EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Bizarre, awesome, fascinating, and beyond belief!!!
by Jim Sconyers 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: david sconyers <dsconyers(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM Subject: Toward A Green Future To: DV <donnaventriss(a)yahoo.com>, Jim <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, Armygrunt69(a)aol.com, barneyusmc6669(a)hotmail.com, bromley <bromhood(a)gmail.com>, brownk(a)southflorida.edu, steve burke <oldindianrider(a)aol.com>, Brent Davis < marine6(a)roadrunner.com>, days(a)americanfast.com, jerry dejonge < dejongej(a)southflorida.edu>, dennisinor(a)aol.com, Fpwingfield(a)aol.com, FUSMCRVN(a)verizon.net, GeneMarine(a)aol.com, Frank Gill <frgill(a)sbcglobal.net>, Frank and Jody Gill <frankgill(a)comcast.net>, clay gooch < clay_gooch(a)hotmail.com>, guentherd1(a)aol.com, Mark <MSconyers(a)olc152.com>, mcleodm(a)southflorida.edu, sandy/joe molineaux <sjmolino823(a)cox.net>, richard morey <moreyr(a)southflorida.edu>, lou piantadosi <LouPiant(a)aol.com>, pwingfld(a)comcast.net, ray.morris(a)comcast.net, Jim Sconyers < jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>, sgt_major(a)earthlink.net, ToMaui21(a)comcast.net, Jan Harrod <jsharrod(a)cox.net>, Jennifer Lawton <jennifer.lawton(a)gmail.com>, Mike <msconyers(a)sbcglobal.net>, Sarah <srstolfa(a)gmail.com>, Jeff Sconyers < jeff.sconyers(a)seattlechildrens.org>, Curtis Ventriss <clventriss(a)msn.com>, RA Ventriss <rventriss(a)aol.com>, Lisa Ventriss <lisa(a)vtroundtable.org>, Beverly Ventriss <bventris(a)pacbell.net> Or maybe too much time on his hands?? You decide. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HSKyHmjyrkA&feature=email "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." (Albert Einstein) "True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country" (Kurt Vonnegut) "What better way for a ruling class to claim and hold power than to pose as the defenders of the nation." (Christopher Hitchens)

1 0

Fwd: Re: [wvec-board] Marcellus Special Session
by James Kotcon 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

>>> Julie Archer <julie(a)wvcag.org> 6/16/2011 10:07 AM >>> FYI... Don Strimbeck's Daily Update included this article from the Dominion Post... *Marcellus committee OK'd * /Bicameral group to study drilling rules, regulation / */BY DAVID BEARD The Dominion Post /* CHARLESTON --- Marcellus regulation took a major step forward Wednesday afternoon, and if you had sneezed, you would have missed it. In the opening moments of the Joint Committee on Government and Finance meeting --- after the gaveling and the order for a silent roll --- acting Senate President Jeff Kessler moved to authorize a select committee to study Marcellus regulation. The motion passed without fanfare or discussion, and the panel --- the two chamber leaders, and political party and major committee heads --- moved on with its regular business. It took little more than 15 seconds. The audience was still settling down and the motion was hard to hear. But that little blip opens the door to a special session to pass Marcellus regulations. Kessler, Speaker Rick Thompson and acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin met Wednesday morning and agreed to create the committee. It will consist of five members each from the House and Senate. Thompson and Kessler said they hadn't yet appointed members. But they're confident the two chambers can reach an agreement --- each had passed a bill during the regular 2011 session but couldn't reach a compromise --- and bring it to Tomblin so he can call a special session. No one knows for sure when that will be. If there's an agreement in time, Kessler speculated, perhaps August --- the time also considered for a redistricting special session. Thompson said, "I think it would be very good if we could finish it this summer." He said a special session --- without the distractions of nearly 1,900 other bills --- is the best way to take it up. The failed mega-bills, in their various incarnations, took on environmental issues, surface owner rights, inspectors, permits and fees, fracking fluid, water withdrawals and discharges, forced pooling, road maintenance and more. Since then, following the permitting of two wells in the Morgantown Industrial Park, other issues have arisen --- including well locations near water supplies and the rights of cities to ban drilling and fracking. Thompson and Kessler said the select committee --- working with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the governor's office and various stakeholders --- has no limits on its discussions. Kessler used the term "pretty broad" while Thompson chose "wide open." "It's crucial to have a regulatory framework that protects the environment," provides regulatory certainty for the business community and protects surface and mineral owner rights, he said. While Tomblin previously said the DEP is already equipped to regulate the industry by making rules, DEP Secretary Randy Huffman said the agency is not, in fact, prepared to handle it. And Kessler opposes the idea on principle. "We can't just wait on bureaucratic administrative agencies to set the policy. That has to be done by the Legislature," he said. Thompson doesn't expect major progress by the July interims --- July 11-13 --- but that the committee and other parties could coordinate and "get some movement" during the interims. Asked about the governor's goals for the committee, Tomblin spokeswoman Jacqueline Proctor said he prefers to leave it in the hands of the committee, although he's happy to work with members as they see fit. The timeline to ready a bill or bills and bring them to him for a special session call is also up to the committee, she said. She speculated unofficially that August may be a little soon to get it all together. Asked if letters and resolutions from the public and public bodies --- including Morgantown, Monongalia County and the WVU Faculty Senate --- and proposed drilling bans helped spark Wednesday's actions, Proctor said Tomblin has had the discussion on his agenda for a while. But he's paying attention to what's going on, she said. "He's keeping everything on his radar as much as possible." Julie Archer WV Citizen Action Group 1500 Dixie Street Charleston, WV 25311 (304) 346-5891 (304) 346-8981 FAX www.wvcag.org On 6/15/2011 9:55 PM, dsgjr(a)aol.com wrote: > > After lobbying hard for a special session on Marcellus regulation for > two days, and hearing only very negative replies that it wasn't going > to happen, there was a sudden turn of events on Wednesday. > Wednesday afternoon, before they left town, the Joint Committee on > Government and Finance voted to form a Select Committee to prepare for > a special session on Marcellus drilling regulation. The committee > will consist of five Senate members and five House members, who will > be appointed by the Speaker and the acting Senate President. > Julie Archer and I were attending another Interim Committee meeting > when this occurred, so we don't have any more details at this time. > I will do some nosing around on Thursday to see if I can learn more. > Don Garvin > WVEC Legislative Coordinator > >

