From my father-in-law.
JBK
>>> "Bob Elliott" <rdelliott(a)socal.rr.com> 12/12/2008 7:29 AM >>>
<http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/>
_____
December 10, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
While Detroit Slept
By
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/tho
maslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
As I think about our bailing out Detroit, …
[View More]I can't help but reflect on what,
in my view, is the most important rule of business in today's integrated and
digitized global market, where knowledge and innovation tools are so widely
distributed. It's this: Whatever can be done, will be done. The only
question is will it be done by you or to you. Just don't think it won't be
done. If you have an idea in Detroit or Tennessee, promise me that you'll
pursue it, because someone in Denmark or Tel Aviv will do so a second later.
Why do I bring this up? Because someone in the mobility business in Denmark
and Tel Aviv is already developing a real-world alternative to Detroit's
business model. I don't know if this alternative to gasoline-powered cars
will work, but I do know that it can be done - and Detroit isn't doing it.
And therefore it will be done, and eventually, I bet, it will be done
profitably.
And when it is, our bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent
of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the
mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be
remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the
eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes. It will be remembered as pouring
billions of dollars into a book-store chain on the eve of the birth of
Amazon.com and the Kindle. It will be remembered as pouring billions of
dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the
Internet.
What business model am I talking about? It is Shai Agassi's electric car
network company, called Better Place. Just last week, the company, based in
Palo Alto, Calif., announced a partnership with the state of Hawaii to road
test its business plan there after already inking similar deals with Israel,
Australia, the San Francisco Bay area and, yes, Denmark.
The Better Place electric car charging system involves generating electrons
from as much renewable energy - such as wind and solar - as possible and
then feeding those clean electrons into a national electric car charging
infrastructure. This consists of electricity charging spots with plug-in
outlets - the first pilots were opened in Israel this week - plus
battery-exchange stations all over the respective country. The whole system
is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the
billing.
Under the Better Place model, consumers can either buy or lease an electric
car from the French automaker Renault or Japanese companies like Nissan
(General Motors snubbed Agassi) and then buy miles on their electric car
batteries from Better Place the way you now buy an Apple cellphone and the
minutes from AT&T. That way Better Place, or any car company that partners
with it, benefits from each mile you drive. G.M. sells cars. Better Place is
selling mobility miles.
The first Renault and Nissan electric cars are scheduled to hit Denmark and
Israel in 2011, when the whole system should be up and running. On Tuesday,
Japan's Ministry of Environment invited Better Place to join the first
government-led electric car project along with Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru.
Better Place was the only foreign company invited to participate, working
with Japan's leading auto companies, to build a battery swap station for
electric cars in Yokohama, the Detroit of Japan.
What I find exciting about Better Place is that it is building a car company
off the new industrial platform of the 21st century, not the one from the
20th - the exact same way that Steve Jobs did to overturn the music
business. What did Apple understand first? One, that today's technology
platform would allow anyone with a computer to record music. Two, that the
Internet and MP3 players would allow anyone to transfer music in digital
form to anyone else. You wouldn't need CDs or record companies anymore.
Apple simply took all those innovations and integrated them into a single
music-generating, purchasing and listening system that completely disrupted
the music business.
What Agassi, the founder of Better Place, is saying is that there is a new
way to generate mobility, not just music, using the same platform. It just
takes the right kind of auto battery - the iPod in this story - and the
right kind of national plug-in network - the iTunes store - to make the
business model work for electric cars at six cents a mile. The average
American is paying today around 12 cents a mile for gasoline transportation,
which also adds to global warming and strengthens petro-dictators.
Do not expect this innovation to come out of Detroit. Remember, in 1908, the
Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, G.M.
and Chrysler models made in 2008. But don't be surprised when it comes out
of somewhere else. It can be done. It will be done. If we miss the chance to
win the race for Car 2.0 because we keep mindlessly bailing out Car 1.0,
there will be no one to blame more than Detroit's new shareholders: we the
taxpayers.
_____
Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in
one place. Try
<http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000
010> it now.
[View Less]
FYI
From: Frank Young [mailto:fyoung@mountain.net]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:38 AM
To: keryn(a)stoppathwv.com; Sally Wilts
Cc: pwaitster(a)gmail.com; o6redleg(a)aol.com
Subject: Re: Money for media presentations
Hi Sally & Keryn & all,
As Keryn notes below, WV Highlands Conservancy (WVHC) is the fiscal
agent for the Stop PATH video / audio project- as the National Trust for
Historic Preservation grant could only go to a 501(c)3 organization.
And yes, WVHC is an …
[View More]IRS designated tax-exempt organization. If you
need our tax-exemption number, I can send it to you separately. I would
send that number in this message, but there is one e-mail address here I
do not recognize.
I will produce a Word file invoice that includes our tax-exempt number,
and send it to you.
Thank you, Sierra Club, for the generous contribution.
And I agree with Keryn that as it is SC and the NTHP that is putting up
the direct $$$ for this, it is fitting that SC and NTHP receive
appropriate recognition.
Also, I think I recall from being on the SC Energy Committee call that
your funds can be used only for production costs, and not for air time,
right? Let us know for sure on that.
And I would say that yes, the grant will be used for grassroots public
education about a conservation issue. And as the gatekeeper for these
funds, I will insist that they be used for that purpose.
Please make the check payable to WV Highlands Conservancy, and send it
to me at Rt. 1 Box 108 Ripley WV 25271. That is not WVHC's usual
address; but I need to know what funds are coming in for this purpose to
see that it is credited to the proper line item in WVHC's budget.
Thanks again.
Frank Young, coordinator
WVHC Stop PATH sub-committee
----- Original Message -----
From: Keryn Newman <mailto:keryn@stoppathwv.com>
To: Sally Wilts <mailto:sallywilts@yahoo.com>
Cc: pwaitster(a)gmail.com ; fyoung(a)mountain.net ; o6redleg(a)aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Money for media presentations
Hi Sally,
We very much appreciate the WV Chapter of Sierra Club's generous
donation to our campaign to counter the misleading advertising being
aired by the PATH companies.
All donations we have collected for the media campaign have been
in the name of West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. WVHC is the
official organization that received the grant from the National Trust
for Historic Preservation. Please make donation check payable to WVHC
and mail to Frank Young. By copy of this email, I'm asking Frank if he
can create and send the invoice.
The grant is for the purpose "....to help produce
advertisements about proposed powerlines in West Virginia, which will
have a broad and negative impact on nationally significant historic
resources, as well as environmental and recreational resources."
I don't think there would be any problem with adding a
"sponsored by WV Sierra Club" somewhere in the ad, along with the
required credit to the National Trust.
