RpZmllZF9kYXRlIERFU0M%3D The use of renewable fuels in our transport system has increased in rangeand usage across the world. Ethanol has experienced an incredible surge in recent times, and other alternatives such as biodiesel and biogas gain more presence by the day. In these terms, Sweden is now at the forefront of the development and usage of renewable fuels. Sweden has set itself the ambitious target of becoming fossil fuel independent by 2030. In 2015, around 15% of the fuel in the Swedish market was some kind of biofuel: Five percent ethanol, and 10% biodiesel and biogas, according to the Swedish Petroleum & Biofuels Institute (SPBI). “Sweden wants to become the first fossil fuel-independent country,” says Ulf Svahn, Managing Director at SPBI. “The country wants to push green policies, from politicians, as an industry, and as a society.” The new focus goes back to June 2006, when a commission appointed by the former Government of Sweden published a report entitled ‘Making Sweden an Oil-Free Society’, which outlined the reasons and steps to be taken towards a greener society. Eight years later, in 2014, Sweden managed to get two-thirds of its electricity generation capacity from clean and low-carbon sources, according to Bloomberg. Sweden has started to use Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) to make renewable diesel, which allows for a greenhouse reduction of 90% compared to regular diesel. Preem, Sweden´s largest fuel company – accounting for over 50% of the refinery capacity – uses residues from forestry products, mainly from the pulp industry in the form of crude tall oil, to make HVO. “It is a very efficient way to reduce greenhouse emissions. In Scandinavia we have the opportunity to use the forest in a sustainable way,” says Sören Erikson, Preem. “The response from the users has been great because we are making ordinary diesel. It works for any car. You cannot tell the difference.” Preem is targeting 2.5 million tons per year of production capacity for forest-residue-based renewable fuel. Starting to use lignin as a source for HVO in the near future would be one of the ways to increase production capacity. According to all the interviewees, the European Union directives are limiting what Sweden can achieve in this direction. Due to a conflict with the EU, Sweden has had to leave the tax exemption system that saw the usage of biofuels rise in such a rapid manner. The EU has also put a ceiling of 7% on biofuels based on food materials. While many view a bet on alternative fuels as an extra cost for the industry, especially in the context of collapsed oil prices, Eriksson explains that it actually works the other way around. “Using more renewables does not affect the economy (growth). It is actually the opposite. We have created many jobs because of this,” says Eriksson. The government also took strong initiatives that saw the use of ethanol in vehicles augment significantly. After a number of policies, in 2011 there were 1,740 pumps and 222,000 ethanol cars on the streets of Sweden, according to Sekab. For Anders Norén, from the Swedish car manufacturing association, Bil Sweden, the way forward is to improve the efficiency of vehicles, continue the rapid development of biofuels, and invest in other systems such as electric and fuel cell vehicles. While huge steps have been taken, the Swedish government is showing no signs of reducing its efforts to be free from fossil fuel. During this year the country will be investing 4.5 billion kronor ($546 million) in climate-protection measures, reported Bloomberg. The fuel retailing industry itself is at a healthy stage with over 2,500 gas stations. Statoil and QKQ8 lead the market with more than 700 sites each, with the former undergoing a major overhaul in May 2016 as it switches to the brand Circle K. Preem, Sheel and ST1 all have significant fuel station networks across the country. Written by Oscar Smith Diamante ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] New Ontario agency will be given sweeping mandate to overhaul energy use - The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-create-agency-to-oversee-climate-change-goals-draft-plan-shows/article29781337/ New Ontario agency will be given sweeping mandate to overhaul energy use ADRIAN MORROW AND GREG KEENAN TORONTO — The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2016 9:57PM EDT Last updated Thursday, Apr. 28, 2016 7:10AM EDT The Ontario government plans to make the majority of the province’s buildings emissions-free and slash the use of cars to just 20 per cent of commuter trips by 2050 as part of a dramatic plan to meet its climate-change goals. To achieve these aims, the province will establish a “new ultra-low-carbon utility” – an agency with a sweeping mandate to change everything about how Ontarians use energy to reduce carbon emissions drastically. These details are in a confidential draft of the province’s Climate Change Action Plan obtained by The Globe and Mail. The strategy, which wants to put “a zero emission or hybrid electric vehicle in every multicar household driveway within eight years,” is expected to be unveiled next month. It is meant to supplement a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that takes effect next year. The draft plan promises to get at least 1.7 million electric and hybrid cars in use by 2024, take seven million gas-burning vehicles off the road by 2030, and ensure that by 2050, 80 per cent of residents use public transit, walk or cycle to work. It would also cut emissions from buildings by 15 per cent by 2030 and ensure most buildings are emissions-free by 2050. This would be done by helping homeowners and businesses install solar panels or geothermal systems and undertake retrofits, and by changing the building code to require renovations and new construction to make buildings more energy-efficient. It would buy offsets to make the Ontario government carbon-neutral next year. By 2030, the government will cut its own emissions by 50 per cent. The plan would provide funding for industry to switch to cleaner factories, and for research into new low-carbon technologies. To co-ordinate the electricity system, home-based power generation such as rooftop solar panels, low-carbon transportation and energy-efficient heating and cooling systems in buildings, a new utility would be established – effectively an agency to oversee a massive shift to low-emission homes, buildings and transportation options. Environment Minister Glen Murray's spokesman, David Mullock, said the document obtained by the Globe is a preliminary draft circulated among industry to get feedback on the government's ideas. "These discussion documents are very much draft in nature and do not reflect any final decisions regarding the Climate Change Action Plan. We will continue to consult on the Climate Change Action Plan to ensure that Ontario is successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in meeting our reduction targets," he wrote in an email. “This looks like a fairly comprehensive approach,” said Keith Brooks of Environmental Defence. He said the idea of having a single agency to help Ontarians retrofit their homes and oversee the transition to electric and hybrid vehicles is a good one; such things now are often handled piecemeal. But Mr. Brooks cautioned the plan is short on details: “This looks like a precursor to an action plan.” The document is largely silent, for instance, on how the new utility would fit with existing electricity distribution, transmission and generation companies. It also does not say how much more emissions-free electricity generation – whether from nuclear plants, wind farms or solar projects – would be necessary. The plan does not spell out how it would get Ontarians to switch to zero-emission or hybrid electric vehicles in eight years. Possibilities include giving drivers more rebates on electric cars or mandating that a certain percentage of auto makers’ sales be electric or hybrid. Either way, reaching that number will be hard. By The Globe’s calculation, it would entail sales of 1.7 million hybrid or electric vehicles in the next eight years in Ontario or about 200,000 annually – compared with just 52,000 last year. Whether it is possible to reach that goal “depends on what you’re smoking,” said one auto industry source who has been involved in discussions with several provinces regarding plans to increase the electric and hybrid vehicle fleets. About 8 per cent of the fleet is replaced annually, the source said, which means it takes about 20 years to turn over completely. “Manufacturers are not and will not make or sell that many cars for Canada by that date,” said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association of Canada. Such a move would also signal to manufacturers of large volumes of vehicles with internal combustion engines that the products they make in Ontario are not welcome in the province, Mr. Volpe
[Biofuel] Statoil to Pair Wind, Energy Storage for Offshore Rigs - Renewable Energy World
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/04/statoil-to-experiment-with-energy-storage-for-offshore-wind.html [links in on-line article] Statoil to Pair Wind, Energy Storage for Offshore Rigs April 20, 2016 By Jessica Shankleman, Bloomberg The highest carbon tax in an oil producing nation has persuaded Norway’s state-owned driller to experiment with energy storage and wind turbines as an alternative for supplying electricity to offshore rigs. Statoil ASA is planning to park its floating Hywind turbines next to rigs, using lithium-ion batteries to store energy for times when the wind isn’t blowing, said Stephen Bull, a senior vice president overseeing the work. If it succeeds, the technology may spread to the fish-farming industry, which also has big offshore electricity needs. The project dubbed “Batwind” is an example of innovation that governments are hoping to encourage by putting a price on the pollution that causes global warming. Norway charges as much as 436 krone ($53) per metric ton of carbon emitted for fossil fuels extracted on its continental shelf, 10 times the price of certificates in the European Union’s offset market. It’s the “financial upside” that’s making the project more attractive financially, Bull said, whose company wants to be the world’s greenest fossil-fuel producer. “When you look at the platforms and you look at the exposure we have for power and carbon dioxide, it’s considerable.” Norway’s carbon tax is the fourth-highest in the world behind Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, none of which produce significant quantities of fossil fuels. The next highest at about $25 a ton is the U.K., according to the World Bank’s annual report on the market. Norway was one of the first countries to adopt a carbon tax in 1991, and the fee now covers about 55 percent of the nation’s CO2 emissions, according to the World Bank. Emissions not covered by a carbon tax are included in the country’s ETS, which was linked to the European ETS in 2008. Statoil has already committed $214 million to the Hywind offshore wind plant, which will supply 30 MW when it’s complete in Scotland in 2017. That in itself is unique, since only about 8 MW of floating offshore wind is working worldwide to date, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. By 2018, Statoil will add a 1 megawatt-hour of batteries to the Hywind project at a cost BNEF estimates at $1.2 million more. Batwind is important because it’s one of a handful of large-scale examples where companies are using storage devices to balance the variable power flows coming from a renewable energy generator. If perfected and economical, the technologies used together may spread, challenging diesel generators and maybe even coal plants, whose main selling point is reliability. “It is expensive, there’s no doubt about it,” said Bull, who declined to provide cost estimates. “The key part for us is being able to offer predictability on power and that has a much higher value than the variability.” Battery Wind The lithium-ion battery elements in the battery-wind project, or “Batwind” for short, will come online in 2018. Together, they’ll be attached to Statoil’s floating wind farm in Scotland as part of a demonstration project. “Statoil is well on the way to competitive costs, having already shown a price per megawatt drop of 77 percent from its from first demo turbine in 2009 to its latest array,” said Tom Harries, an analyst at BNEF. While it may take another decade or more to make floating wind turbines as cheap as ones anchored to the ocean floor, Statoil’s project may prove that marrying the two technologies can help generate clean electricity more economically. It’s also being helped by the falling cost of lithium batteries, which are being pushed down by a boom in hybrid-electric vehicles. Battery storage could fall by as much as 52 percent, to $182 per kilowatt hour, by 2025, according BNEF. Batteries increase the appeal of the project by ensuring a steady supply of electricity will flow, making Batwind as reliable as more polluting incumbents for small-scale backup power. Bull said fish farmers in Norway already have approached Statoil about tapping its electricity. “Many of them come to us, saying ‘we’re burning a lot of diesel, it’s costing us a lot of money,”’ Bull said. Norway is the world’s biggest salmon market, exporting a record 48 billion Norwegian krone ($6 billion) of trout and salmon in 2015. Statoil may even seek to sell its Batwind energy-storage solutions abroad. It has bought domain names in key markets including the U.K., Japan and U.S. “It’s a must-have skill set for us,” Bull said. “We’re going to have to get our head around storage technology -- particularly if we’re going to make floating a valued proposition in other countries beyond Europe.” ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorg
[Biofuel] EnergyMarketPrice | News details
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19416&trydf=histor...@eaaev.org China connected 5.33 GW of wind capacity to the grid in Q1 2016 27/04/2016 *China’s newly installed wind power capacity hit 5.33 GW in the first quarter, up 13% year-on-year, according to figures released by the National Energy Administration (NEA).* The first quarter 2016 saw a total grid-connected wind generation capacity at 134 GW, up 33% compared with data from March last year. However, wind-power consumption declined due to wastage. China's wind farms supplied 55.2 billion kilowatt-hours to the grid over the three-month period, up 21 percent from a year earlier. The average usage of wind power in the first three months was 422 hours, 61 less than the same period in 2015, the NEA stated. The NEA said that 19.2 billion KWh, or 26 percent, of total wind output was wasted. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Australian politician blames fracking after he sets river ablaze with a lighter - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/04/25/australian-politician-blames-fracking-after-he-sets-river-ablaze-with-a-lighter/ [So, really, what's the problem here? Now, you can go fishing, catch something for dinner, and then cook it, all without leaving your boat. /sarcasm off Wooden boats not recommended for this activity. Other than the risk of lighting up the shorelines (admittedly a big risk), at least burning the methane reduces the greenhouse gas impact by transforming it into methane. Better still, if the vents are stable, would be to set up a way to capture the methane, store and transport it for use elsewhere, displacing the need for other natural gas production. Links, video in on-line article I recommend watching the video.] Australian politician blames fracking after he sets river ablaze with a lighter By Ben Guarino April 25 at 4:00 AM Some people want to watch the world burn. Others — like Jeremy Buckingham, a member of the Australian Parliament — will settle for rivers. In an act of protest against coal seam fracking, the Greens Party member recently took an aluminium boat down the Condamine River in Queensland, Australia. This was no lazy afternoon cruise. The surface of the river fizzed with bubbles of methane gas. Methane is colorless and odorless — but it’s also quite flammable. Buckingham leaned over the side of the boat, and, as though lighting a barbecue, set the methane ablaze. Presto: Instant river flambé. “We did not expect it to explode like it it did,” Buckingham told The Washington Post early Monday in a phone interview. He’s calling for the gas industry to halt fracking in Australia until the source of the methane can be determined. “This is the future of Australia if we do not stop the frackers, who want to spread across all states and territories,” Buckingham said in a video of the river fire, which he posted to Facebook. The flames lasted for an hour as the methane continued to churn out of the river bed and feed the fire, he said. As of early Monday morning, more than 3.3 million people had viewed the video. The Condamine River isn’t the first flaming body of water to spark environmental health concerns. When a layer of oil and trash on top of Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught flame in 1969, the resulting furor led to the passage of the Clean Water Act. In 2014, a discarded cigarette set a polluted river on fire in Wenzhou, China; a year later, flaming waste floating on a lake in India oozed sulfuric fumes so pungent they ruptured a bystander’s cornea. Fracking, too, has its share of heated discussion centered on fiery water. Homeowners living near hydraulic fracturing wells in Texas and Pennsylvania were able to light methane in the water coming out of their faucets. In 2014, American researchers hunting for this so-called fugitive methane were able to trace it by following specific inert elements that had hitchhiked along with the natural gas. In the cases of flaming spigots, the researchers believe that faulty casings and other chinks in the wells’ integrity allowed the methane to escape, not the fracking itself. Buckingham’s evidence isn’t as concrete — his experimentation begins and ends with setting rivers ablaze. “I acknowledge we don’t have the proof,” he told The Post. But Buckingham points to reports of increasingly bubbly water after fracking began in the Queensland area to buttress his view. Not everyone shares this conviction. “At this stage we don’t know fully the reason why the methane is coming to the surface,” said Damian Barrett, a natural gas researcher at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia’s national science agency. Barrett told The Washington Post early Monday that because the gas wells are more than 3 miles away from the Condamine, fracking’s connection with the river methane is dubious. The fracking wells would have to connect chambers of gas improbably far apart. “It’s highly unlikely,” he said — though “not impossible.” In an interview with the Guardian Australia, Buckingham accused the Australian research agency of being in bed with the coal gas industry. (Barrett, in addition to his post at the CSIRO, directs the Gas Industry Social & Environmental Research Alliance, a partnership between the coal gas industry and the Australian government.) Barrett denied any impropriety. “The work that we do is entirely independent,” he told The Post. “We don’t hold back any information that’s coming out of our research. We’re just stating the science.” Though it’s “quite possibly true” that the river’s methane has begun to bubble more dramatically — CSIRO has been studying the area for the past 3 years — Barrett points out that the coal seams near Condamine are close to the surface, tucked under just a few hundred feet of earth. Typically, he said, the sediment on the bottom of the river bed prevents the risin
[Biofuel] EU dropped climate policies after BP threat of oil industry 'exodus' | Environment | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus [links in on-line article] EU dropped climate policies after BP threat of oil industry 'exodus' Oil giant warned industry would pull out of EU if laws to cut pollution and speed clean energy take up were passed, letter obtained by the Guardian reveals The EU abandoned or weakened key proposals for new environmental protections after receiving a letter from a top BP executive which warned of an exodus of the oil industry from Europe if the proposals went ahead. In the 10-page letter, the company predicted in 2013 that a mass industry flight would result if laws to regulate tar sands, cut power plant pollution and accelerate the uptake of renewable energy were passed, because of the extra costs and red tape they allegedly entailed. The measures “threaten to drive energy-intensive industries, such as refining and petrochemicals, to relocate outside the EU with a correspondingly detrimental impact on security of supply, jobs [and] growth,” said the letter, which was obtained by the Guardian under access to documents laws. The missive to the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, was dated 9 August 2013, partly hand-written, and signed by a senior BP representative whose name has been redacted. It references a series of “interactions” between the two men – and between BP and an unnamed third party in Washington DC – and welcomes opportunities to further discuss energy issues in an “informal manner”. BP’s warning of a fossil fuel pull-out from Europe was repeated three times in the letter, most stridently over plans to mandate new pollution cuts and clean technologies, under the industrial emissions directive. This reform “has the potential to have a massively adverse economic impact on the costs and competitiveness of European refining and petrochemical industries, and trigger a further exodus outside the EU,” the letter said. The plant regulations eventually advanced by the commission would leave Europe under a weaker pollution regime than China’s, according to research by Greenpeace. BP said any clampdown would cost industry many billions of euros and so pollution curbs “should also be carefully accessed with close co-operation with the industrial sectors”. Last year the EU’s environment department moved to limit the coal lobby’s influence on pollution standards, after revelations by the Guardian and Greenpeace about the scale of industry involvement. The commission had previously allowed hundreds of energy industry lobbyists to aggressively push for weaker pollution limits as part of the official negotiating teams of EU member states. The Green MEP Molly Scott Cato said that the UK’s robust advocacy of BP’s positions was a cause of deep shame, and illustrated how Brexit would increase the power of fossil fuel firms. She said: “It reveals how the arm-twisting tactics of big oil seek to undermine the EU’s progressive energy and climate policies. BP’s covert lobbying, combined with threats of an exodus of the petrochemicals industry from the EU, are nothing short of blackmail. “This document paints a disturbing picture of the degree to which global corporations subvert the democratic process, influence the commission and threaten the vital transition to a cleaner, greener Europe.” A BP spokesman said that the letter was intended to “highlight the risk of ‘carbon leakage’, where EU policy to reduce carbon emissions may result in industry relocating outside the EU, rather than achieving any actual reduction in emissions. Avoiding this perverse outcome is of critical importance to climate policy.” In his reply to BP, Oettinger said that his department was finalising an energy prices report and “your thoughts are very valuable in this context”. Before the report’s publication, Oettinger’s team removed figures from an earlier draft which revealed that EU states spent €40bn (£32bn) a year on subsidies for fossil fuels, compared to €35bn for nuclear energy, and just €30bn for renewables. The commissioner’s office argues that the numbers were inconsistent and “not comparable” Early in his tenure, Oettinger had been forced to back down on plans for a moratorium on deepwater offshore oil drills in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Within two years, he had become an industry champion, arguing that Europe was competitively disadvantaged by a reluctance to take offshore drilling risks. Oettinger regularly hosts alpine retreats for government ministers, bankers and captains of industry. In 2013, these included executives from Shell, Statoil, GDF Suez, EDF, Alstom, Enel and ENI, although not BP. A spokeswoman for Oettinger said: “When the Commission prepares formal legislative proposals, there is a full public consultation exercise in which all stakeholders can participate. With the majority of the
[Biofuel] Exxon and Its Allies Invoke First Amendment to Fight Climate Fraud Probes | InsideClimate News