1 0

Google makes Business Case for Wind
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

Google makes Business Case for Wind Bill Opalka <http://www.energybiz.com/author/bill-opalka> | Jun 16, 2011 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart…> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/06/google-makes-business-case-wind?utm_…> Renewable energy developers agree: The lack of clear, long-term signals from policymakers stalls investments in the clean energy space. As the new kid on the block, and not an energy company, Google is plowing ahead. While Congress seems absent on energy policy this year – except for the predictable hearings on high gasoline prices – clean energy companies are looking for a signal that investments will pay off once various credits and subsidies expire at the end of this year and next. The message came through at a press conference at the American Wind Energy Association <http://www.awea.org/> conference in Anaheim. But along with the policy imperative, Google said there’s a business case<http://www.google.com/green/>to be made. “We believe in a clean energy future so we’re trying to do what we can to help enable that, but we also believe very strongly that all the things we are doing make good business sense,” said Rick Needham, director of green business operations and strategy at Google. The company has invested $400 million in large scale renewable energy<http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/10/05/google-buys>projects. “Also, these investments provide strong financial returns, and are a way to diversify our cash holdings with good returns given those risks,” Needham added. [image: IBM Webcast]<http://ads.energycentral.com/a.aspx?Task=Click&ZoneID=838&CampaignID=8318&A…> <http://ads.energycentral.com/a.aspx?ZoneID=838&Task=Click&Mode=HTML&SiteID=…> And as a large energy consumer, Google has procured two 20-year long-term power purchase agreements for 250 megawatts of wind providing clean energy for its data centers. But that only goes so far, as uncertain policy and recent history illustrate. Ned Hall, AES executive vice president and AES Wind Generation<http://www.aes.com/aes/index?page=wind>president, said: “We have a lot of examples in our industry as to what hasn’t worked out well for us. In the late 90s we built 35,0000 megawatts of natural gas generation in our rush to excitement to what was viewed as a disruptive technology. That drove natural gas prices to $13. And that ended badly for a lot of businesses.” The current mania over shale gas and the lack of a commitment to clean energy affects markets now. Hall is the incoming chairman of AWEA, so he’s clearly in the space for the long haul, too. But he’s seen this movie before, too. “The disruptive nature of shale gas has changed the map again and there’s a rush back to gas. If we’re always chasing what we view as the current least-cost opportunity, we won’t get the diversity that I think we would benefit from,” Hall said. He spoke approvingly of the market signals for renewables outside of the U.S.: “AES does business in 28 countries. Most of our time and effort on wind development is focused outside the U.S. because we don’t see what exists today as a motivator to come and put in the time and effort.” Does Google want to lead by example? “We would welcome and encourage other companies that may not be investing or offtaking (procuring) to do something that makes business sense for them to drive the industry forward,” Needham said. The uncertain regulatory environment is taking its toll. But some of that pain is being eased by the likes of Google and AES. Bill Opalka is editor of RenewablesBiz Daily -- 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