Keryn Newman
StopPATH/Jefferson County
On Sun Aug 30 16:16 , Sally Wilts sent:
Hi Keryn,
I am the treasurer of the WV Chapter of Sierra Club. The
Executive committee voted to give your group $1000 to use for expenses
of broadcasting the media that you have had produced with grant from
WVHC.
The board asks that you present an invoice of some sort to us
and they are wondering if Sierra Club will get any credit for this
donation. Is Stop Path WV a nonprofit? Do you have a taxpayer ID number?
The national SC has to account for all donations to IRS. Would you say
the money was being used for grassroots public education about a
conservation issue?
Let me know if you need clarification and if I have the scenario
about right.
[View Less]
Sierra Club energy committee:
As per below, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Beech Ridge wind farm is coming together. Studies should commence late winter / early spring 2010.
The wind farm is expected to become partially operational (about 69 turbines) before the end of December, 2009.
Frank Young
wind energy sub-committee
----- Original Message -----
From: Miner, Laura
To: Bystriansky, Steve ; Groberg, Dave ; wtidhar(a)west-inc.com ; dyoung(a)west-inc.com ; emelton(a)psc.…
[View More]state.wv.us ; laura_hill(a)fws.gov ; craigstihler(a)wvdnr.gov ; fyoung(a)mountain.net ; Cynthia D. Ellis ; ross.conover(a)glenville.edu
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 2:33 PM
Subject: Beech Ridge TAC - First meeting
When: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:00 AM-1:00 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada).
Where: 611 Nicholas Street, Apt 5, Rupert, WV
Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Please join us at the first meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Beech Ridge Post-Construction Monitoring Program. For those who cannot attend in person, we will have conference call capability (instructions to follow).
Preliminary Agenda (EST):
10:00 Introductions including an overview of the Beech Ridge development
10:15 Overview of PSC Order and discussion of the TAC role and guidelines
10:45 Outline of Monitoring Protocol with Q&A and Discussion
12:00 Lunch (catered or at a nearby establishment)
1:00 Site tour (optional)
2:00 Adjourn
Additional materials to follow before the meeting (such as draft protocol and TAC guidelines).
Preliminary membership:
PSC Earl Melton
FWS Laura Hill (or designee)
DNR Craig Stilher
BWEC TBD
Sierra Club Frank Young
Brooks Bird Club Cynthia Ellis
Glenville State College Ross Conover (unconfirmed)
Consultant:
WEST, Inc. Wendy Tidhar
WEST, Inc. David Young
Beech Ridge:
Vice President David Groberg
Asset Manager Steve Bystriansky
Program Manager Laura Miner
[View Less]
FYI. News story that went out. Let's chalk this one up as a victory.
JBK
>>> "Public News Service" <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> 8/28/2009 10:40 AM >>>
Public News Service-WV
August 28, 2009
City of Morgantown Saving Money and Cutting Carbon
CHARLESTON, W. Va. - Even in a state where electricity is relatively cheap, local governments can save money and reduce their carbon footprints by conserving energy - and local officials in Morgantown say they're proving it. …
[View More]The municipal government is in the middle of a long-term effort to reduce energy use by 20 percent and save money in the process. Morgantown City Manager Dan Boroff lists a number of changes to be made in the next eight months, that are expected to pay off for years.
"A new air conditioning system at the airport; a new chiller system at ice rink; new lighting throughout the parking garages, even down to the stop lights in the city, replacing them with LED systems."
All that, plus new boilers and insulation for city buildings are on the ambitious agenda. It is a $2.7 million investment, not including hybrid or fuel-efficient replacements for the city fleet as old vehicles are retired. Boroff says Morgantown is guaranteed to make its money back over 15 years - or the contractors have to pay back the difference.
According to Mayor Bill Byrne, theirs was a hardheaded business decision that also had environmental advantages.
"We had an opportunity to both save money and improve the quantity of carbon that we put into the environment. We're doing it for economic reasons, and also, because it's positive for the environment."
A study released this summer found nationwide, homes and businesses could reduce energy use by nearly one-fourth though steps like upgrading appliances and sealing leaky air conditioning and heating ducts. The study found returns would double the investment in 11 years.
Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/10297-1
---
To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.
[View Less]
Attached are six sets of discovery requests submitted to PATH today in the
West Virginia proceeding, and on behalf of the Sierra Club and the West
Virginia Highlands Conservancy. The requests are the product of all of the
lawyers and consultants assisting these clients, but principally Wil Burns.
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is …
[View More]intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
[View Less]
assume others got this? paul
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: West Virginia News Service WVNS <wvnsnews(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Subject: Good time to pitch a story
To:
Hi Friends,
Dan Heyman here. I've got space for some stories at the moment, so if you
have anything you think might be news worthy, now would be a good time to
pitch it.
best,
drh
--
West Virginia News Service (WVNS)
Toll Free: 1-800-317-6705
Fax: 540-301-0801
E-mail: wvns(a)…
[View More]publicnewsservice.org
--
Paul Wilson
Sierra Club
504 Jefferson Ave
Charles Town, WV 25414-1130
Phone: 304-725-4360
Cell: 304-279-1361
"There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha
[View Less]
Thought some of you might be interested ---- or know someone who is and can use the 1 CLE.
cindy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC
August 21, 2009
10:00 AM PDT, 11:00 PM MDT, 12:00 PM CDT, 1:00 PM EDT
Download or view the program agenda here.
Ms. Rank:
We are pleased to present a one-hour expert analysis by phone of the recent appellate case, Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC, which is the first to review FERC'…
[View More]s revised guidelines for granting market-based rate authority to a wholesale electricity seller. In this decision, a Ninth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to FERC's grant of market-based rate authority to several affiliates of PPL Corporation (PPL Companies) in a control area covering most of Montana. In doing so, the Court stated that it felt a need to "afford great deference" to FERC's rate determinations and expressed reluctance to "second guess [FERC's] judgment on questions of policy within its expertise."
Although the ruling is unpublished and generally not considered binding precedent, it should offer insight into how the Court will approach its pending review of the general market-based rate policies in FERC Order Nos. 697 and 697-A.
In this one-hour teleconference, one neutral moderator and two prominent energy lawyers close to the case will discuss the practical implications of the decision on the electric energy industry and its ratepayers, as well as cost recovery implications for transmission planning and development. Register quickly. You can call in from anywhere.
Intended Audience
Attorneys, industry executives, representatives of customer and environmental intervenors, and state officials involved in FERC wholesale ratemaking or transmission planning and development
Registration
Register here or call us at (800) 854-8009
Tuition
Tuition is $125 per caller and $50 each for any additional people on the same line who desire continuing education credit.
1.0 CLE Credit Available in the Following States:
a.. AK
b.. AZ
c.. BC
d.. CA
e.. GA
f.. IL
g.. MO
h.. MS
i.. NC
j.. ND
k.. NM
l.. NV
m.. NY
n.. TX
o.. UT
p.. VA
q.. WA
r.. WV
s.. WA
t.. Other credits available, please call
I hope you can join us.
Kate Johnson
President
Note: If you do not want to receive email notice of upcoming professional education programs, or want to limit the topics you receive, you can safely tell us by replying to this email. You also can give us a quick call at (800) 854-8009 or go to LSI News Assistant.
LSI News, Inc.
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98104
[View Less]
Some of you may have already seen the attached opinion by Judge Posner of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is based
in Chicago and is the intermediate appellate court between US District
Courts and the Supreme Court. In essence, Posner struck down the FERC rule
that allowed PJM to recoup the costs of construction of a new high voltage
electric transmission line -- even in part -- from utilities that derived no
discernible benefit from the line. Importantly, …
[View More]the court deemed the value
associated with "reliability" -- the chief benefit cited as justification
for the TRAIL and PATH lines in W. Va. -- to be negligible and, in any
event, insufficient to justify the pass thru of costs to utilities who
received no other tangible economic benefit.
Although the decision repeats, in a very different context (one relating to
recoverable transmission rates, not authority to construct transmission
lines) many of the arguments we made last year in TRAIL and will make this
year in PATH, it will be some time before we will use the decision in our
own case. Additionally, there was a powerful dissent, quoting the
conflicting opinion of then Judge John Roberts in a DC Circuit case which
reached the opposite outcome, obviously for the purpose of highlighting the
fact that there is now a "conflict of decisions among circuits" (one of the
grounds SCOTUS uses to decide whether to hear an appeal) and attempting to
draw the attention of now Chief Justice John Roberts.
Stand by....
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
[View Less]
Bill Howley sent me the link below. The story is on his blog. This
could mean lower electric rates for WV, and it means back to the drawing
board for financing TrAIL.
JBK
>>> Bill Howley <billhowley(a)hughes.net> 8/15/2009 7:15 PM >>>
This just came in on the Sierra Club listserv. Here's my post on The
Power Line
<http://calhounpowerline.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/blockbuster-federal-court-…>.
This could be big news.
Bill
Blockbuster Federal Court …
[View More]Decision Could Doom PATH & TrAIL
2009 August 15
Here is the news from SNL, a financial news Web site:
In a decision that could significantly hamper efforts to build major
new transmission facilities nationwide, a divided three-judge panel for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on Aug. 6 overturned a
FERC order signing off on the PJM Interconnection LLC’s postage-stamp
rate design for new transmission lines operating at voltages of 500-kV
or more.
After reviewing the arguments, the majority said the stakes are high,
noting, for example, that under FERC’s decision, Commonwealth Edison
Co. [an Illinois utility] may be required to contribute hundreds of
millions of dollars to help pay for the proposed “Project
Mountaineer,” when under the old policy it wouldn’t have had to pay
a dime.
The problem, according to Judge Richard Posner, who penned the
court’s decision in which Judge John Tinder joined, is that FERC
never looked at the consequences of switching to the new pricing policy.
“No particulars are presented concerning the contribution that very
high-voltage facilities are likely to make to the reliability of PJM’s
network. Not even the roughest estimate of likely benefits to the
objecting utilities is presented,” Posner recalled.
Posner suggested that the new policy is unfair to customers in the
western portion of PJM, where power plants are located relatively close
to their customers and relatively low-voltage, mainly 345-kV,
transmission facilities are used. In contrast, generating plants that
serve the eastern portions of PJM are generally located long distances
from load, and therefore 500-kV and even higher-voltage transmission
facilities are used to deliver the power.
Yet, FERC never took this disparity into consideration, Posner
maintained. Instead, he said, the agency relied on the fact that the
eastern utilities that created PJM many years ago agreed to share the
costs of certain facilities through pro rata sharing agreements.
“The fact that these utilities thought it appropriate to share costs
in 1967 says nothing about the advantages and disadvantages of such an
arrangement in the larger, modern PJM network,” the judge wrote.
“The fact that one group of utilities desires to be subsidized by
another is no reason in itself for giving them their way.”
The case was in the Seventh Circuit Federal Court in Minnesota because
public utilities commissions in Illinois and Ohio had sued PJM over
their rate scheme for Project Mountaineer, which included both TrAIL and
PATH lines.
As noted on Who Pays for PATH, more than 40% of the costs of TrAIL and
PATH will be paid for by rate payers west of the Allegheny Mountains.
The Seventh Circuit says that can’t happen. There are two
alternatives. Either only east coast utilities pay for PATH and TrAIL
because they are getting the power, or AEP and Allegheny Energy pay for
PATH and TrAIL because they are getting the profit.
[View Less]
West Virginia Environmental Council
Join America's #1 Populist Jim Hightower
at WVEC's Annual Fall Conference
It's Our 20th Anniversary Celebration!
Friday, September 25th - Sunday, September 27th
Holly Gray Park, Sutton WV (Braxton County) - Exit # 67 off I 79
Please join us as we celebrate our 20-year history and build from it to
pass strong environmental policy in 2010. Founded in 1989 to be the
legislative arm for the environmental movement in West Virginia, WVEC
now marks 20 years …
[View More]of policy work at the legislature as we continue to
be your voice at the capitol.
Conference will feature: * Key-note address- by JIM HIGHTOWER,
nationally known progressive commentator and co-Editor of America's
hottest newsletter, the Hightower Lowdown. We expect to hold a Friday
evening reception for Jim. And Saturday morning Mr. Hightower will
deliver the Keynote Address for our 20th birthday celebration!
* The best of West Virginia's environmental movement as we hold
educational workshops on top issues, and organizing training to help
improve the effectiveness of your organization; Setting our 2010
Legislative Priorities - incorporate your voice into our organization
through discussions and electing representatives of the regions in WV to
our Board of Directors; Saturday evening offers a panel of our founders
discussing the fascinating history of WVEC.
* The weekend will have it's fun, too: Our traditional Silent Auction
(bring a contribution or two and be prepared to outbid your friends of
course); Booths on environmental issues / Artists / Green Businesses;
Recreational Outings as we enjoy the gorgeous scenery of Holly Gray
Park, fishing lessons and more; Saturday Night Birthday Bash (musicians
to be announced).
Please come out to build your connection with the statewide
environmental movement in WV, your organization's connection with our
lobbying resources - and simply have a great time with our most special
guest, Jim Hightower!
Registration: Only $15 adult / $10 seniors, students, low income. Youth
ages 12 and under receive free registration.
Sleeping accommodations: On-site - includes bunk beds in cabins ($10
per night) and unlimited camping ($5 per tent, per night).
Please see the registration form
<http://www.wvecouncil.org/calendar/WVEC_2009_Fall_Conf_Registration_For
m.pdf> at http://www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org> .