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/21042016/exxon-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-change-fraud-investigation-first-amendment-rights [links in on-line article] Exxon and Its Allies Invoke First Amendment to Fight Climate Fraud Probes Lawyers hired by Exxon and CEI have experience waging long battles with government attorneys on controversial issues, including tobacco. By Neela Banerjee Apr 22, 2016 Exxon, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their allies are invoking free speech protections in a pugnacious pushback against subpoenas from attorneys general seeking decades of documents on climate change. Their argument is that the state-level investigations violate the First Amendment rights of those who question climate science. Exxon has sued to block a subpoena issued by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and in an unusual step, named as a defendant the Washington, D.C. law firm and attorney representing the territory in the inquiry. In its complaint against the Virgin Islands subpoena, Exxon wrote, "The chilling effect of this inquiry...strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment." In a pointed letter to Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker on April 20, CEI's attorney called the subpoena "offensive" and "un-American," and warned to "expect a fight." Andrew Grossman, outside counsel for CEI, wrote, "You have no right to wield your power as a prosecutor to advance a policy agenda by persecuting those who disagree with you." The conservative non-profit Energy & Environment Legal Institute, an ally of CEI, recently released emails that show that the attorneys general considering investigating Exxon were briefed by two environmentalists. E&E got the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Vermont attorney general's office. Though such meetings with environmental and industry advocates are widely considered routine, E&E described the meetings as secretive collusion, an idea that has been echoed on conservative websites and among some mainstream media outlets. The AGs have not changed course amid the counterattack. But Exxon and its allies appear to be aiming as much at public opinion as at state law enforcement. After InsideClimate News and later the Los Angeles Times published stories last year detailing Exxon's cutting edge climate research in the 1970s and its subsequent efforts to disparage climate science, the company initially argued it has conducted climate science without interruption for 40 years. It also answered a subpoena by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and produced 10,000 pages of records by the end of 2015. Now, its emphasis appears to have shifted. As the company tries to defend its climate contrarian stance, Exxon argues that it has voiced honest dissent on the science that a conspiracy of environmentalists and attorneys general wants to silence. "Our critics, on the other hand, want no part of that discussion. Rather, they seek to stifle free speech and limit scientific inquiry while painting a false picture of ExxonMobil," spokeswoman Suzanne McCarron wrote in a post on the company's blog on April 20 titled "The Coordinated Attack on ExxonMobil." Exxon and CEI's lawyers have experience waging long battles with government attorneys on controversial cases. Exxon's law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and CEI's attorneys, BakerHostetler, represented the tobacco industry for years. Exxon's firm also represents the National Football League as it deals with the scandal over its concussion research. CEI's lawyers, Andrew Grossman and David Rivkin, have launched a project called Free Speech in Science, which aims to "stop the intimidation" of those who disagree with accepted climate science. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, the lawyers compared climate deniers to Galileo and added, "As the scientific case for a climate-change catastrophe wanes, proponents of big-ticket climate policies are increasingly focused on punishing dissent from an asserted 'consensus' view." Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at CEI and a fellow at E&E Legal. Horner and his colleague, David Schnare, have a long history of submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for the emails and documents of leading climate scientists, such as NASA's James Hansen, and government officials, such as former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. In one of their most public efforts, Horner and Schnare, then working as part of the American Tradition Institute, unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to the papers of climate scientist Michael Mann during his tenure at the University of Virginia. Schnare denied that E&E's current FOIA request to the Vermont attorney general's office was done in partnership with CEI. E&E has filed requests with other states, he said. "Because this is an evolving story, and as we learn more about the extent of this consp
[Biofuel] A Pipeline Defeated: How a Small Town Saved Itself
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35756-a-pipeline-defeated-how-a-small-town-saved-itself A Pipeline Defeated: How a Small Town Saved Itself Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:00 By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed In the dungeon that was the winter of 2014 here in my New Hampshire home, a pair of representatives from the natural gas pipeline company Kinder Morgan/Tennessee Gas arrived in the town of Rindge, just down the road. They were there to meet with the town administrator about a proposed natural gas pipeline route that would cut the town in half, along with several other towns, as it made its way to the sea. The two were almost comically young -- I have shoes older than those guys -- and yet they were cloaked in an arrogant air of power that is only found in people who think working for a corporate juggernaut somehow gifts them authority. They walked into the meeting room and before a word was spoken, one of them officiously looked at his wristwatch, then looked at the administrator and said, "We have 14 minutes for you." That's how it was between Rindge and Kinder Morgan after that cold winter night in 2014. The company lied, delayed, danced, dodged and did everything they possibly could to put off the New Hampshire locals who had a few questions about the whole thing, and did so for almost two years. The town fought back, along with a coalition of other towns who would be deeply affected by the construction of this pipeline. It was a long slog, but on Wednesday the word came down: Kinder Morgan had officially "suspended further work and expenditures" on the pipeline plan. In short, Rindge and the other towns won. For now, anyway. The background in brief: Kinder Morgan (KM) wanted to build a pipeline to transport the fruits of fracking from Pennsylvania through New York and New England. It would traverse a portion of western Massachusetts and all of southern New Hampshire, terminating in the seaside town of Dracut, where the gas would be loaded onto LNG tankers for sale in Canada and overseas. Not one breath of the gas would be made available to the affected residents. In fact, the towns were expected to pay a tariff for the privilege of hosting the line. KM initially tried to have the pipeline built along the northern border of Massachusetts, but their plan was roundly routed by residents who wanted nothing to do with it. Plan B for KM was to run the thing across southern New Hampshire to Dracut; they assumed the residents of this sleepy little state would not put up much of a fight. In that, they were badly mistaken. KM ran straight into the teeth of a very patient buzzsaw up here in the Granite State, and on Wednesday they decided it was too expensive to push the fight any longer. Why so much resistance? This pipeline project brought together a truly remarkable confederation of anti-pipeline activists and groups that are usually at each other's throats: libertarian Free Staters, Greens, conservatives, liberals, because the pipeline cut through all their concerns like a septic artery carrying poisoned blood. The reasons behind the fight were legion for all camps involved. For conservatives and the libertarian Free State types, the issue came down to property rights. KM was looking to use the power of eminent domain to take the land they wanted for the construction of the pipeline if they couldn't get direct permission from the property owners. Beyond that was the "incineration zone": a 900-foot radius that would be utterly obliterated if the pipeline decided to blow up. Homeowners within the blast zone were not only looking at the possibility of flaming death, but the reality that their home and property values would be profoundly diminished because they were hedged against a potential bomb. How do you put that in a "For Sale" ad? "Bucolic two-story colonial, four bedrooms, two bathrooms, screened porch, 10 acres, and you might die screaming." Not so good for the resale value, that. For the environmentally-minded, the issue was starkly plain. In order to lay this pipeline, a 175-foot-wide swath needed to be cut across the length of New Hampshire's southern border. The path would, as proposed, pass through wetlands and conservation areas, and would lay flat a whole hell of a lot of trees. The pipeline itself would carry the product of fracking, one of the most poisonous processes ever devised. Beyond that is the fact that New Hampshire is made of granite, and granite requires blasting for a project like this. Explosions are not a fun thing to hear day after day; they have a way of fraying the nerves. Also, a great many New Hampshire residents draw their water from wells, and blasting has a strong tendency to kill wells with the seismic impact. Finally, there the simple fact that pipelines leak: all of them, sooner or later, count on it, end of file, which brings us back to the "incineration zone" again. For the
[Biofuel] Branchez-Vous electric car show aims to convince Quebecers to ditch fossil fuels - Montreal - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/twizzy-electric-car-quebec-1.3539657 [Only Renault and only in Canada would somebody do a product release announcement for a car which cannot legally be sold anywhere in Canada yet. Let alone the version which can only do 40 km/h. images in on-line article] Branchez-Vous electric car show aims to convince Quebecers to ditch fossil fuels 2,000 electric charging stations to be installed in next 18 months CBC News Posted: Apr 16, 2016 11:24 PM ET Last Updated: Apr 17, 2016 6:55 PM ET Quebec wants 100,000 electric cars on the roads in the next five years. It's still far from the target: so far, there are only 9,000. That's where Branchez-Vous, the biggest electric car show in the province, comes in. The event, which took place at the Gilles Villeneuve racetrack until Saturday, sought to convince more Quebecers to make the switch from gasoline. The province invested almost $100,000 into the car show. It worked on Pierre Lavigueur. He was among the first in Canada to try out the Twizy, a new electric two-seater by French automaker Renault. With a narrow body — the passenger sits behind the driver — and scissor-like doors, it bills itself as the solution for easy parking in crowded cities. "It's so small you can go almost anywhere; it's probably very easy to park. For the city, it's perfect, really," Lavigueur said. The electric model maxes out at 40 kilometres per hour and is only available by lease at $99 dollars per month, including insurance. Terrebonne-based distributor AZRA will lease the vehicles. The company announced Saturday it will install 2,000 electric charging stations over 18 months across the province. Quebec's Transport Minister Jacques Daoust says he's working to amend a law to allow the car on the road. He's hoping that within the next month these little cars could be zipping in downtown Montreal. == http://insideevs.com/renault-twizy-now-available-in-canada-99month-lease-only/ [images in on-line article] Renault and partner, charging provider AZRA announced the arrive of the Renault Twizy 40 to Canada today from a press conference in Montreal, Quebec. The Canadian Renault Twizy 40 is fitted with a type-1 charging cable and side reflectors. With speed capped at 40 km/h, it comes under the Canadian category of low-speed vehicles (four-wheel electric vehicles with top speed from 32 to 40 km/h). The car was certified for sale by Transport Canada from March 1st, 2016. “Renault Group is delighted to have chosen a company as dynamic and committed as AZRA for the launch of Twizy in Canada,” said Guillame Berthier, Renault’s Electric Vehicles Sales Director. “Electric car, and Twizy in particular, enable Renault to boost its international development. It also allows Renault to participate in the development of new ways to sell cars. This is demonstrated by AZRA’s “all in one” offer, with digital playing a dominant role in the sales model.” A point of interest from the model’s entry into Canada, it seems Renault/AZRA is taking a page out of its European roots – instead of offering the Twizy 40 for sale (we had heard earlier that around $17,000 would be the aprox. landed retail sale price), AZRA says it will make the all-electric quadricycle available via lease only, at a still respectable $99/month (which includes registration and insurance). The Twizy has a maximum range of 100 km (62 miles) based on the NEDC standard, which is equal to about 40 miles (65 kms) in the real world /the US EPA standard. We did get a chance to speak with a Renault representative from the event to break down the curious Canadian offering. On where it will be available: The Twizy will be available in the provinces that’ll certify it, and this is currently underway. Where will it roll-out first and when: Quebec should happen right before the summer As obviously there is a provincial EV rebate kick-back making the Twizy just $99/month in Quebec, what about Canada’s other two provinces that offer plug-in incentives: Ontario and British Columbia are almost a done deal. We are reaching out to other provinces as a second step. [BC does not have a provincial approval process for LSVs; it leaves it to each municipality to license the Low Speed electric Vehicles, which they call NZEV (Neighbourhood Zero Emission Vehicle), not LSV.] The Twizy 40 is a modified version of the Twizy 45, could we see the ‘regular’ Twizy 80 (in other words a Twizy with a top speed of 80 km/h (50 mph)?: There are also discussions regarding the Twizy 80 version, but the category doesn’t exist in Canada so we’d have to wait for it to be created before certifying it with Transport Canada. On the curious decision to only lease the Twizy 40. Renault or Azra decision and why: Azra wants to sell Twizy through an all inclusiv
[Biofuel] EnergyMarketPrice | News details
http://www.energymarketprice.com/SitePage.asp?act=NewsDetails&newsId=19386 Britain: National Grid will pay companies to use electricity this summer 22/04/2016 A dozen British firms will be paid to use power under a scheme National Grid will start next month intended at balancing the system in summer, when production is high from green energy sources such as wind and solar. National Grid declared 12 companies have obtained contracts for the Demand Turn Up scheme which will operate from May until September. Under the scheme, companies will run several operations at night or at midday when there is a lot of electricity production from wind farms and solar power plants. As a part of the tender, firms were demanded to demonstrate they need to complete such operations and that the electricity would not be unexploited. The scheme was also open to small scale power generators that can also cut their output at short notice, such as combined heat and power units, which produce electricity as a by-product of heating. The firms will be paid 1.5 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh) for taking part in the scheme. They will be paid an extra 60-75 pounds/MWh if called upon to perform. British spot power prices presently trade approximately 37 pounds/MWh. In 2014 National Grid paid 10 million pounds ($14.43 million) to wind power producers to halt output when electricity demand was low to guarantee the system was not oversupplied. National Grid predicts electricity demand will attain a record low this summer. Meanwhile green electricity production Britain is increasing. It represented a record 25 percent of the nation's generation in 2015. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] It's not just VW: Every diesel road-tested in the U.K. fails emissions tests
http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1103560_its-not-just-vw-every-diesel-road-tested-in-the-u-k-fails-emissions-tests#src=10065 [links in on-line article] It's not just VW: Every diesel road-tested in the U.K. fails emissions tests Richard Read Apr 22, 2016 When people look back at this moment in automotive history, they'll almost certainly see it as the time when the industry began transitioning to electric and autonomous cars. But there's another change afoot, one triggered by years of deception and falsely advertised products manufactured by one of the world's largest automakers. The Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal took most people by surprise, and it's led consumers and regulators to look at automobiles more skeptically than they had before the news broke last September. That's not only true in the U.S., but also in Europe, where tests have revealed that few, if any, diesels on the road in the United Kingdom meet emissions guidelnes. Like the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.K.'s Department for Transport has been busy conducting emissions tests on diesel vehicles. While those tests may have initially been limited to cars manufactured by VW, Audi, and other Volkswagen group brands, they were recently extended to diesels from other manufacturers. All told, the DfT has put 37 models through real-world road tests. Unfortunately, the results have been vastly different from those gathered in controlled lab tests, like the kind that Volkswagen cars were designed to cheat on. How different were the results? On average, road-tested vehicles emitted five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide, with some pumping out as much as 12 times the maximum allowed. None passed the DfT's tests. The vehicles have come from a wide range of automakers like Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar Land Rover, and Ford. Together, the 37 models tested represent roughly 50 percent of all diesels sold in the U.K. between 2010 and 2015. Good news, bad news The good news is, the DfT has found no evidence of any illegal defeat devices like those found on 11 million Volkswagen vehicles worldwide. Also, none of the models tested were technically in violation of U.K. law, since emissions regulations mandate that vehicles must pass lab tests, not road tests. The bad news--at least for automakers--is that the U.K. government is in the process of implementing new, real-world emissions tests for new cars. Those tests are expected to roll out next year. At first, automakers will be given some leeway, with vehicles allowed to emit roughly twice the level of pollutants on the road as in the lab. By 2020, however, standards for both lab and road tests will be the same. Don't be surprised if the EPA institutes similar testing procedures here in the U.S. very soon. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] When the Ocean Calls, Pete Willcox Answers - Free Press Online
http://freepressonline.com/Content/Features/Christine-Parrish-Archives/Article/When-the-Ocean-Calls-Pete-Willcox-Answers/52/776/45016 Greenpeace Captain When the Ocean Calls, Pete Willcox Answers by Christine Parrish Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:29 AM I opened the door of the gunmetal gray Prius and plunked into the passenger seat, closing out the cold sea wind at the Islesboro ferry landing. I had met veteran Greenpeace Captain Peter Willcox only once, but we had been communicating for a couple of years, mostly through email and a couple of phone conversations, and I had written extensively about his detention in Russia in 2013 after protesting against oil drilling in the Arctic. I had expected he would be driving a truck, like all the fishermen and boat-guys I knew. Toolbox in the bed, foul weather gear behind the driver’s seat. “A truck? Not me,” said Willcox. “We just got it at Shepard’s. It was a trade-in. A 2012.” The dashboard of the Prius looked like the instrument panel of a small plane. A couple minutes later we pulled into the driveway of the house he shares with his wife, Maggy Aston Willcox, longtime publisher of the Islesboro Island News. He checked the instrument panel. “One hundred nineteen miles to the gallon,” Willcox said. There’s no denying that Willcox is famous. Not movie star famous, though that may yet come. Not rich and famous. That probably will never come. Willcox’s fame has gone up and down in the course of his 40-year career as an environmental activist. He’s famous for leading the campaign against clubbing baby seals that led to the nosedive of the luxury fur trade, famous for stopping Japanese whalers, famous for having the Rainbow Warrior blown out from under him by the French intelligence service when he was docked in New Zealand — killing his friend and fellow crewmember, photographer Fernando Pereira. His new autobiography, “Greenpeace Captain: My Adventures in Protecting the Future of Our Planet,” Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martins Press (Hardcover: $27.99, Ebook: $14.99), which was co-written with friend Ron Weiss and released on Tuesday, April 19, will probably make him famous, again. He shrugs it off. It’s not that he minds talking to the press. He’s been doing that for decades. It’s just, well, fan-dom isn’t really his gig. Besides, out there on the ocean, fame doesn’t impress anyone. And, here at home, it’s how you live your life that matters. Willcox is a sailor, first. Boats have been a part of his life since he was a little kid. He’s been a peaceful environmental activist since the groundswell of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s, when the youth of America was engaged in the political process and the word “compromise” had not yet crept into the lexicon as a code word for not ticking off donors to environmental organizations. Willcox grew up in the civil rights era and participated in demonstrations with his parents. Nonviolent protest was and remains part and parcel of the man. He is a likable leader, according to his shipmates. Easy to work with, easy to work for, always willing to lead the most radical action by example, and a respected mariner who is tempered by experience. He knows his boats and what they are capable of right down to the rivets. Willcox has never given in — to borrow Winston Churchill’s famous phrase about being under siege. Over time, he has gotten somewhat jaded with the directions Greenpeace has taken, and he realized a while ago that only a few of the environmental protests he has been involved in have led to lasting change, even as the global environment continues to worsen. But even as he left his idealistic youth behind and had a family, even as generations of young activists came and went from the Greenpeace ships he captained — the Rainbow Warrior and the Arctic Sunrise — Willcox stayed the course. At 62, he has remained absolutely committed to non-violent environmental activism. He pays attention to the choices he makes, right down to his fish sandwich and his choice of raingear. Peter Willcox has never, never, never given up. In 2013, Willcox was arrested with 29 other international activists who were staging a peaceful protest against a Russian oil drilling rig that was on its way to be the first to extract oil from wells drilled into the floor of the Arctic Ocean and pumped up through the ice. Gazprom, the Russian government-backed company, was going after oil in a tempestuous sea in an area that had only become available for drilling because the use of fossil fuels had warmed the polar regions and thinned the ice. In every way, it was ethically unsound to take advantage of the damage to create more damage for short-term economic gain. Added to that, no one knew how to clean up an oil spill in the Arctic. There was barely a protocol for drilling in the Arctic Ocean, much less knowledge about how to clean it up
[Biofuel] Federal official compares pipeline blunders to mistakes that led to railway disaster | National Observer
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/04/15/news/federal-official-compares-pipeline-blunders-mistakes-led-railway-disaster Federal official compares pipeline blunders to mistakes that led to railway disaster By Mike De Souza in News, Energy | April 15th 2016 For almost three years, managers and executives at Canadian pipeline companies have been under a microscope. Their industry watchdog has been examining whether they make it easy enough for employees to report and fix anything that might lead to spills, explosions or other serious incidents. Depending on who's talking, the results of this examination have either shown that there is encouraging progress in cleaning up the industry, or, a frightening disaster in the making. What's clear is that some people in the pipeline industry are making mistakes. The watchdog, Canada's National Energy Board (NEB), has released hundreds of pages of evidence in audits showing that some pipeline companies are violating rules that require their managers and executives to promote a strong safety culture that encourages employees to do the right thing and not be afraid of repercussions. Some of these violations are "similar" to the types of mistakes that led to the Lac-Mégantic railway disaster, according to a senior NEB executive, writing in an internal memo. And pipeline industry insiders have told National Observer that they wonder when a catastrophic event like the train explosion in Lac-Mégantic might happen to one of their own companies. Forty-seven people died in July 2013 when a runaway train carrying oil crashed and exploded in the middle of the small Quebec town. The explosion released six million litres of oil into the environment and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property and environmental damage. It also prompted multiple investigations and charges against employees and executives at Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Canada Railway Ltd. and its affiliate, which operated the train. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB), which investigated the disaster, found that Transport Canada, the government department responsible for overseeing railway safety, had missed some of the warning signs because of sloppy oversight. The NEB's vice-president of operations, Christopher Loewen, told Board members in a memo about the similarities between what the two regulators were finding in both the pipeline and railway industries. The memo, drafted to explain the different roles of the TSB and the NEB, highlighted how the TSB had identified issues regarding Transport Canada's oversight, related to the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Loewen then compared those issues to the NEB’s own record of inspections and audits of Canadian pipeline industry operations. “Risk assessment, change management and internal auditing are critical elements within a company’s management system,” wrote Loewen in the memo, dated November 12, 2015 and released to National Observer through access to information legislation. “Inadequate or absent processes and procedures prevent the effective management of safety. Board staff has identified similar weaknesses in these elements during recent management system audits and are conducting follow-up in accordance with our current procedures.” Transport Canada told National Observer in a statement that it took railway safety seriously and implemented a series of measures to strengthen its oversight following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, including hiring new inspectors, toughening the rules and introducing new penalties for violations. Loewen declined to comment on the memo, referring questions to a spokesman, Darin Barter, who put a positive spin on the document. Barter said that Loewen's intention was to highlight that the NEB was doing an "effective" job overseeing management systems at pipeline companies. He also denied that the NEB believed there was a management problem at pipeline companies. "It would be inaccurate to describe continuous improvement of company management systems as a problem," said Barter. "It’s important to realize that management system audits are in addition to front line inspections, ongoing audits, enforcement, and data analysis – all of which keep pipelines safe." The office of Canada's auditor general has released several reports in recent years, warning that neither Transport Canada, nor the NEB, had done enough to oversee safe operations of industry. NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen said that reports like these make it hard for Canadians to trust the NEB. “It’s a fox watching the hen house situation and there’s huge risk in that approach because when something goes wrong, it really goes wrong,” said Cullen in an interview. “It just foretells a terrible situation.” To build a regulator from scratch Whistleblowers have also been skeptical about the NEB’s capacity to fix problems, noting that some of the issues are recurring within
[Biofuel] GMO Mushroom Sidesteps UDSA Regulations
http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/19/gmo-mushroom/ [Another reason we need GMO truth in labelling now. Or, let businesses in the white button mushroom supply chain know you will stop buying all white button mushrooms from all sources once we suspect the GMO 'shrooms are in the food chain if credible labelling is not in place. If, as the food industry researchers believe, customers can't wait to put GMOs on their plates, they should be happy to advertise the new varieties. links in on-line article] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it will not regulate the potential cultivation and sale of a genetically modified (GMO) mushroom the same way it regulates conventional GMOs because the mushroom was made with the genome-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9. This is the first time the U.S. government has cleared a food product edited with the new and controversial technique. The USDA announced in a letter last week that it had approved Pennsylvania State University plant pathologist Yinong Yang’s common white button mushroom (Agaricus bosporus) that’s engineered to be more resistant to browning. As the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wrote on April 13: The anti-browning trait reduces the formation of brown pigment (melanin), improving the appearance and shelf life of mushroom, and facilitating automated mechanical harvesting. Based on the information cited in your letter, APHIS has concluded that your CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms as described in your letter do not contain any introduced genetic material. APHIS has no reason to believe that CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms are plant pests. According to Nature, the mushroom was created by targeting the family of genes that encodes the enzyme polyphenol oxidase that causes browning. “By deleting just a handful of base pairs in the mushroom’s genome, Yang knocked out one of six PPO genes—reducing the enzyme’s activity by 30 percent,” Nature reported. So why has this deliberately genetically modified “frankenfungi” escaped USDA scrutiny? Well, instead of the conventional method in which foreign DNA is spliced into a seed (i.e. Bt corn), genetic modification of Yang’s mushroom was achieved by altering its own genetic material. As Quartz explained, a CRISPR-created product falls under a certain loophole: Despite being directly and purposely genetically modified, USDA has allowed Yang’s mushroom to sidestep the regulatory system. The reason? Yang’s method does not contain “any introduced genetic material” from a plant pest such as bacteria or viruses. Conventional GMOs, the ones that the USDA’s rules are designed to deal with, are created by introducing foreign genes—for example, those of a bacteria might be introduced to give the crop some pest resistance. Ultimately, the GMO mushroom could be the first of many new CRISPR-edited food products. “The research community will be very happy with the news,” Caixia Gao, a plant biologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’s Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology in Beijing, who was not involved in developing the mushroom, told Nature. “I am confident we’ll see more gene-edited crops falling outside of regulatory authority.” Quartz reported that there are already several CRISPR projects in development, including DuPont’s drought-resistant wheat and corn, a banana that can resist a fungus threatening that’s threatening its extinction and a herbicide-resistant oilseed from the biotech company Cibus. GMO-opponents have already criticized the USDA’s move. “The USDA decision is a perfect illustration of how weak regulations for evaluating genetically engineered crops are,” Patty Lovera of Food & Water Watch, told Quartz. The U.S. does not have a government body that specifically regulates GMOs. The Washington Post noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency only regulates GMOs designed for pest control and the Food and Drug Administration considers all GMOs to be safe. Yang told Nature he is considering whether or not to bring the mushroom to market. “I need to talk to my dean about that,” he said. “We’ll have to see what the university wants to do next.” Yang, however, told MIT Technology Review that even the company that helped fund the research, Giorgio Mushroom Co. of Pennsylvania, isn’t sure if they want the mushroom in a store near you given the public’s overwhelming skepticism of GMOs. “[The] marketing people at Giorgio are more interested in organic mushrooms and are afraid of negative response regarding GMO from consumers,” Yang said. A 2015 Pew Research Poll revealed that 57 percent of U.S. adults believe that GMO-foods are “generally unsafe” to eat. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] US and Canadian Mining Companies Seek to Sue Colombia for $16.5billion - Yes to Life no to Mining
http://www.yestolifenotomining.org/usa_canadian_mining_companies_to_sue_colombia_for_16-5billion/ US and Canadian Mining Companies Seek to Sue Colombia for $16.5billion Originally posted by IAReporter. March 9th 2016 Following a request to the Republic of Colombia for disclosure of any disputes notified under the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA), Colombia’s Ministry of Trade has released a recently-filed notice of arbitration under that agreement (click to download). The notice dated February 19, 2016 was lodged by three parties – Cosigo Resources (Canada), Cosigo Resources Sucursal Colombia (Colombia) and Tobie Mining and Energy Inc. (U.S.A.) – all professing to have interests in a gold mining concession. We discuss the notice of arbitration – which Colombia has released – in greater detail further below. Also as this article was going to press, a Canadian mining company, Eco Oro Minerals Corp, announced that it had lodged a Notice of Intent to arbitrate under the Canada- Colombia free trade agreement (FTA). We discuss that dispute, where the notice of intent is not public, directly below. Eco Oro says notice given, but neither side releases it – and Canada-Colombia FTA seems to leave scope for non-publication In an announcement on March 7, 2016, the Canadian junior mining company Eco Oro says that it has been hampered in exploring and exploiting a wholly-owned gold mining venture, the Angostura Project, due to the government’s “unreasonable delay in clarifying the limits of” a national park, the Santurbán Páramo, and whether that park overlaps with the Angostura Project. The company also complains of the government’s “persistent failure to provide clarity as to Eco Oro’s right to continue developing its mining project in light of further undefined requirements and later as a consequence of the Constitutional Court’s decision of February 8, 2016, which has broadened the prohibition of mining activities in páramo areas.” Colombia’s Ministry of Commerce has told IAReporter that they are not releasing, for the moment, the Notice of Intent in deference to the investor’s professed desire to seek amicable resolution of the dispute. Although the Canada-Colombia FTA brings some transparency to arbitrations under that agreement, the wording of the provision arguably leaves some scope for governments to decline to release preliminary filings, such as Notice of Intent. Article 830 of the treaty provides for publication of all arbitral awards, but does not directly address Notice of Intent or Notices of Arbitration. Instead, Article 830 provides that “All other documents submitted to, or issued by, the Tribunal shall be publicly available, unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, subject to the deletion of confidential information.” (It’s not clear whether a Notice of Intent is a document submitted to, or issued by, a tribunal; even if it were, investors and governments appear to each enjoy a veto right over publication of such documents.) Unrelated mining arbitration now pending under U.S. Colombia treaty Apart from the Eco Oro dispute, Colombia also faces an active arbitration under the U.S.-Colombia FTA, after a trio of claimants filed a request for arbitration on February 19, 2016. That request follows an earlier filing of a Notice of Intent under the FTA. Notably, the U.S.-Colombia FTA provides for broader transparency than the Canada-Colombia FTA, with certain categories of materials – including Notices of Intent and Notices of Arbitration – included within the scope of Article 10.21. That treaty articles obliges the respondent-state to “promptly transmit (such documents) to the non-disputing Parties and make them available to the public” Colombia has accordingly released the Notices filed by the three claimants – Cosigo Resources (Canada), Cosigo Resources Sucursal Colombia (Colombia) and Tobie Mining and Energy Inc. (U.S.A.) – and we discuss the dispute below. Claimants cite harm to gold mining investment The three claimants all profess to have interests in a gold mining concession in the Taraira region near Colombia’s border with Brazil. The investors claim that Tobie, the US investor, “staked out” those interests in 2007, subsequently transferred a majority interest to the Canadian claimant Cosigo, only to take back most of that shareholding in 2015 from its Canadian co-claimant. The claimants note that the prospect of extractive activity in the area sparked conflict among local indigenous groups, with long-standing associations coming out against mining. However, one group, the Association of Indigenous Communities of Tairara and Vaupés (ACITAVA) was more favourably disposed toward the project, and the notice suggest that they were granted a 20% ownership share of the concession. (An earlier Notice of Intent (click to download) lodged in relation to this investment had included that Colombian NGO as a
[Biofuel] How coal titan Peabody, the world’s largest, fell into bankruptcy - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/13/coal-titan-peabody-energy-files-for-bankruptcy/ [Well, I guess you can keep investing in coal and other fossil fuels, but it's getting to be more of a challenge. links in on-line article] How coal titan Peabody, the world’s largest, fell into bankruptcy By Chris Mooney and Steven Mufson April 13, 2016 In the starkest sign yet of declining fortunes in the coal industry, St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the largest and most storied U.S. coal company, announced early Wednesday that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company cited an “unprecedented industry downturn,” which it attributed to a range of factors including an economic slowdown in China, low coal prices and “overproduction of domestic shale gas.” In the United States, cheap natural gas, driven by the shale-gas boom, has been steadily eating into coal’s share of electricity generation. But Peabody was also weighed down by debt from its poorly timed $5.2 billion acquisition of Macarthur Coal of Australia in 2011, near the peak for coal prices there as Peabody underestimated rival coal supplies and overestimated the growth of Chinese coal consumption. “The debt-laden capital structure became unsustainable as cash flows worsened and access to capital markets evaporated,” Fitch Ratings said Wednesday. Peabody said that its mines would continue operating and that its operations in Australia were not included in the Chapter 11 filing. The company also said it expected its shares to halt trading on the New York Stock Exchange. In a statement, the firm’s president and chief executive, Glenn Kellow, said: “This was a difficult decision, but it is the right path forward for Peabody. We begin today to build a highly successful global leader for tomorrow.” Shares of Peabody, whose stock trades under the symbol BTU — which is also a basic unit of energy, the British thermal unit — closed Tuesday at $ 2.06, leaving the company’s market capitalization at a measly $38 million. Shares have plunged more than 99 percent from their 2008 peak and from where they stood just five years ago. Dividend payouts to shareholders were halted in July 2015. The firm dates to the 1880s. As a Peabody historical retrospective noted, Francis Peabody, its founder, began selling coal from the back of a mule-drawn wagon in Chicago in 1883. He opened Peabody’s first mine a few years later. The company survived the Great Depression and notes that its coal fueled not only U.S. life in World Wars I and II but a historic Antarctic exploration by Richard Byrd in 1939. It was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1949 and became the world’s largest publicly held coal company amid the oil embargo of the 1970s. The company’s expensive purchase of Macarthur’s Australian coal operations was based on an optimistic assessment of the outlook for coal. “Enormous energy needs around the world point to the early stages of what we expect to be a long-lived supercycle for coal – a period of sustained market expansion to meet the requirements of an emerging global middle class,” Peabody’s annual report for 2011 said, featuring photos of cargo ships from Hong Kong and skyscrapers in Shanghai. But Peabody sales volume has sagged along with coal prices. In 2015, sales from mining slipped by 7 percent and were down 9 percent from 2011. The company was forecasting a 13 percent drop in U.S. coal sales, its main market. “Peabody is in a tough spot,” a J.P. Morgan note to investors said in February. Peabody is the latest in a string of coal-company bankruptcies that have also engulfed other industry leaders, including Alpha Natural Resources and Arch Coal. The upheaval has raised concerns that the industry will not be able to afford to pay for cleanup costs related to its many mines across the country. “Bankruptcy restructuring could provide coal companies with a way of escaping obligations to restore land,” reported The Washington Post’s Steven Mufson and Joby Warrick earlier this month. The issue has even drawn attention in the U.S. Senate. “American taxpayers should not be left on the hook to clean up coal mines when coal companies go bankrupt. The pollution they create is their responsibility to clean up, and we should have laws on the books that force them to do that,” said Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wa.), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in a statement to the Post. However, Peabody said Wednesday that the bankruptcy filing “does not change Peabody’s approach toward best practices in mining and its focus on sustainability to create high-quality land restoration for generations that follow.” “The biggest coal giant has fallen, and Peabody Energy’s bankruptcy should serve as a wake-up call to anyone promising that coal’s glory days will return,’ said Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond
[Biofuel] Jellyfish become unintended victims of oil spill mitigation
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jellyfish-become-unintended-victims-of-oil-spill-mitigation-300252218.html MIAMI, April 15, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A chemical used to disperse oil following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill has been proven to severely harm and even kill jellyfish. A study by FIU's Southeast Environmental Research Center found crude oil and weathered oil alone did not cause significant adverse effects in moon jellyfish, a species commonly found in the Gulf of Mexico where the spill occurred. But the crude oil, in the presence of the chemical dispersant Corexit 9500, caused changes in color of the jellyfish, irregularities in their bell shape, tissue degradation and even death. Jellyfish exposed to the dispersant alone also experienced acute toxicity. Corexit 9500 was used in the 2010 spill to disperse oil slicks in the water column. "The use of dispersant in response to an oil spill is generally regarded as the best option to reduce biological impact and protect shoreline habitats, but it comes with trade-offs," said Gary Rand, co-author of the study and professor in the Department of Earth and Environment. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill released millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. Corexit 9500 was applied by both injection at the source of the oil leak and to the sea surface. According to Rand, its application is critical in preventing significant oiling of sensitive shoreline habitats during an oil spill response. Toxicity studies conducted in laboratories to examine the biological effects of crude oil, weathered oil and chemical dispersants in marine ecosystems have traditionally used standard test organisms, such as mysid shrimp, and fish, such as inland silversides and sheepshead minnows. The Gulf of Mexico is home to one of the most diverse populations of anemones, corals, and jellyfish in the world with more than 115 species taking up residence in its warm waters. According to the researchers, jellyfish are often overlooked in marine toxicity assessments since their ecological importance is often underestimated. "The role of jellyfish as consumers and as prey increases the need to understand how exposure to crude oil, weathered oil and dispersants affect this group of organisms," Rand said. "Selecting a variety of animal and plant species native to an ecosystem of interest provides a greater overall understanding of potential risks to the ecosystem." ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Biofuels, plastics and drugs: is this the future of our farms? | Environment | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/farmers-chase-boom-in-biofuels [links and images in on-line article] Biofuels, plastics and drugs: is this the future of our farms? Climate change and poor returns on wheat and dairy drive rural revolution in ‘future-proof’ agriculture John Vidal Sunday 17 April 2016 00.04 BST Farmer Rob Pickering last week planted nine hectares of flood-prone land in Lincolnshire with an African plant called miscanthus, or elephant grass. By selling the fast-growing crop as biofuel for Drax power station, he should earn as much as he would from selling wheat on the world market. Pickering is part of a rural revolution that, thanks to climate change, low commodity prices and new consumer tastes, is seeing Britain’s fields planted with crops that are more likely to end up as electricity or paint additives than food. In Essex, David Eagle is growing acres of sea buckthorn, a salt-tolerant plant that grows wild in Siberiacorrect and northern Europe. Its orange berries can be used in food and drink products, but are bought mainly by cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries. Eagle knows his coastal defences may not withstand many more storms and increases in sea-levels, so wanted a future-proof crop. “Our sea walls are in good condition but the future may not be so certain in an era of climate change,” he says. In East Anglia, borage, hemp and flax are being grown for their oils, daffodils for drugs use, and lavender for cosmetics. The hop fields of Kent are expanding as the global boom in micro-breweries sees British hop exports to the US soaring, and wildflower seed farms are springing up on former grazing land in Lincolnshire as farmers take environmental action in return for EU subsidies. The stories you need to read, in one handy email Read more Dorset farmers are paid premium prices by drugs firms to grow poppies and cannabis for medicines, but the market for pharmaceuticals is small, tightly controlled and limited, says David Turley of the National Non-Food Crop Centre (NNFCC) in York. “Non-food crops have seen boom and bust years as farmers try planting new crops in bad times, only for the price to drop when supply outstrips demand,” he says. “Three years ago, everyone was growing evening primrose. Then the Chinese got in and that ended.” Warmer winters have allowed exotic fruits and vegetables to be grown commercially in Britain, says the National Union of Farmers, but industrialists expect the next boom to be in plants whose sugars can be used to make plastics and packaging . “There is great interest in the bio-economy,” said Turley. “We are now taking ethanol [from wheat] to make plastics. It’s an emerging market that I think will become huge as large brands become concerned about sustainability. I would expect many more plants to be grown for plastics.” Planting for niche industrial uses is becoming more common, but so far only 100 or so hectares are planted commercially with crops such as high-erucic acid rapeseed, Buglossoides arvensis and camelina (false flax). These are now grown for use in petroleum additives, polymers and skincare products. Staffordshire firm Statfold Seed Oils estimates the total world market for hemp oil is only about 200 tonnes, and it supplies nearly 150 tonnes of that. “Many farmers have latched on to the high prices, but we are dealing with pretty small volumes,” said a spokesman. According to Boston Seeds in Lincolnshire, there is significant and growing demand for wild seeds, both from farmers obliged to plant field margins with bird-friendly plants to receive their EU grants, and from home gardeners. Many older dairy and arable farmers were turning to energy crops because they required less physical work and offered security when cereal or milk prices fell, said George Robinson of agricultural energy firm Terravesta. It has contracted 350 British farmers to grow 5,000 hectares of miscanthus as a biomass source for power stations. “The British landscape that was once mixed farming is no longer,” he said. “Dairy farmers are going. Grassland is being converted. We’re adding 1,000 hectares of miscanthus a year.” About 350,000 hectares in Britain are suitable to grow it and Robinson is confident that he can persuade thousands more farmers to plant the grass. “This is just the start,” he says. The amount of land planted with energy biomass crops, such as miscanthus, willow and poplar, grew by nearly 50% in 2014-15 and is now more than 120,000 hectares, or 3%, of arable land. If Britain is to meet its target of 15% of energy from renewable resources by 2020, much more will be needed. Crops producing biofuels for petrol and diesel additives are also popular: thousands of hectares of wheat are expected to be planted this year to supply the Vivergo Fuels bioethanol factory in Hull. It uses a million tonnes of wheat to provide 420 million litres of renew