1 0

Fwd: DEP Public Notice - 2012 Proposed Air Rules Hearing Set
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 14 Jun '11

14 Jun '11

At the Skyview meeting in Morgantown, Bill Hughs of WCAG said that attempts to have air emissions from aggregated sources from drilling sites properly monitored under WVDEP's rules have repeatedly failed. In fact, their lawyers blocked any such requests. WVDEP's rules need to be changed. An opportunity to request changes is coming up as shown below. -Jonathan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: DEP Public Notice - 2012 Proposed Air Rules AvailaHearing Set Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:49:39 -0400 From: <dep.online(a)wv.gov> To: <freesource(a)cheat.org> The following was sent to you because you are a Member of the DEP Public Notice mailing list. =========================================================== Monday, June 13, 2011 @ 4:49 PM =========================================================== 2012 Proposed Air Rules Hearing Set and Rules Available on DEP Website for Review The West Virginia Division of Air Quality has scheduled a public hearing on July 11, 2011 for its 2012 proposed legislative rules, which will take place at the Division of Environmental Protection’s Charleston headquarters, 601 57th Street S.E., Charleston, WV 25304. Oral and written comments will be limited to the proposed revisions and will be made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the rules are available from the Secretary of State’s office or from the DEP at http://www.dep.wv.gov/pio/Pages/Rules.aspx. You may also obtain hard copies of the information by calling the phone number listed below. Written comments may be submitted to the Public Information Office at the above address. Comments may also be e-mailed to dep.comments(a)wv.gov. The hearing dates, locations and comment deadlines are as follows: Division of Air Quality 45CSR8 – Ambient Air Quality Standards 45CSR14 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 45CSR16 – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 45CSR18 - Control of Air Pollution from Combustion of Solid Waste 45CSR19 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment 45CSR25 – Control of Air Pollution from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities 45CSR30 – Requirements for Operating Permits 45CSR34 – Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 45CSR35 – Requirements for Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to Applicable Air Quality Implementation Plans (General Conformity) 45CSR42 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Program The public hearing for all air quality rules will take place beginning at 6 p.m. on July 11, 2011 in the Dolly Sods Conference Room. The comment period will begin on June 10, 2011 and end at the conclusion of the public hearing on July 11, 2011. Upon authorization and promulgation of revisions to 45CSR8, 45CSR14, 45CSR19 and 45CSR35, the DAQ will submit the rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as revisions to the State Implementation Plan pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. Upon authorization and promulgation of revisions to 45CSR18, the DAQ will submit the final rule to the U.S. EPA for approval as a part of West Virginia’s Section 111(d)/129 Plan and program delegation of the federal New Source Performance Standards. Rules 45CSR16, 45CSR25 and 45CSR34 will be submitted to EPA to fulfill other federal obligations under the Clean Air Act, including delegations, plans and program approvals. Upon authorization and promulgation of 45CSR30, the rule will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the State’s Operating Permit Program under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act. Rule 45CSR42 is proposed to be repealed. For more information on any of the DAQ rules call 304-926-0475. =========================================================== To view past notices of open public comment periods or to unsubscribe from this Mailing List, login at: http://apps.dep.wv.gov//MLists2/

2 1

Robert Bryce: America Needs the Shale Revolution - The Wall Street Journal.
by William DePaulo 13 Jun '11

13 Jun '11

I thought you would be interested in the following story on WSJ.com. Robert Bryce: America Needs the Shale Revolution http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369140191493636.h… The Wall Street Journal Mobile Reader for iPhoneTM delivers the latest global news, financial events, market insights and information to keep you ahead of the curve. Get the information you depend on plus entertainment, culture, and sports coverage when, where, and how you want it from the most credible source for news and information. Click below to download the WSJ Mobile Reader for free from the iTunes App Store. http://www.wsj.com/iphoneinstall William V DePaulo, Esq 179 Summers Street #232 Charleston WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