Cost details and off-site accommodations in the area are listed on the
registration form.
Meals: Breakfasts Saturday & Sunday: $5 each
Lunches Saturday & Sunday: $5 each
Saturday night dinner - Pot Luck ... Please
brings a dish to share.
The full Agenda for the weekend will be sent out and posted on our
website in August as details are completed. Please stay tuned ......
Download Registration form here.
<http://www.wvecouncil.org/calendar/WVEC_2009_Fall_Conf_Registration_For
m.pdf> : http://www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org>
West Virginia Environmental Council
Representing West Virginia "Special Interests"-
People Who Want to Breathe Clean Air and Drink Clean Water
2206 Washington Street East, Charleston WV 25311
(304) 414-0143 www.wvecouncil.org <http://www.wvecouncil.org/>
[View Less]
Mark
I represented the Highlands Conservancy in the first wind turbine case ever
filed with the Public Service Commission in 2005 [CORRECTION 2000], and I
represent them (and the Sierra Club) now in proceedings at the PSC relating
to AEP/Allegheny's proposed construction of PATH, a high voltage electric
transmission line from the John Amos coal-fired electric plant in Winfield
to Maryland -- through 225 miles of West Virginia, including vast swaths of
forest.
I think it is inaccurate to state …
[View More]the Sierra has stated a blanket policy in
favor of absolutely any and all wind turbines. There clearly is a strong
desire to build them, and as many as possible, but there is no blank check.
HC dropped its opposition to the first wind turbine in 2005 [CORRECTION
2000] when the developer agreed to make changes moving the turbines further
away from Dolly Sod. See the attached agreement.
The Highlands Conservancy has adopted what I regard as an impossible
standard for wind turbines, in effect, the exact opposite of blanket
approval. HC's requirement that wind turbines demonstrate that they will
result in the shut down of some equivalent MW of coal or other fossil fuel
plant is just unrealistic, especially in a world where more generation
capacity is being built all of the time. The reality is that no wind
turbine, in the absence of the authority as the owner of a coal fired plant
to shut down the plant, could ever meet that standard. None would be
approved, ever, anywhere.
Can you show me a single wind turbine project the HC is currently supporting
under its recently announced standard? Of any size, in any location?
I hope you can. Honestly.
Best regards,
Bill
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote:
> Thanks Bill for the effort to help me understand the issueI am fully
> aware of all You bring to this issue but the relevant point I make and will
> repeat
> is A Blank policy that all WInd projects are good without close examination
> of the details and the effects on individuals and communities will only lead
> to a watered down effort . There are thousands of citizens and much animal
> life that will be negatively effected by this local Beach Ridge project and
> without compensation for property devaluation etc. and will reap nothing
> from it except more power for the grid so the Pittsburgh suburbs can
> flourish . And the green credits mean more pollution by a dirty industry
> that buys or owns them! Yes there are many negative issues you did not
> address in your email
> I dont care to argue the fine points .
>
> Just look at the WV Highland Conservancy turn around position on Wind
> projects in WV
> Their reversal on this is an epic decision for an environmental org of WV
> and is very commendable !
> So I would suggest that the WV SC also have a closer l@@K at its position
> ALL WIND PROJECTS ARE NOT GOOD and therefore a blanket statement endorsing
> these only hurts the membership issue
> as in my case and the image of the org.
>
> Thanks for the consideration
> Mark
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 6:29 PM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. wrote:
>
> But trust me when I tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter
> the Sierra Club from aggressively pursuing realistic energy and
> environmental solutions.
>
>
>
>
> *
> Mark Blumenstein*
>
> *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910*
>
> *304 445 7822*
>
> * *
>
> * markb(a)mountain.net*
>
>
>
>
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
[View Less]
Mark
Jim Kotcon is a very polite guy, and both courteous and elegant in his
communications. I would rather open your eyes.
First, the easy one. Carbon offsets are, by definition, required only of
energy generated by sources relying up a carbon based fuel, like coal,
petroleum, natural gas, and other fossil fuels (methane, butane, propane,
the list goes on).
Wind, which is roughly 90% nitrogen and 10% oxygen, has no carbon content.
There is no predicate, therefore, for requiring a "carbon" …
[View More]offset. That
would be making green energy sources offset the damage caused by other,
non-green energy sources. That makes no sense as a matter of public policy.
Period.
View shed issues are more difficult. They are inherently subjective. What
upsets one, pleases another, or may leave them indifferent. I am largely
indifferent to wind turbines; I don't think of them as visual phenomena any
more than I assess the aesthetics of an Exxon station when I pull into a gas
station to fill up my gas tank (lacking as I do an electric car that could
be charged at night by electricity generated by a wind turbine or solar
panel).
It's true, wind turbines frequently, if not always, require trees to be cut
down. So does toilet paper, in significantly greater numbers....what did
the wise man say? DETOGT (don't even think of going there). If you wanna
see a LOT of trees cut down go look at the 10,000 acre wasteland that
surrounds Kayford Mountain, 20 miles south of Charleston, the legacy of a
fifteen year, ongoing mountain top removal project.
At the same time I find the visual image of thousands of 19, 20, 21, 22 and
23 year-old soldiers -- returning to the United States in caskets --
upsetting. *Very* god damned upsetting. I blame the fact that we are now
engaged in wars in three countries in the Middle East on the fact that the
oil companies were able to prevail upon their fraudulently elected lap
dogs to embark on a war in Iraq primarily -- if not exclusively -- to
control Iraqi oil fields. And that was not done as a "favor" to US
citizens; it was the war crime known as aggressive war.
I also react negatively (yeah, angry, exasperated, pissed off, pick any
phrase you like, they all fit) when serious efforts to end American economic
imperialism, and the squandering of environmental resources, are frustrated
by misguided efforts -- however well intended -- to obstruct increases in
domestically generated, and environmentally sustainable, energy sources.
Like wind turbines.
There are no risk or cost free choices in life. Either we continue to
purchase (and steal) tremendous volumes of foreign crude oil, or we produce
energy here in volumes sufficient to substitute for it. Or, even more
difficult, we embark on the virtually impossible political task of
persuading people to dramatically reduce their life styles.
A footnote: China's per capita ownership of automobiles right now is about
where the US's per capita ownership was in, buckle your seat belt, 1906.
They are not going to accept that as a standard of living; they not about to
*reduce* anything. They are going to *increase* vehicular use,
geometrically. And there are 1.2 billion Chinese. Ditto for 1 billion
residents of India, who in fact have a faster growing population. Either we
find a way -- worldwide -- to generate electricity for electric cars, and
simultaneously avoid both coal and petroleum, or we're going to be literally
underwater. And the population displacements caused by rising sea levels
will wreck civilization as we know it.