[Biofuel] As Fracking Chemicals Reach A Creek Companies Fight Against A Fracking Waste Ban | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/15/3768123/west-virginia-creek-fracking-pollution/ [links and images in on-line article] As Fracking Chemicals Reach A Creek Companies Fight Against A Fracking Waste Ban by Alejandro Davila Fragoso Apr 15, 2016 8:00 am The smell of gas surrounding the northern streets of Lochgelly, West Virginia, was so pungent that Brad Keenan could taste it as he was driving home with his windows up that evening in 2004. He called 911 and the gas company, thinking a punctured gas line was to blame, but the smell and the evacuation it prompted came from something few knew existed in town: fracking waste. “I had no idea what was going on,” said Keenan, 54, who by then had been living for two years near Danny E. Webb Construction Inc., a dumping site for fracking fluids. “You couldn’t even drive out there because the smell was so bad,” he told ThinkProgress. At least two open pits holding fracking wastewater were responsible for the smell that got homes evacuated and forced some businesses and a daycare center to temporarily close, according to interviews and published reports. After state citations and complaints, pits were covered giving some temporary relief to affected residents. Keenan notes, however, that Wolf Creek, a major waterway traversing his 140-acre property, is polluted. Twelve years have passed since the emergency evacuation put a little-known, state-permitted fracking disposal site under the county’s spotlight, yet things haven’t improved. The company is still marred in controversy. Locals worry about confirmed fracking chemicals in Wolf Creek as it connects to the water supply. And last year, the state renewed Danny E. Webb Construction’s permit to continue disposing fracking waste in underground injection wells, also known as brine disposal wells. The Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction over these wells only if diesel fuel is among the chemicals. A fracking waste ban The feud in Fayette county is now likely to intensify with two companies facing officials who, in the coming months, will defend in federal court an ordinance approved in January that banned fracking waste disposal. Hearings were set for this month, but habitual court delays are already being reported. One argument officials have raised against fracking waste in Fayette is that zoning laws don’t even allow traditional landfills. In interviews, officials also said they’ve revised their ordinance to appease the industry, which they say doesn’t use fracking for local gas extraction in the first place. But Danny E. Webb Construction Inc. and EQT Corp, an oil and gas company from Pennsylvania, still object saying the county lacks jurisdiction and the ordinance is so broad it could shut down gas and oil extraction. And with that, Fayette County has become part of a growing list of communities struggling to keep brine wells at bay through local laws. There are more than 30,000 fracking waste disposal sites across the country, according to interviews and multiple published reports. But New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and now West Virginia have counties favoring laws limiting brine waste disposal. The trend has been particularly robust in New York, where more than 10 counties have passed ordinances controlling fracking waste in the last couple of years. States, too, are limiting fracking waste with Nebraska creating the most recent legislation. Industry often fights back, and in some instances, they win. Last year a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled against a town’s “community bill of rights” that limited brine disposal. In Fayette, a county of some 46,000 people, residents and officials fear Danny E. Webb Construction wells are leaching toxic chemicals into nearby Wolf Creek, a waterway that feeds into the New River, a major tourist attraction and a water source for thousands of people. West Virginia American Water, the local water utility, told ThinkProgress the water supply is being monitored and the New River Water Treatment Plant, located more than 10 miles downstream from Wolf Creek, meets high standards. Still, studies conducted in the last couple of years in Wolf Creek seem to substantiate some of the concerns. In 2014, Duke University scientists sampled Wolf Creek and found elevated levels of chloride, bromide, manganese, strontium, and barium; all chemicals associated with fracking wastewater. Tainted waters Claims of leaching even got a boost this past week after a peer-reviewed study conducted by the United States Geological Survey and other universities reported endocrine disrupting chemical activity, or EDCs, in Wolf Creek at levels that could alter development and reproduction in wildlife, researchers said. After sampling various areas including a neighboring stream, scientists measured significantly greater EDCs on and downstream of the Danny E. Webb Construction site. These revelations co
[Biofuel] Ending New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Did Not Increase Crime | Brennan Center for Justice
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/ending-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk-did-not-increase-crime [links and images in on-line article] Ending New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Did Not Increase Crime James Cullen April 11, 2016 Despite what many may claim, the United States is not in the midst of a nationwide crime wave. In fact, the average American can still enjoy some of the safest times on record. This is especially true in our largest city, New York, which also used to be one of our most dangerous. Given that history, it’s not surprising that New Yorkers carefully watch for any sign of an increase in crime, even while our city tops the list of safe large cities. Most recently, journalists pointed to an increase in murder as renewed cause for concern in the Big Apple. Commentators are saying the uptick is only the beginning, in part because the city has wound down its controversial “stop-and-frisk” program, in which police stopped and searched citizens, allegedly without cause. With stop-and-frisk now several years past, it’s an opportune time to evaluate that claim. The program’s end, it turns out, did not herald the start of a new citywide crime wave. Stop-and-frisk became a central issue in the 2013 mayoral race because of a concern that the program unconstitutionally targeted communities of color. The program’s supporters disputed this, insisting that stop-and-frisk was essential for fighting crime in such a huge city. Bill de Blasio, who won that 2013 mayoral election, campaigned on a promise to end stop-and-frisk. But, the courts nearly beat him to it. In August 2013, federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin found that stop-and-frisk had become a “policy of indirect racial profiling” and that the police had searched innocent people without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Raymond Kelly, the city’s police commissioner at the time, championed the program as a critical component of reducing murders and major crimes to historic lows. Bloomberg even sought to appeal Judge Scheindlin’s order, winning a temporary reprieve from the appeals court, and vowed to continue stop-and-frisk through the remaining four months of his term. “I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a lot of people dying,” Bloomberg said at the time. The stop-and-frisk era formally drew to a close in January 2014, when newly-elected Mayor de Blasio settled the litigation and ended the program. In the years leading up to the program’s official end, stops had already begun to plummet, leading article after article to claim that a jump in crime was just around the corner. All of the hard work of previous mayors and police chiefs could be undone, some said. This alarm turned out to be both premature and incorrect, and data from the history of the program indicates this shouldn’t be much of a surprise. After growing slowly in the early 2000s, stop-and-frisk began to rapidly increase in 2006, when there were 500,000 stops citywide. By 2011 the number peaked at 685,000. It then began to fall, first to 533,000 stops in 2012. Given this large scale effort, one might expect crime generally, and murder specifically, to increase as stops tapered off between 2012 and 2014. Instead, as shown in Figure 1, the number of murders fell while the number of stops declined. Murder also continued to drop after as stop-and-frisk wound down from its 2011 peak. In fact, the biggest fall in murder rates occurred precisely when the number of stops also fell by a large amount — in 2013. Figure 2 shows that crime in general also fell, both while the number of stops increased and fell. Crime continued to decline as the program wound to its 2014 close. Statistically, no relationship between stop-and-frisk and crime seems apparent. New York remains safer than it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago. As analysis by the Brennan Center has shown, a part of this was the introduction of CompStat, which allowed police to consult data when making decisions about where and how to respond to crime. Listening to the data has made New Yorkers safer, and it’s important to listen again. It says loud and clear: ending stop-and-frisk didn’t cause a crime wave in the city. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Meet the Jeans-Wearing, Nature-Loving Nuns Who Helped Stop a Kentucky Pipeline
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35631-meet-the-jeans-wearing-nature-loving-nuns-who-helped-stop-a-kentucky-pipeline [images, links and video in on-line article] Meet the Jeans-Wearing, Nature-Loving Nuns Who Helped Stop a Kentucky Pipeline Saturday, 16 April 2016 00:00 By Laura Michele Diener, YES! Magazine | Report "The easiest way for me to find God is in nature," Sister Ceciliana Skees explains. Born Ruth Skees, she grew up in Hardin County, Kentucky, during the 1930s. It's a rural place of soft green hills, where her father farmed his entire life. Now just a few months shy of her eighty-fifth birthday, she remembers feeling the first stirrings of a religious calling at the age of 10. Her peasant blouse and smooth, chin-length haircut don't fit the popular image of a nun, but she has been a Sister of Loretto -- a member of a religious order more than 200 years old -- since she took vows at the age of 18. Skees' commitment to social activism goes back almost as far as her commitment to the church. She has marched for civil rights, founded a school for early childhood education, and taught generations of children. Then, a few years ago, she heard about the Bluegrass Pipeline, a joint venture between two energy companies: Williams and Boardwalk Pipeline Partners. The project would have transported natural gas liquids from fracking fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio southwest across Kentucky to connect with an existing pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico. Loretto's land was directly in its path. On August 8, 2013, Skees and other sisters from Loretto and several other convents attended an informational meeting held by representatives of the two companies. Frustrated with what they saw as a lack of helpful information, several of the sisters, including Skees, gathered in the center of the room and broke into song. A video of the sisters singing "Amazing Grace" was picked up by media outlets such as Mother Jones and reached hundreds of thousands of people. Woodford county resident Corlia Logsdon remembers how a company representative asked the police to arrest the sisters for disrupting the meeting that day. But the officers, who were graduates of local Catholic schools, refused to arrest their former teachers. Logsdon joined the campaign against the pipeline when she realized the proposed route would cut directly through her front yard. She says she found the sisters to be stalwart partners, who regularly accompanied her to negotiate with state lawmakers. "It was the first time I had ever done anything like that. And they came with me, persistently presenting a positive and yet quietly forceful presence in the legislature." Sellus Wilder, a documentary filmmaker, says he joined the campaign to stop the Bluegrass Pipeline after seeing the video of the nuns singing. His experiences led him to produce The End of the Line, a documentary film about the pipeline and opposition to it. He called the sisters the glue that held the diverse group of protesters together and kept them focused. "They all have really strong, glowing spirits," Wilder says. "They brought their inherent qualities -- energy, compassion, and education, as well as a certain ethereal element -- to the whole campaign." Whatever the nuns brought, it worked. In March 2014, a circuit judge ruled against the pipeline, saying the companies had no right to use eminent domain against owners unwilling to sell their land. A few months later, the companies agreed to redraw their route to avoid Loretto's grounds, but the sisters kept protesting to support their neighbors. The case eventually went to the state supreme court, which upheld the lower court's decision. The pipeline was defeated -- and the same coalition is now fighting another one . In a way, Skees and the other nuns' participation in the Bluegrass Pipeline fight was not that unusual. About 80 percent of American nuns are members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which is committed to environmental activism. Sister Ann Scholz, the LCWR's associate director for social mission, says this position is a direct outcome of the way sisters interpret the gospel. "No Christian can live the gospel fully unless they attend the needs of their brothers and sisters, including Mother Earth," Scholz explains. "Our work for social justice grows out of the Catholic social teaching and the Gospel of Jesus Christ." But because the Sisters of Loretto are in rural Kentucky, their engagement with these issues takes on a regional flavor. Kentucky is a key battleground state in the debates over fracking and coal mining, and its eastern region is home to some of the poorest counties in Appalachia. The nuns are also rural, and help unify far-flung residents with diverse interests. For example, the Sisters of Loretto joined with local advocates for coal miners' rights in 1979 to sue the Blue Diamond Coal Company in order to