AEP plant closings.
by James Kotcon 13 Jun '11

13 Jun '11

I expect such statements from the likes of Manchin and McKinley, but here is the quote that troubles me. "Kessler said he would like to see the EPA guidelines changed so that plants like Kammer would be able to remain viable producers of electricity, adding he will work to make that change happen." JBK Both Anger And Optimism Voiced On Fate of Plant June 10, 2011 By J.W. JOHNSON JR. Staff Writer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register Congressman David McKinley said Thursday that the more than 240 West Virginia workers affected by the closure of five American Electric Power plants deserve an explanation, not from AEP, but from the federal Environmental Protection Agency and, ideally, the president. "President (Barack) Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson should come to West Virginia and see first-hand the faces of the folks that no longer have jobs because of their extreme regulatory policies," he said. McKinley, R-W.Va., is one of many local and state representatives who voiced anger at Thursday's announcement that AEP's Kammer Plant could be closed by 2014 as a result of proposed EPA regulations. Representatives from AEP said the plant would close under the company's new compliance plan, which was introduced Thursday. The plan would close five plants in West Virginia and one in Ohio in an effort to become compliant with the proposed regulations. The move would affect 60 employees at the Kammer Plant and 242 statewide. McKinley said that decision is the best example of why unemployment numbers are so high across the country, and he hoped Obama would accept his invitation. "Just this week the president said he is concerned that we are not producing jobs as quickly as he would like it to happen," McKinley said. "The men and women who lost their jobs at American Energy Power know exactly why we continue to hemorrhage jobs, and that is an ideologically driven agenda that is out of touch with working men and women and businesses large and small." Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he would make himself available to the AEP employees affected by the closures and that proposed EPA regulations are an example of government run amok. "It's decisions like the one made by AEP that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," he said. "Onerous regulations issued by the EPA are the reason that 242 West Virginians will lose their jobs, and that's simply wrong." Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., echoed Manchin's statement, adding that in this instance, the EPA did not properly analyze the situation to understand the loss of jobs and increase in cost to consumers. "This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs," she said, adding she will be drafting a letter to Jackson to see documentation that economic impact was taken into account when creating the new regulations. Representatives from Marshall County said they were notified of the planned closure Thursday morning by AEP representatives, though many of them chose to remain optimistic about the news. Delegate Mike Ferro said the news was "devastating," especially after recent talk of bringing an ethane cracking plant to the county had officials expecting an economic boost. "Now all of sudden you kind of get kicked a bit," he said, adding he hoped those involved would have "a change of heart." State Sen. Jeff Kessler said although AEP has said a number of the 60 employees would be reaching retirement age in the coming years and that the company would attempt to find new positions for the remaining employees, he is not interested in job creation by attrition. "I am more concerned about long-term growth and maintaining a vibrant work force in Marshall County," he said. "We have to see if we can pick up the slack." Kessler said he would like to see the EPA guidelines changed so that plants like Kammer would be able to remain viable producers of electricity, adding he will work to make that change happen. County Commissioner Jason "Jake" Padlow said he was glad AEP gave employees such advance notice - nearly three years - and that he hoped that was enough time for the county to show that it deserves to keep the plant. "Hopefully with what is going on in Marshall County with the increase in business and industry, we can convince them to change their plans," he said.

2 1

email changing
by Jim Sconyers 13 Jun '11

13 Jun '11

I am slowly switching over to gmail from Yahoo. I intend to use gmail only starting July 1, 2011. Please change my email address to jimscon(a)gmail.com Thanks Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

NYTimes.com: Prices Fall for Some Gas-Rich Shale Land
by william.depaulo＠gmail.com 13 Jun '11

13 Jun '11

This page was sent to you by: william.depaulo(a)gmail.com. BUSINESS DAY | June 10, 2011 Reuters Breakingviews: Prices Fall for Some Gas-Rich Shale Land By CHRISTOPHER SWANN and REYNOLDS HOLDING The Marcellus shale has offered some of the hottest wildcat real estate in recent years, but if Exxon Mobil's recent $1.7 billion acquisition is any indication, the days of eye-watering prices are over. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/business/10views.html?emc=eta1 ---------------------------------------------------------- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help(a)nytimes.com. NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company