Should we encourage on a wholesale basis conservation in every possible
way? Of course, from the use of efficient appliances and cars, to
constructing efficient buildings, and lighting them with compact flourescent
lights (or better yet, even more efficient by several orders of magnitude,
LED's, which hopefully with mass production will drop dramatically in
price). Yes, all of these are desperately needed. But energy use is still
going to go up, not down, under any realistic scenario.
So we have got to find additional energy sources that don't require delivery
routes guaranteed by the Pentagon's Central Command, or the generation of
unlimited amounts of CO2.
If you start out recognizing that 50-55% of electricity in this country is
generated from coal, and that a very substantial majority of petroleum is
imported, it becomes very difficult to find realistic alternative fuels in
any volume that offers relief from either of those problems.
Wind and solar, in vast quantities, are the only candidates for
substitution, although many serious environmentalists now advocate greatly
increased use of nuclear power. Got any thoughts on that alternative?
Some advocate greatly increased use of natural gas, which has its own
environmental problems related to water use (at least in the largest
domestic discovery known as the Marcellus Shale), and only cuts the carbon
generation by about half of that generated from coal. But there's lots of
it. Wanna punch holes all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and parts
of Virginia? There are gas exploration companies dying to enlist your
support.
So don't get me wrong. It's good you're thinking about this stuff, and it's
laudable that you make decisions based on principal. But trust me when I
tell you that uninformed moral fervor will not deter the Sierra Club from
aggressively pursuing realistic energy and environmental solutions.
If you want to impact policy -- whether of the US or the Sierra Club -- you
need to answer the question of what alternative offers any prospect for
relief from our dilemmas. When you find an answer better than wind
turbines, call us. We'll waive your dues to get back in.
Seeya.
Bill
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net>wrote:
> Dear JimWithout a plan that mandates a cut in carbon for every Turbine
> built
> We will only
> be just adding a new source of power without reducing the current input
> and future inputs of carbon
> I can see that a turbine might offset slightly the power needed to generate
> but we have no comprehensive plan
> that cut emissions as we add generation
> AND MY OBJECTION is directly linked to the endorsement of what I see as a
> DAMAGING
> installation of giant turbines on our southeastern ridges
> I THING THE WV SC NEEDS TO BE MORE SELECTIVE IN THEIR ENDORSEMENT
> for this is just a shell game for the GREEN CREDITS might just bring us
> more pollution
> in the future
> Mark
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:33 PM, James Kotcon wrote:
>
> Mark:
>
> I respectfully disagree with your assessment of wind farms. By their very
> nature, wind farms generate electricity that offsets carbon emissions. I
> am aware of some wind opponents who deny that this is true, but the hard
> data make it very clear that wind offsets fossil fuel emissions. While it
> is not a 100 % kilowatt for kilowatt offset, it is still one of the least
> carbon-emitting sources of energy available.
>
> I also recognize that the scenic impact is a concern, but that is an issue
> that should be handled by county planning ordinances. I would have no
> object to a scenic restriction on windfarms if it also applied to coal-fired
> power plants, transmission lines, ski resorts and second home development.
> But to restrict one type of development, in this case wind, is to
> indirectly subsidize fossil fuel power instead. There is no perfect
> source of energy, but any objective evaluation would have to conclude that
> wind is cleaner than most.
>
> I also have no objection to compensating the parties affected by energy
> generation, but this rule has to be applied to all power sources. As long
> as it is required of wind farms but not coal mines or power plants, it
> becomes, again, an indirect subsidy for coal and a barrier to the cleaner
> sources we claim to want.
>
> I agree that there are adverse impacts to some birds and bats, but there is
> no credible evidence that this has an adverse effect on the "populations".
> Until we can compare the effect of a wind farm against the impacts of a
> strip mine, there is no basis for singling out one energy source for
> additional restrictions, but allow other energy sources to operate without
> restriction.
>
> The Sierra Club would be easily dismissed if we oppose every form of
> energy. We need a more rational energy policy to get support from a
> majority of Americans. We do not support every wind farm application, but
> we also would not be credible if we opposed them all.
>
> I hope you will reconsider your membership. Feel free to contact me if
> you wish to discuss this in more detail.
>
> Jim Kotcon, Chair
> Energy Committee
> 304-293-8822 (office)
> 304-594-3322 (home)
>
> P.S. We are currently compiling a subcommittee of Club members to review
> additional wind farm permit applications in West Virginia. Let me know if
> you are interested in being part of that evaluation.
>
> Mark Blumenstein <markb(a)mountain.net> 8/12/2009 4:11 PM >>>
>
>
> Since the WV SC has taken a position on wind turbines on our historic
> ridges in WV especially without WITHOUT a carbon offset
> I will not be renewing my membership.
> Wind turbines have their place but cutting down mountaintops and
> deforesting ridgetops
> and forever changing our historic ridges in eastern WV in site of
> farms and families
> WITHOUT any compensation to the effected parties is a poor decision
> and these poorly located devices are BAT and Migrant Bird Killers
>
> I believe THE WV & NATIONAL SIERRA CLUB should reevaluate their
> position
>
> If this only reaches the membership committee in this email I wish
> for you to pass along
> this those that make policy
>
> Mark Blumenstein
> HC 73 BX 11
> Alderson WV 24910
>
> ps. I think Whale Wars has shown that action not banners change policy
> Stop the Whaling by stopping the Whalers!
>
>
>
> Mark Blumenstein
> HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910
> 304 445 7822
>
> markb(a)mountain.net
>
>
>
>
>
> *
> Mark Blumenstein*
>
> *HC73 BX11 Alderson WV 24910*
>
> *304 445 7822*
>
> *http://www.markblumenstein.com*
>
> * markb(a)mountain.net*
>
>
>
>
[View Less]
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon(a)yahoo.com
304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net> wrote:
From: Frank Slider <fslider(a)verizon.net>
Subject: re: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting
To: "Undisclosed Recipients" <fslider(a)verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 1:45 PM
FW: Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Meeting
Media Advisory: Mollohan Schedules Town Hall
Meeting
…
[View More]August 10, 2009 – Congressman Alan B. Mollohan announced today
that he will be having a town hall meeting 6:00 PM on Friday, August 14, 2009 at
Wheeling Jesuit University, Troy Theater in Swint Hall. He will be
available to listen to his constituents on matters that are of concern to
them.
[View Less]
The August Legislative Interim committee meetings schedule and agendas were posted very late Friday.
The most notable (and important) meeting this month is on Monday, Aug. 10, when Finance Subcommittee B, chaired by Senator Walt Helmick, will take up SCR 57- requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance study the proposed new state business and occupation tax on high-voltage electric power transmission lines. The committee will have a presentation on the Governor's proposed …
[View More]transmission line tax from Jonathan Deem, the Governor's General Counsel. The meeting is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the Senate Finance Committee meeting room.
This is an incredible opportunity. Those who are in town for the status hearing should make every effort to get to the Capitol at 4 PM in massive numbers. The Legislature needs to hear about the problems with the Transmission line process, and be told in no uncertain terms that a vote for this tax is a vote to take people homes and farms!
Instead of a transmission tax, the PSC siting process needs to be reformed by:
1) Mandate that applicants provide written notification to all affected property owners,
2) Direct the PSC to balance the needs of ratepayers against the need for transmission lines;
3) Direct the PSC to evaluate alternatives to new transmission lines (including demand-side management alternatives) where feasible, less-impacting alternatives exist.
4) Protect designated scenic areas; and
5) Consider indirect as well as direct impacts. Currently, only those property directly crossed by the line are compensated, neighbors suffer real losses, but get nothing.
6) Consider the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from plants producing the electricity to be carried by these lines.
Make sure the Legislature knows that phony fixes are not acceptable, and the transmission tax is a fraudulent "bait-and-switch". I suspect that even the Governor knows it is unconstitutional, but it would allow the Governor and the PSC to claim that the line benefits West Virginia, and then, by the time it is challenged in court and tossed out, the line will have been built.
I plan to attend the hearing, and urge anyone else to attend. Attached is a draft fact sheet that we put together for our alternative, the PSC Reform Act. Please let me have comments before noon Monday.
JBK
[View Less]
The August Legislative Interim committee meetings schedule and agendas were posted very late Friday.
The most notable (and important) meeting this month is on Monday, Aug. 10, when Finance Subcommittee B, chaired by Senator Walt Helmick, will take up SCR 57- requesting the Joint Committee on Government and Finance study the proposed new state business and occupation tax on high-voltage electric power transmission lines. The committee will have a presentation on the Governor's proposed …
[View More]transmission line tax from Jonathan Deem, the Governor's General Counsel. The meeting is from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM in the Senate Finance Committee meeting room.
This is an incredible opportunity. Those who are in town for the status hearing should make every effort to get to the Capitol at 4 PM in massive numbers. The Legislature needs to hear about the problems with the Transmission line process, and be told in no uncertain terms that a vote for this tax is a vote to take people homes and farms!
Instead of a transmission tax, the PSC siting process needs to be reformed by:
1) Mandate that applicants provide written notification to all affected property owners,
2) Direct the PSC to balance the needs of ratepayers against the need for transmission lines;
3) Direct the PSC to evaluate alternatives to new transmission lines (including demand-side management alternatives) where feasible, less-impacting alternatives exist.
4) Protect designated scenic areas; and
5) Consider indirect as well as direct impacts. Currently, only those property directly crossed by the line are compensated, neighbors suffer real losses, but get nothing.
6) Consider the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from plants producing the electricity to be carried by these lines.
Make sure the Legislature knows that phony fixes are not acceptable, and the transmission tax is a fraudulent "bait-and-switch". I suspect that even the Governor knows it is unconstitutional, but it would allow the Governor and the PSC to claim that the line benefits West Virginia, and then, by the time it is challenged in court and tossed out, the line will have been built.
I plan to attend the hearing, and urge anyone else to attend. Attached is a draft fact sheet that we put together for our alternative, the PSC Reform Act. Please let me have comments before noon Monday.
JBK
[View Less]
To: Energy Committee
This report identifies the funding allocated by state for energy efficiency in the Cap and Trade Bill (ACES). They estimate that West Virginia would get over $2.7 billion for energy efficiency during the 2012 to 2019 period. This would create an estimated 24,000 jobs. And since each dollar spent on energy efficiency generates three dollars n savings for the consumer, that means the bill saves consumers in West Virginia an estimated $8 billion dollars!!!!!
We need to …
[View More]get this story our there. How do we do it?
JBK
>>> Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> 8/6/2009 1:52 AM >>>
A group called Environment Northeast has developed an analysis of the
ASES (climate) legislation which passed the House on Micheal
Jackson/Farrah Fawcett day (June 25th). The allocation of allowances to
the states for different purposes identifies four areas in which funding
will be provided, in hundreds of millions of dollars, to billions of
dollars, depending on formulae in the bill. The majority of this money
will save three dollars for each dollar spent.
Those of you who are meeting with Senators and staff may want to be
familiar with this or present the report. It is a huge amount of money.
http://www.env-ne.org/resources/open/p/id/895. Both
funding levels and estimates of benefits are included.
- Ned
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to:
CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
[View Less]
This communication, just below, is about a wind farm proposed for Highland County, VA- just east of Pendleton County, WV. I have no other information about this proposed wind facility.
Frank Young
----- Original Message -----
From: Martinjul(a)aol.com
To: dawn(a)brightsideacres.com
Cc: wvhcboard(a)yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [WVHCBOARD] Re: WInd turbines on Allegheny Mtn
In a message dated 8/7/2009 12:26:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dawn(a)…
[View More]brightsideacres.com writes:
Hello Martin,
I am writing to ask you and The Highlands Voice to look into what is going on in Highland County Virginia regarding the county's recent approval of Highland County Wind Development, LLC to erect a 19-tower wind generating facility on Tamarack Ridge (the highest point in Highland County and approximately 1600 feet from the West Virginia line.
These 19 towers will each be 400 feet tall, and will be in clear view from the Camp Allegheny Battlefield, which is on the National Register of Historic Places; as well as from multiple sites on County Route 3 (the Old Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike, which is a National Historic Backway.)
Apparently, Highland County's Technical Review Committee simply approved the site plan submitted yesterday, eventhough environmental reviews, impact statements or permits normally required by the federal government have neither been obtained nor formally waived. No photo-simulation to evaluate the visual impact of the turbines on the Camp Allegheny Battlefield and historic surrounds has been conducted.
>From everything I have read in The Recorder, the impact of this wind farm on West Virginia has not been considered whatsoever. Perhaps it is a matter for the Department of Interior? Perhaps, if brought to Nick Rahall's attention, a cease and desist order could be issued by a Federal Court? I believe that the Pocahontas County Commission is looking into this as of their meeting yesterday. Do you know Commissioners David Fleming or Martin Saffir? Could The Highland's Voice be of help to them?
According to yesterday's Recorder, Highland County Wind Development intends to break ground next week.
Please see the link below for articles regarding this issue.
Swift action is required to preserve the natural and historic integrity of an historically significant and environmentally pristine area of WV.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/08/06/wind-utility-headed-into-construc…
Thank You,
Dawn Baldwin
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, things aren't going to get better, they're not!" From The Lorax by Dr. Suess
For The Mountains
Julian Martin
Vice-President for State Affairs
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy www.wvhighlands.org
1525 Hampton Road, Charleston, WV 25314
Contact me(martinjul(a)aol.com) for a trip to Kayford Mountain to see active and so-called reclaimed mountain top removal. Go to www.wvhighlands.org for I Love Mountains t-shirts, hats, I Love Mountains and Friends Of The Mountains bumper stickers and for speakers on environmental issues in West Virginia.
[View Less]
Dear Mr. Watkins:
I am forwarding this email to you for distribution to the Commission, and in
response to the Commission's August 4 procedural order. I am forwarding it
in advance of the hearing on August 10, in an attempt to convey some
thoughts that might assist the Commission in resolving the issues
surrounding the manner and level of participation by the 200+ would-be
intervenors in the PATH proceeding. I also convey these thoughts now, in
advance of the August 10 hearing, so that the …
[View More]idea of breaking the
Jefferson County and Ashton Woods groups down into more effective groups can
percolate within the Commission before Monday. I recognize that it is
possible that the idea, if it has any merit at all, could be lost in the sea
of advocates that will appear Monday.
I acknowledge that this email does not conform with the requirements of a
formal pleading before the Commission, and I do not request that it be
accorded any formal status. At the same time, I have copied it by email to
counsel for PATH and as many of the Allegheny Energy personnel as I can; I
have no email addresses for AEP personnel. Additionally, I have copied
other intervenors whose email addresses I know, and by this email request
that two persons, Patience Wait and Tom Hildebrand, forward the email to the
two large groups whom they are associated with, respectively, Jefferson
County intervenors and Ashton Woods intervenors. In light of this
dissemination, I would submit that it is not an ex parte communication. I
have blind-copied the email to a much larger list in the interest of
allowing as many people as possible have the benefit, however minimal, of
these thoughts in advance of Monday. I will file a hard copy with the
Executive Secretary for service on others as soon as the email list is
disseminated.
Of the 200+ intervenors, I am advised that fully 140+ are from Jefferson
County and 40+/- are from Ashton Woods. Stated otherwise, fully 180 of the
200 intervenors -- no less than 90% -- are by the terms of the August 4
order to be represented by 2 persons. The remaining 20+/- intervenors will
be represented, presumably, by 20+/- attorneys or others spokesmen, for a
total of 22 representatives.
I do not know if the Commission was aware of this statistical breakdown at
the time the August 4 order was entered. However, I believe the
statistically disproportionate representation of Jefferson County and Ashton
Woods intervenors in the total suggests that the Commission might achieve
its legitimate objective of making the PATH proceeding manageable in a more
effective fashion.
Specifically, if the Commission did nothing more than allow the 140+
intervenors from Jefferson County break themselves down into 5 groups, the
effectiveness of the representation of the intervenors would increase
dramatically, while the incremental burden on the Commission in dealing with
the PATH proceeding would be minimal. That is, the number of spokesmen
would only increase from 22 to 27.
Why would this be more effective for the participants from Jefferson
County? Because they are, apparently, themselves geographically diverse.
And they will absorb a disproportionate impact in total from the PATH line's
passage through their community. For instance, I am advised that there is a
geographically segregable group from a neighborhood called "Blue Ridge"
which has an interest in the proceeding that is very localized to them, and
runs the risk of being lost in the background noise of a pleading, written
or verbal, on behalf of 140 people. Similarly, there is another
identifiable group interested in the impact not on their residence or
business, per se, but on the schools they send their children to.
There are undoubtedly other readily identifiable subgroups in the 140 who
could rationally be separated from the 140 aggregation and who, as a result,
would have a much more effective representation before the Commission, again
with a minimal incremental impact on the efficiency of the PATH proceeding.
I apologize for not getting this to the Commission earlier, but I have only
come by the facts I relate here since August 4. I want to emphasize that I
do not represent anyone in their capacity as a resident of Jefferson County
or Ashton Woods (although I assume there must be some Sierra Club and/or
Highlands Conservancy members in one or both communities, whether or not
they have intervened individually). I make these suggestions merely as one
lawyer among many with an interest in assisting the Commission achieve its
stated goals.
I convey these thoughts now only because it strikes me that the
disproportionate representation of these two communities in the total
intervenor group might be more rationally dealt with in a manner other than
aggregation by County, and that the alternative of disaggregating these two
large groups can achieve the Commission's stated goal of efficiency while
making the intervenors' participation more effective, another goal which the
Commission clearly wanted to achieve, within the bounds of practicality, in
its August 4 order.
Best regards,
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
[View Less]
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon(a)yahoo.com
304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Thu, 8/6/09, aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> wrote:
From: aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org>
Subject: MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) on fraudulent coal lobby letter and MTR
To: "Jim Sconyers" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>, "Regina Hendrix" <reginahendrix999(a)gmail.com>, "William DePaulo" <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>
…
[View More]Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 1:25 PM
This is a must-see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32307765
Aaron Isherwood
Senior Staff Attorney
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
85 Second Street, 2d Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Phone: (415) 977-5680
Fax: (415) 977-5793
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client
communications and/or attorney work product. If you receive this
e-mail
inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your
system.
Thank you.
[View Less]
Review: *Blackout* by Richard Heinberg by Frank Kaminski
*Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis*
By Richard Heinberg
201 pp. New Society Publishers – May 2009. $18.95.
Richard Heinberg’s new book *Blackout* tries to demolish current assumptions
about the world’s remaining coal endowment: namely, that it is immense
beyond belief, barely tapped and will last for centuries to come. Heinberg
argues that these assumptions are off-base, misleading and not at all
supported by recent …
[View More]studies that suggest global coal production could peak
in less than two decades. He warns that an impending shortage of minable
coal threatens to plunge our civilization into one final, irreversible
Blackout unless we act wisely.
Heinberg makes his case well. One of the things that I’ve always admired
about his writing is the way he tries to avoid any potential for bias by
considering all possible viewpoints and contributing factors with regard to
a given issue, even those that might weaken his argument. Nowhere is this
even-handed approach more evident than in *Blackout*, where he discusses not
only the pessimistic reports on remaining coal reserves, but also those that
he considers to be overly optimistic. In short, Heinberg can always be
counted on to give us fact without inflammation.
And yet, my mind still isn’t quite made up about the book's central thesis.
Common sense tells me that it's probably more right than wrong—not only
because of Heinberg's sound analysis of the reserves data, but also because
imminent declines in oil production will surely place additional pressure on
coal supplies, which could hasten coal's peak. But quite a few people within
the peak oil community simply aren’t buying this case for a peak in coal
production within our lifetimes. According to these skeptics, peak coalers
underestimate the ability of emerging technologies to extract a larger
proportion of the resource than what is currently considered to be
recoverable. On the advice of one such skeptic and personal friend, I spent
several days researching innovative coal technologies like underground coal
gasification (UCG) and microbial coal prior to writing this review. And,
being anything but an energy scientist myself, I still find that I can’t
reach a firm conclusion about the degree of promise held by these
technologies. Thus, the remainder of this review will focus solely on
Heinberg’s analysis of reserves data, rather than on the merits of the
various emerging coal technologies.
The impetus for *Blackout* came two years ago, with the publication of a
report titled “Coal: Resources and Future
Production<http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-…>.”
Authored by a group of independent analysts for Energy Watch Group in
Germany, the report analyzed the latest available data on the world’s
remaining coal deposits, and came to some sobering conclusions. Above all,
it found that our current data on global coal reserves are of very poor
quality, since many countries’ reserves figures are woefully out-of-date,
having not been updated, in some cases, in several decades.
And of the nations that have actually made the effort to update their proven
reserves figures, all but two—India and Australia—have revised them
substantially *downward* over the past two decades. Some of these downward
revisions have been staggering. For example, Botswana, Germany and the
United Kingdom have all downgraded their proven reserves by more than 90
percent (Germany’s downgrades were the sharpest, with proven hard coal
reserves plummeting by a stunning 99 percent!). Further, the report found
that the United States, which we’ve all been told has something like
two centuries’ worth of coal left, has in fact *already peaked* in its
production of high-quality coal. And even the world’s total in-situ coal
resources have been reduced by 60 percent over the past 25 years, from 10
trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons.
The study authors conclude that such drastic reductions are far too
significant to simply represent the quantities of coal that have been mined
and produced in the time since reserves were last assessed. Instead, they
are most likely the result of coal-producing countries having better data
now than they once had. And the authors see global coal production peaking,
in the best case, in 2025 at 30 percent above present levels of production.
Heinberg picked up this story on his *MuseLetter* blog when it first came to
light, and it became the basis for a series of essays that he went on to
write on peak coal. Over the past two years, the study’s findings have been
bolstered by subsequent research carried out by the Institute for Energy
(IFE), Caltech Professor David Rutledge and Uppsala University in Sweden,
among others. Heinberg draws on all of this research in *Blackout*.
The book follows a simple structure. Its first two-thirds are devoted to
assessing the reserves of the world’s major coal-producing nations, country
by country. This is followed by two brief chapters that deal with the
implications of continued coal burning for climate change and the
potentialities and limitations of new coal technologies, respectively.
Lastly, Heinberg devotes a chapter to three potential scenarios that he
believes could be in store for us, depending on how successfully we’re able
to rise to the challenges of developing a renewable energy infrastructure
and averting catastrophic climate change.
I’ve already said all that I think I can about emerging coal technologies.
As for the chapter on coal and climate, Heinberg dissects each of the
various, differing viewpoints on the implications that continued coal
consumption will have for climate change policy—and vice versa—and argues
for a “combined approach” to addressing fossil fuel depletion and climate
change. This combined approach would ensure that we don’t address each
crisis with policies that make the other one worse (as for example by
alleviating fuel shortages through the increased use of dirty hydrocarbons
like tar sands and shale oil, which would accelerate climate change by
ratcheting up carbon emissions). Heinberg also adds his voice to the clamor
among leading climate scientists for a global campaign to keep atmospheric
CO2 levels to within 350 parts per million (ppm), which is currently deemed
the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2.
The three future scenarios that Heinberg foresees are a business-as-usual
scenario involving the continued wholesale liquidation of the world’s
remaining coal reserves; a clean tech scenario in which we continue using
coal as quickly as possible, but mitigate its climate effects through
massive investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS); and a scenario in
which we successfully transition to a renewable energy infrastructure.
The business-as-usual scenario would have the worst environmental
consequences out of the three. And the clean tech scenario would entail the
worst economic consequences, since it would require tremendous investments
in CCS infrastructures on the part of economies already ravaged by
skyrocketing coal prices and shortages. The renewable energy scenario would
involve the least environmental harm, and it’s also the only one in which we
would be able to avert total economic and societal collapse. But Heinberg
has no illusions that it will be easy to find the political will necessary
in order to make this latter scenario a reality.
Heinberg may be right that our modern world is doomed to descent into one
great, irrevocable Blackout within our lifetimes barring some unprecedented,
coordinated worldwide switch to renewables. On the other hand, it may be
that innovative technologies will dramatically increase the total amount of
economically extractable coal, bringing on a decades-long glut of the
stuff—as well as great peril to our environment. But whichever winds up
being the case, Heinberg is certainly right about the need to cut our carbon
emissions as quickly as we can, just in case Earth’s climate turns out to be
far more sensitive to our emissions than we’re currently able to fathom.
I don’t know which side is right in the peak coal debate—but I do know that
*Blackout* is an important and timely book. In the form of this compact
volume, one of the best and most productive peak oil authors working today
has turned his customary scholarship, wisdom, wit and writing prowess to
some of the most critical issues now unfolding on our planet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Kaminski is a member of Seattle Peak Oil Awareness, a connoisseur of
post-oil novels and a regular book reviewer for Energy Bulletin. He can be
reached at frank.kaminski AT gmail.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here <http://www.seattleoil.com/>
--
William V. DePaulo, Esq.
179 Summers Street, Suite 232
Charleston, WV 25301-2163
Tel: 304-342-5588
Fax: 304-342-5505
william.depaulo(a)gmail.com
www.passeggiata.com
This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is privileged or protected from
disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you
received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete this
message and your reply. These restrictions apply to any attachment to this
email.
[View Less]
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon(a)yahoo.com
304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
--- On Tue, 8/4/09, Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org <Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org> wrote:
From: Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org <Jennifer.Pecota(a)sierraclub.org>
Subject: Club-wide teleconference - Tuesday, August 4th
To: rickestes_92595(a)yahoo.com, karen(a)karenmerriam.com, jscorbett(a)mindspring.com, jheising(a)usd.edu, kjohnflaherty(a)yahoo.com, katibug1959(a)aol.com, davidhornbecklaw(…
[View More]a)msn.com, wyh(a)xmission.com, puffin(a)mbay.net, ddickson(a)burlingtontelecom.net, fewmit(a)comcast.net, jimdougherty(a)aol.com, jim_scon(a)yahoo.com, marthamdelrio(a)yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 5:42 PM
As we work to create a clean energy economy and solve
our climate crisis we face incredible opposition from groups funded by
Big Oil and Coal. You are invited to join a Club-wide teleconference
“Call to Action on Global Warming and Energy” to hear how you can help
create the groundswell of support needed to move these priorities forward
this year.
When: Tuesday, August 4 th at 8:30pm Eastern
Number: 866.501.6174 code: 223 9223
Draft Agenda:
- Welcome and Context
- International and Federal Legislative Action
- Administrative Action: Big Picture Campaign
- Questions and Answers
Hope you can make it!
[View Less]