[Biofuel] Forty Percent of US Electricity Could Come From Rooftop Solar
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35633-forty-percent-of-us-electricity-could-come-from-rooftop-solar [links in on-line article] Forty Percent of US Electricity Could Come From Rooftop Solar Saturday, 16 April 2016 00:00 By s.e. smith, Care2 | Report With rooftop solar arrays becoming more common, the Department of Energy decided to do some exploring to quantify exactly how much energy Americans could generate if they installed photovoltaic systems efficiently and extensively. What they found was startling: The country could meet 39 percent of its energy needs through rooftop photovoltaics, and, surprisingly, small structures like private homes are likely to return the best results. In a country still struggling for energy independence and looking for ways to reduce its carbon footprint, this is big news. The next step is to make it happen. Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory took a look at data from 128 cities -- accounting for almost a quarter of the buildings in the U.S. -- and evaluated them for solar potential with the use of tools like light detection and ranging (LiDAR) to determine their energy potential. They found that solar arrays could generate 1,432 terawatt hours of electricity annually if systems were installed correctly and efficiently. Depending on where you live, you can even crunch the numbers for your own home using Google's Project Sunroof, which uses your address to gather data about prevailing conditions and determine how much power you could generate. Compare your utility bill against the results to see if you could meet all or part of your energy needs -- or even exceed them, allowing you to feed power back into the grid. Solar energy is growing increasingly popular, and it's definitely not an alternative energy outlier anymore. The government is heavily invested in making it more accessible through measures like the Rooftop Solar Challenge, a push to address affordability and other barriers to installation. In addition to addressing affordability with investments and incentives, the government also helps with permitting and zoning, utility policies and other issues that can intersect with making rooftop solar accessible. They're rolling out the program in major cities where it will have the most immediate impact, but the lessons learned will be valuable for small communities as well. Photovoltaic arrays are indisputably becoming more affordable, which is a good sign. Typically, the more people adopt a product, the further down the price goes, as companies can invest in mass production and development that ultimately saves money across the board -- just like buying in bulk is cheaper than picking up packaged versions of the same foods. Integrating rooftop solar shouldn't just be about retrofitting existing homes. The DOE wants to see it integrated right into community development plans and long-term city planning to encourage people to build solar generation into new development. Such planning can include the use of financial and social incentives to encourage developers and homeowners to think solar from the start, and over time, solar could meet more and more of our energy needs -- the study points out that it doesn't even account for ground-based arrays, which would also cut down on the use of non-renewable sources. Solar power offers a lot of advantages over other forms of electricity generation, including the fact that it can be relatively unobtrusive, a concern in some communities. Critics sometimes argue that both wind and wave power are disruptive because they're not attractive, posing a serious barrier to widespread installation and maintenance of such systems. Solar can quietly generate energy on roofs across the country, while large arrays can be replaced in more remote areas with ample sunlight to generate energy without altering views. Being realistic about the aesthetic shortcomings of some alternative energy generation tools is important, as people displeased with the look of things like windmills can raise substantial opposition and create unnecessary red tape that may delay installation for months or even years. Solar, on the other hand, is easy and straightforward -- and this study shows how advantageous it is as a frontrunner in the fight to drop coal and other polluting power sources. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] The Shadow Lobbyists Protecting Fracking From Regulation: The IOGCC
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35627-meet-the-shadow-lobbyists-protecting-fracking-from-regulation-the-iogcc [links in on-line article] The Shadow Lobbyists Protecting Fracking From Regulation: The IOGCC Saturday, 16 April 2016 00:00 By Jesse Coleman, Greenpeace | Report The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) has an enviable position. As a self-proclaimed "government agency," they pay no taxes, register no lobbyists, and freely converse with elected officials and government regulators. The Oklahoma government pays for their building, which is on the Governor's mansion property. Yet they also take major contributions from the fracking industry. When asked for information under Freedom of Information rules, they claim not to be an agency. It is truly the best of all worlds: industry funding, government position of authority, and no oversight. And what has IOGCC done with their sweet spot? As a deep investigative piece by Lisa Song of Inside Climate News has revealed, this unique group has played a quiet but crucial role in accomplishing the agenda of the oil and gas industry, especially in regards to fracking. IOGCC and the "Halliburton" Loophole The first thing to know about this group is that it is a state compact, a quasi-government agency usually created to allow states to share information. Drivers licenses, for instance, are governed by state compacts. However, IOGCC regularly transgresses the usual role of a state compact. Instead of innocuous information sharing, IOGCC has been a key cog in the lobbying machine of the oil and gas industry. And this is not new. As Song writes: "The group has worked behind the scenes for decades to prevent federal regulation so stridently that in 1978, the Justice Department argued it should be disbanded because it had evolved into an advocacy organization." Yet they were not disbanded. In fact, they went on to help create and lobby for the "Halliburton Loophole," which exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005. This exemption made fracking much more profitable than it would have otherwise been, in large part creating the under-regulated shale drilling and fracking boom plaguing communities all over the country. As new research revealed by Desmog and Greenpeace reveals, IOGCC started working on the exemption in 1999, when they passed an internal resolution that would later make it into the 2005 legislation exempting fracking. When the exemption passed as part of the Environmental Protection Act of 2005, IOGCC bragged about their integral role in newsletters. Writing Legislation With Lobbyists The IOGCC is made up of appointees from the 30 oil and gas producing states. The Governors of these states select two or more people for IOGCC. These people are usually the top oil and gas regulator from each state. IOGCC portrays itself as a group of state regulators trading best practices. In reality however, only one-third of IOGCC's membership are actually regulators. Another one-third are oil and gas lobbyists and executives. These lobbyists and regulators meet at least twice a year at conferences funded by the fracking industry, where they drink and attend fancy dinners together. They also write legislation together, which the state regulators take back to their states and pass into law. For instance, in 2009, IOGCC passed a resolution meant to keep Congress from overturning the Halliburton Loophole. Within months, ten states had passed resolutions mirroring the IOGCC's language exactly. IOGCC Collaboration With Industry Front Groups In addition to writing state legislation alongside fracking industry lobbyists and executives, IOGCC also acts as a mechanism to turn state oil and gas regulators into de facto lobbyists for the oil and gas industry. The group is a conduit between regulators and front groups like the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), who want regulators and state governors to support the industry's agenda at a federal level. In one case that exemplifies the call and response IOGCC can command, CEA asked IOGCC for state support for their campaign to open the Atlantic coast to offshore oil drilling. IOGCC passed the message to its state government members, who quickly answered the call. Nick Tew, the state geologist and oil and gas supervisor of the state of Alabama, promised support. Five days after CEA's request went to IOGCC, the Governor of Alabama sent a letter to BOEM with the same language, supporting offshore drilling, and naming Nick Tew as point of contact. IOGCC itself also submitted a letter, which mimicked CEA's exact language. CEA underscored IOGCC's importance to pro-oil and gas campaigns calling IOGCC "critical" to winning its campaign to open up the Atlantic to oil drilling. The IOGCC's power is two fold, they use the title of "government agency" when commenting on federal and state regulations, while offering the o
[Biofuel] Wealth doesn't trickle down, it gushes offshore | rabble.ca
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/scott-vrooman/2016/04/wealth-doesnt-trickle-down-it-gushes-offshore Wealth doesn't trickle down, it gushes offshore By Scott Vrooman April 13, 2016 In response to the Panama Papers leak, Canada's pushy suit salesman Kevin O'Leary argued that if taxes weren't so high, wealthy people wouldn't be forced to hide their money offshore. Exactly, and if you want to stop burglars from breaking your door locks, stop locking your doors. And we could end murder tomorrow if we all took some initiative and stabbed ourselves. O'Leary is selling the fable that anything that increases the freedom of capital is "efficient." Because money is like water, and should be free to flow wherever it wants without being dammed up with taxes, to maximize the wealth that trickles down to the masses. But as the Panama Papers illustrate, capital doesn't trickle down, it gushes offshore in big greedy hoses rented out by lawyers and accountants. That's not efficient, that's freeloading. That capital needs to move out of its parents' Caribbean basement, pay some taxes and get a job like a responsible adult. If you think the only solution to tax avoidance is lower taxes, you're effectively saying our governments are so powerless that we should be thankful the wealthy pay any taxes at all, and embrace the libertarian utopia of Indigogo-funded schools and Uber for ambulances. But governments could crack down on tax havens if they wanted to. Panama and the Caymens aren't North Korea. And neither is KPMG. The abuse of tax shelters isn't inevitable, it's a choice by governments to allow it. And now those governments have a choice to use their power to fight it, or lose it. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