1 0

Re: [EC] [WVHCBOARD] The cost of wind and solar energy
by Frank Young 10 Jun '11

10 Jun '11

Two excerpts from the article: "The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan." "The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines." (emphasis added- F.Y.) ----------------------------------------- Frank's commentary- If we are going to mathematically render uninhabitable all lands on which "inaudible" but harmful effects emanate from power generating facilities, we would include all areas downwind of coal fired generating facilities that generate particulate matter- because such particulates are demonstrably responsible for thousands of premature human deaths. See the related map and narrative data here: http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/ "In 2000 and again in 2004, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force quantifying the deaths and other health affects attributable to the fine particle pollution from power plants. In this newly updated study, CATF examines the progress towards cleaning up one of the nation's leading sources of pollution. The report finds that over 13,000 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants." "Simple" and "straightforward" math- indeed! Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Rogers" <hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com> To: "WVHCBOARD" <WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:00 AM Subject: [WVHCBOARD] The cost of wind and solar energy Robert Bryce ("Power Hungry" author) is back w/ some figures on "energy sprawl." Once again, he's good at debunking the notion that wind and solar are "free"--but five words from the end of the piece he gets to his pet alternatives, natural gas and nuclear power. Op-Ed Contributor The Gas Is Greener: The Cost of Renewable Energy Sources By ROBERT BRYCE Published: June 7, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html IN April, Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines by signing into law an ambitious mandate that requires California to obtain one-third of its electricity from renewable energy sources like sunlight and wind by 2020. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable electricity mandates. President Obama and several members of Congress have supported one at the federal level. Polls routinely show strong support among voters for renewable energy projects — as long as they don’t cost too much. But there’s the rub: while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement. Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles. The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines. Industrial solar and wind projects also require long swaths of land for power lines. Last year, despite opposition from environmental groups, San Diego Gas & Electric started construction on the 117-mile Sunrise Powerlink, which will carry electricity from solar, wind and geothermal projects located in Imperial County, Calif., to customers in and around San Diego. In January, environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the $1.9 billion line from cutting through a nearby national forest. Not all environmentalists ignore renewable energy’s land requirements. The Nature Conservancy has coined the term “energy sprawl” to describe it. Unfortunately, energy sprawl is only one of the ways that renewable energy makes heavy demands on natural resources. Consider the massive quantities of steel required for wind projects. The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive, and installing a single wind turbine requires about 200 tons of it. Many turbines have capacities of 3 or 4 megawatts, so you can assume that each megawatt of wind capacity requires roughly 50 tons of steel. By contrast, a typical natural gas turbine can produce nearly 43 megawatts while weighing only 9 tons. Thus, each megawatt of capacity requires less than a quarter of a ton of steel. Obviously these are ballpark figures, but however you crunch the numbers, the takeaway is the same: the amount of steel needed to generate a given amount of electricity from a wind turbine is greater by several orders of magnitude. Such profligate use of resources is the antithesis of the environmental ideal. Nearly four decades ago, the economist E. F. Schumacher distilled the essence of environmental protection down to three words: “Small is beautiful.” In the rush to do something — anything — to deal with the intractable problem of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups and policy makers have determined that renewable energy is the answer. But in doing so they’ve tossed Schumacher’s dictum into the ditch. All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to take Schumacher’s phrase to heart while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources — natural gas and, yes, nuclear — that have smaller footprints. Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author, most recently, of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.” ------------------------------------ Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resourcesYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WVHCBOARD/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WVHCBOARD/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: WVHCBOARD-digest(a)yahoogroups.com WVHCBOARD-fullfeatured(a)yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WVHCBOARD-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

5 6

Fw: Re: renewable energy output
by Jim Sconyers 10 Jun '11

10 Jun '11

Sweet news! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jane W. <japlapoo(a)NETZERO.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 5:37:40 PM Subject: Fw: Re: renewable energy output Just passing along... ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Buffalo Bruce <buffalobruce1(a)GMAIL.COM> To: NE-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Re: renewable energy output Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:39:42 -0700 For those of you who may not have heard yet, Renewable Energy production now exceeds that of Nuclear Power in the U.S. U.S. Renewable Energy Now 11.6% of Domestic Energy Production, Exceeding Nuclear Power: U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 26, 2011 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm In its latest "Monthly Energy Review," the EIA reports that for the first two months of 2011, renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass/biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind) accounted for 11.6% of domestic energy production - compared to 10.7% for the same period in 2010. Moreover, the combined energy output from all renewable energy sources exceeded that of nuclear power. The latter actually declined by 0.2% from 2010. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the NE-FORUM list, send any message to: NE-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC