MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1015 discussions

Big Subsidies for Coal proposed..........
by Duane330＠aol.com 29 May '07

29 May '07

Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process New York Times, May 29, 2007, By _EDMUND L. ANDREWS_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/edmund_l_andre… er) WASHINGTON, May 28 — Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to _global warming_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…) , a powerful roster of Democrats and _Republicans_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republi…) is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels. Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years. With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence” bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and potentially greener than ethanol. “For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.” Environmental groups are adamantly opposed, warning that coal-based diesel fuels would at best do little to slow global warming and at worst would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases tied to global warming as petroleum. Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol. Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel. Coal companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, and have marshaled allies in organized labor, the Air Force and fuel-burning industries like the airlines. _Peabody Energy_ (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com… ymb=BTU) , the world’s biggest coal company, urged in a recent advertising campaign that people “imagine a world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East.” Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining, is writing key sections of the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid fuels include _Barack Obama_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/i… t-per) , the Illinois Democrat, Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans. President Bush has not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has carefully referred to the need for “alternative” fuels rather than “renewable” fuels. Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal. The political momentum to subsidize coal fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats to draft global-warming bills that would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants. The move reflects a tension, which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Many analysts say the huge coal reserves of the United States could indeed provide a substitute for foreign oil. The technology to convert coal into liquid fuel is well-established, and the fuel can be used in conventional diesel cars and trucks, as well as jet engines, boats and ships. Industry executives contend that the fuels can compete against gasoline if oil prices are about $50 a barrel or higher. But coal-to-liquid fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel. Coal industry executives insist their fuel can actually be cleaner than oil, because they would capture the gas produced as the liquid fuel is being made and store it underground. Some could be injected into oil fields to push oil to the surface. Several aspiring coal-to-liquid companies say that they would reduce greenhouse emissions even further by using renewable fuels for part of the process. But none of that has been done at commercial volumes, and many analysts say the economic issues are far from settled. “There are many uncertainties,” said James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, who testified last week before the Senate Energy Committee. “We don’t even know what the costs are yet.” The clash between “energy independence” and global warming will break into the open next month. The Senate energy bill, being drafted by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, would promote renewable fuels — but not coal-to-liquid fuels — and would require electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power with renewable fuels by 2020. But coal-state Republicans have vowed to resume their push for coal incentives when the bill reaches the Senate floor, and many Democrats are likely to support them. In the House, Democrats like Mr. Boucher and Mr. Rahall will be pushing in the same direction. But some energy experts, as well as some lawmakers, worry that the scale of the coal-to-liquid incentives could lead to a repeat of a disastrous effort 30 years ago to underwrite a synthetic fuels industry from scratch. When oil prices plunged in the 1980s, the government-owned Synthetic Fuels Corporation became a giant government albatross that lost billions and remains a symbol of misguided industrial policy more than 25 years later. “This is the snake oil of energy alternatives,” said Peter Altman, a policy analyst at the National Environmental Trust, an environmental advocacy group. “The promises are just as lofty and the substance is just as absent as the first snake oil salesmen who plied their trade in the 1800s.” Coal executives contend that the technology for converting coal to “ ultraclean” diesel fuel for use in cars and trucks has been around for decades. Known as the Fischer-Tropsch process, the technology dates to the 1920s. It was used by Germany during World War II and by South Africa during the apartheid era, in both cases because the countries were blocked by international embargoes from buying oil. SASOL, a South African chemical conglomerate, is the world’s largest producer of coal-based liquids and operates a plant that produces 150,000 barrels a day. “Greener and cleaner — we can do it, and we will do it,” said John Baardson, president of Baard Energy, a firm in Vancouver, Wash., that is trying to build a $4 billion coal-to-liquid plant in Ohio. But no company has built a commercial-scale plant that also captures carbon, and experts caution that many obstacles lie ahead. “At best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,” said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the _Massachusetts Institute of Technology_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/massach…. html?inline=nyt-org) and a co-author of “The Future of Coal,” a voluminous study published in March by M.I.T. “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.” The M.I.T. team expressed even more skepticism about the economic risks. It estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. The study estimates that the construction costs for coal-to-liquid plants are almost four times higher than the costs for comparable petroleum refineries, and it argues that cost estimates for synthetic fuel plants in the past turned out to be “wildly optimistic.” In a new report last week, the Energy Department estimated that a plant capable of making 50,000 barrels of liquefied coal a day — a tiny fraction of the nearly 9 million barrels in gasoline burned daily in the United States — would cost $4.5 billion. But the Energy Department also estimated that such a plant could produce a 20 percent annual return if oil prices remain about $60 a barrel. Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so volatile and the upfront construction costs are so high. “We’re not asking for everything. All we’re asking for is something,” said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of _Rentech Inc._ (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com… &symb=RTK) , which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by Peabody Energy. But coal executives anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two years ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to $3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels. Coal industry lobbying has reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006, three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by _Politicalmoneyline.com_ (http://politicalmoneyline.com/) . Peabody, which has quadrupled its annual lobbying budget to about $2 million since 2004, recently hired _Richard A. Gephardt_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/richard_a_geph…) , the Missouri Democrat who was House majority leader from 1989 to 1995 and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and 2004, to help make its case in Congress. One of the most vociferous champions of coal-to-liquid fuels is the Southern States Energy Board, a group organized by governors from 16 states. Last year, the group published a study, which cost $500,000, that concluded that coal-to-liquid fuel could and should replace almost one-third of imported oil by 2030. As it happens, the coal industry supplied much of the financing for the study and subsequent marketing. Peabody Energy contributed about $150,000 and the National Mining Association added $50,000, officials at the Southern States Energy Board said. The inducements under discussion would not only subsidize up to 10 coal-to-liquid plants, but also guarantee a minimum market through long-term contracts with the Air Force and minimum prices for at least some producers. “There is financial uncertainty, which is inhibiting the flow of private capital into the construction of coal-to-liquid facilities,” said Mr. Boucher, who supports most of the proposals and is drafting portions of the energy bill. In addition to construction loan guarantees, Mr. Boucher would protect the first six liquid plants from drops in energy prices. If oil prices fell below about $40 a barrel, the government would automatically grant loans to the first six plants that make coal-based fuels. If oil prices climbed to $80 a barrel, companies would have to pay a surcharge to the government. But the most important guarantee, many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase contracts with the Air Force. The Air Force consumes about 2.6 billion gallons a year of jet fuel, and Air Force officials would like to switch as much as 780 million gallons a year to coal-based fuels. Air Force officials strongly support the idea of extremely long contracts, but others at the Defense Department worry that the military could be left holding the bag for years if oil prices dropped significantly. For Mr. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, there is no reason to be timid. “If America has the will to be one of the great energy centers of the world,” he told an industry conference last year, “we have the resources right under our feet.” ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

2nd of 3 state journal articles
by Paul Brown 15 May '07

15 May '07

GLOBAL WARMING COMES TO COAL COUNTRY: THE PROSPECTS If West Virginia doesn’t act aggressively to stop global warming and species extinctions, the best we can hope for is that we’ll revert to an impoverished hillbilly state, with a wrecked environment. At worst, if global anti-warming action is inadequate, our children and grandchildren will experience the worst times our species has encountered. Global warming and mass extinctions aren’t diseases in themselves, they’re symptoms. The disease is avoidable, harmful human behavior. We’re consuming resources and laying waste to our planet faster than it can heal. The richer countries, especially the US, are consuming and polluting far beyond a sustainable rate. The poorer countries are consuming far less per capita, but their populations are exploding and they aspire to consuming as much as we do. Result: carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, habitat destruction, and fisheries depletion are skyrocketing, with no end in sight. The rest of the educated world knows this, but the US is in denial. We should be leading the anti-warming effort, but instead the Bush administration suppresses scientific findings and tells us to keep on shopping - and driving SUVs. CO2 takes around 150 years to clear from the atmosphere. That means it would take decades to stop global warming even if we stop burning carbon today. And warming now causes more warming: Melting ice decreases reflection of sunlight (albedo) and increases absorption and heating. Thawing tundra is releasing methane, a greenhouse gas twenty times as potent as CO2. In 20 - 50 years, this self-reinforcing effect may take off explosively, beyond our power to stop. Yet greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. The only prudent course is to stop emissions in 10 years and try to reduce atmospheric CO2 and increase albedo as quickly as possible. Nuclear power isn't an option, because we've never figured out what to do with the waste, and that waste could end up killing or maiming us. Nuclear, like carbon, energy is far more expensive than our electric bills suggest because of enormous subsidies and hidden costs. Our military enterprise is mostly devoted to securing our access to other people's oil. Renewables are cheaper than those subsidized costs. As for coal, there's no way to burn it without producing CO2, and there's no way to sequester all the CO2 we produce. Sequestration would make carbon energy far more expensive than renewables. Wind and sun alone would provide more energy than we need once the generating capacity is in place. They have to be sited responsibly. It will take more than 10 years to install that capacity, meaning there will be less energy per capita for awhile, meaning we’ll need to ration energy the way we rationed gasoline in WWII. Our economy will be radically changed, with big winners and big losers. Will West Virginia be a leader in this radically changed economy? Paul Brown is a professor of physiology at West Virginia University and author of Notes from a Dying Planet, 2004 - 2006. Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

1 0

State Journal op eds
by Paul Brown 09 May '07

09 May '07

1st of 3: GLOBAL WARMING COMES TO COAL COUNTRY: THE SYMPTOMS Winter in West Virginia lasted less than two months this year. That could just be a fluke, but globally, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest on record, with later winters and earlier springs. There are severe droughts out West, with whole forests dying. Forest fires are worse and more frequent. It’s the same for much of the world. The US is producing less food. Not a fluke: for five out of the last six years the world has produced less food than was consumed, depleting food reserves. We hosted some Katrina evacuees last September; severe weather and floods have increased around the world and the numbers of refugees from these disasters are climbing. Also, due to global warming and habitat destruction, we’re undergoing the Earth’s sixth mass extinction. Our global fisheries will be wiped out by mid-century. Island countries are being submerged by rising seas, and the Dutch are developing floating architecture. The denial industry, funded by the fossil fuel industry, says the current warming is just another routine fluctuation caused by variations in solar energy reaching Earth. Although there are cyclic variations in solar irradiance of Earth, they can’t account for this much warming. We know from radioisotope analyses of annual ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica that temperatures are the highest in more than 600,000 years. Our species is only 120,000 years old, so we’ve never experienced this before. Over all that time, carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature have varied in parallel. Carbon isotope analysis of tree rings, which provide a sample of atmospheric CO2 over the life of a tree, shows that today’s excess carbon above preindustrial levels is millions of years old - the age of carbon in fossil fuels. There’s no other source of ancient carbon (such as volcanic eruptions) that can account for it. We know from satellite studies how much heat is trapped by atmospheric CO2. Quantitative studies show that the amount of fossil fuel we’ve burned since the industrial revolution accounts for the excess CO2, and the excess CO2 accounts for the warming. Over 2500 scientists from all over the world on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are unanimous in their conclusion that our fossil fuel use is behind global warming. Ice all over the world is melting, including Arctic and Antarctic ice that hasn’t melted since before we appeared on Earth. Increasing energy consumption is causing greenhouse emissions to skyrocket. We have little time left to turn this around, before Earth becomes a wholly different planet - probably without any people. If we had responded appropriately to the 2001 IPCC report, we could be turning this around by 2010, at lower cost than the Iraq war, brought to us by - you guessed it - the fossil fools running our state and national governments. Now it will be much more expensive or impossible. Some states, those that are switching to renewable, non-carbon energy sources, will do relatively well. States that stick with carbon fuels will do poorly, because soon there will be no demand for carbon. Which way do you think West Virginia will go? Paul Brown is a professor of physiology at West Virginia University and author of Notes from a Dying Planet, 2004 - 2006. Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

1 0

AE TrAIL power line, et al.
by Duane330＠aol.com 05 May '07

05 May '07

Upcoming meetings that you should consider attending, as action is needed on these: 1. AE TrAIL power-line meeting – Tomorrow, Sunday, May 6th, at the Triune-Halleck Fire Hall, on Halleck Road off WV 73 South (Smithtown Road). Start time: 2 pm. Host: Halleck Community Association. 2. MonValley Clean Air Coalition -- Monday, May 7th, at the home of Martha and Larry Schwab, 3333 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown. Start time: 7 pm. Info: Duane Nichols, 599-8040. Topics include: Longview power plant, Ft. Martin scrubbers, and AE TrAIL power line. 3. Sierra Club -- Thursday, May 10th, at the WVU Mountainlair, 7 pm. Matt Keller "WV Wilderness Coalition". Info: Jim Kotcon, 594-3322. 4. AE TrAIL power-line meeing – Wednesday, May 16th, at the Monongalia County Courthouse, Court Room #1. Start time: 7 pm. Host: Mon. County Commission. The WV Consumer Advocate (Public Service Commission) Billy Jack Gregg to participate. 5. Mon. County Farmland Preservation Board – Thursday, May 17th, Mon. County Courthouse, Room 202 (Second Floor). The meeting is open to the public. For information on the proposed 500,000 volt transmission line, see the following: _www.stopthetowers.org_ (http://www.stopthetowers.org) _www.laurelrunwatershed.org_ (http://www.laurelrunwatershed.org) _www.alleghenypower.com/TrAIL/TrAIL.asp_ (http://www.alleghenypower.com/TrAIL/TrAIL.asp) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Revenue bonding authority for Longview
by Duane330＠aol.com 01 May '07

01 May '07

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Power plant project gets $600 million April 20, 2007, Charleston Gazette, By Sarah K. Winn, Staff writer. The West Virginia Economic Development Authority committed Tuesday to help fund a $600 million construction project at the Longview Power Plant in Monongalia County. At Tuesday’s monthly meeting, the authority gave preliminary approval for possible future revenue bonds for Longview Power LLC, the plant’s developer. The resolution allows Longview to begin developing solid waste disposal and recycling facilities at the plant, said Cam Siegrist, counsel for Longview. The Internal Revenue Service requires the resolution so Longview can use future bond funds to pay for expenses accrued now, said David Warner, WVEDA’s executive director. The company likely will come back over the next few years to request revenue bonds from the authority, Siegrist said. Also, the authority approved a $75 million bond for additional work on Appalachian Power’s Mountaineer Plant in Mason County, which began in 2005. In other financial allocations, the authority gave preliminary approval for two nearly $800,000 7-year loans-one to Merrick Engineering, Inc., in Clarksburg and another to Tramco Services, Inc., in Shrewsbury. Merrick, which manufactures hangers and closet accessories, plans to purchase and install injection-molding equipment at its Clarksburg manufacturing facility. Tramco, an electrical motor repair and machine shop, will finance a 6.5-acre site and renovate about 30,000 square feet of manufacturing space to create a new facility in Campbells Creek. The authority also gave final approval for a $5 million loan to Recycle West Virginia LP and approved a high-growth business investment tax credit of up to $50,000 to William P. Zitter of Huntington. Also, at the authority’s June meeting, the authority will be given updates on the uncompleted projects funded by the Economic Development Grant Committee two years ago. Currently, $182 million of the $225 million allocated has been spent, and the projects risk losing the money if not completed by Dec. 31. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charleston Daily Mail ____________________________________ State agrees to issue bonds to fund power plant _George Hohmann_ (http://www.dailymail.com/contactEmail.php?rid=87) , Daily Mail business editor, Friday April 20, 2007 The West Virginia Economic Development Authority has given preliminary approval for the issuance of up to $600 million in tax-free bonds to help finance portions of the Longview Power Plant near Morgantown. The state Public Service Commission granted permission to build the $1 billion coal-fired plant last year. The Economic Development Authority bonds would help finance parts of the plant such as air and water pollution control systems. Thursday's vote is the first step in issuing bonds. The plant's developers would have to come back to the authority at least two more times before bonds could actually be issued. The bonds would be backed by revenue from the power plant and would not be an obligation of the state. Also on Thursday, the authority took the final step toward issuing up to $75 million in tax-free bonds to help pay for parts of the scrubber Appalachian Power Co. has installed on its Mountaineer power plant in Mason County. The authority agreed in 2004 to issue up to $567.4 million in bonds for the project. It had issued $50.3 million in bonds last year. The scrubber went into operation in February. Also at the meeting, the authority gave final approval for a $5 million loan to Recycle West Virginia Limited Partnership of Princeton. The company plans to purchase 14 acres in an inactive rail yard known as the Princeton Roadway Shop and refurbish the five buildings on the site. The company will use the low-interest state loan to purchase and install a shredder and related equipment in a 56,000-square-foot building on the site, according to a project summary provided by the authority. In other action, the authority gave preliminary approval to: A $787,500 loan to Tramco Services Inc., doing business as Kanawha Electric & Machine Co. Tramco acquired the assets of Kanawha Electric in 2002. The Kanawha Electric operation will move from Shrewsbury to a 6.5-acre site at Campbells Creek. Kanawha Electric will renovate existing buildings at Campbells Creek and will erect a new building for its motor repair and machining operation. A $787,378 loan to Merrick Engineering Inc. to purchase and install injection-molding equipment at its Clarksburg plant. Merrick is a manufacturer of hangers and closet accessories. Also on Thursday, the authority: Agreed to sell 7.44 acres in the Three Springs Business Park near Weirton to Wal-Mart. David Warner, the authority's executive director, said, "Our acres are just part of the property to be bought by Wal-Mart." He said the retailer plans to build a super center adjacent to the general office complex previously occupied by Weirton Steel Corp. Amended a lease it has with Bombardier to add a 21,000-square-foot building at the Harrison-Marion Regional Airport in Bridgeport. Bombardier repairs and refurbishes aircraft at the airport. Received a report that showed $181.6 million or 81 percent of the $225 million in grants approved by the West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee has been disbursed. A total of $2.6 million was disbursed to 14 projects during March. Agreed to extend the deadline for completion of the marina portion of the West Virginia Public Theater & Marina project in Morgantown from Dec. 31, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2007. The city received a $13.9 million grant for the project from the West Virginia Economic Development Grant Committee in 2003. As of March 31, the city had spent $5.2 million. State Commerce Secretary Kelley Goes, who chaired the meeting, said the status of all of the grant committee projects will be reviewed at the authority's June meeting. Decided to wait until next month before determining whether it will renew or re-bid its legal contracts with the law firms of Spilman Thomas & Battle and Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love. Granted state tax credits to William Zitter of Huntington under the High Growth Business Investment Tax Credit. This credit, passed by the Legislature in 2005, is designed to encourage investment in potentially high-growth research and development businesses in the state. Zitter is investing in Vandalia Research Inc., a spin off of Marshall University research. Vandalia is involved in the synthesis of DNA sequences. State law does not require the development authority to reveal how much in tax credits is given. A taxpayer can receive no more than $50,000 in credits a year. The authority said it approved credits for Zitter of more than $1 but not more than $50,000. Agreed to allow Blue Sky Brands Inc. of Martinsburg to change how it uses a loan previously approved by the authority. The company had planned to use the loan proceeds to move a call center. It will now use the proceeds to buy racks and conveyor systems, Warner said. Agreed to extend previously approved loan commitments to Tech-Seal Products Inc. of Wheeling; Mountain State Log Homes Inc. of Ireland, W.Va.; The K Group Limited Liability Co. of Roanoke, Va.; and the Huntington Industrial Corp. for InfoCision Management Corp. Agreed to extend its commitment to insure $3 million of a loan the First National Bank of Ronceverte has made to the Western Greenbrier Co-Generation Limited Liability Co. of Rainelle from April 30 to Aug. 31. Acting as the West Virginia Certified Development Corp., the board members also extended two $300,000 loan commitments to Western Greenbrier Co-Generation to Aug. 31. Western Greenbrier Co-Generation is planning to build a $215 million power plant in Rainelle. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Active issues in Mon. County
by Duane330＠aol.com 30 Apr '07

30 Apr '07

Please be reminded of our meeting next Monday at 7 pm at the home of Larry and Martha Schwaub.. ALSO......... 1. The proposed meeting at the Courthouse on Wednesday has been postponed by the County Commission, because Allegheny Energy was unavailable to come out and answer questions on the Allegheny TrAIL 500 kv power line. 2. Tomorrow morning, Tuesday, May 1st, WAJR radio will host a program on the proposed TrAIL power line. The program will include representatives of the Laurel Run Watershed Association, Allegheny Energy, and Billy Jack Gregg, who is the Consumer Advocate of the WV Public Service Commission. This will occur between 9 am and 10 am. You can call on on 291-0041. 3. Please consider attending the "Town Meeting" on Wednesday, May 2nd, at the South Middle School, starting at 7 pm. The topic is the "comprehensive health care reform package" developed by the West Virginians for Affordable Health Care. Our member of the House of Representatives Barbara Evans Fleischauer is supporting this program, as are many other individuals and groups. We cannot have too much support for this activity, to involve shared responsibilities and shared sacrifices. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Meet Monday, May 7th @ 7 pm
by Duane330＠aol.com 25 Apr '07

25 Apr '07

MVCAC.........participants and friends........ Please attend a General Meeting of the........... Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition Location: the home of Larry Schwab, 3333 Collins Ferry Road. Time: 7 pm to socialize with the meeting at 7:30 pm. The Agenda will include the following................. 1. Update on Longview permits and construction activities....... 2. Update on Longview legal action in federal district court......... 3. Update on scrubber construction schedule for Allegheny Energy 4. Consideration of action on Allegheny Energy 500 kv transmission line 5. Activities and options relative to greenhouse gases... 6. Public health information and possible projects... 7. Air quality monitoring and public education projects... 8. Membership and fundraising........... ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Planning for Meeting.........
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Apr '07

23 Apr '07

To: Participants and Friends of MVCAC MON VALLEY CLEAN AIR COALITION.......... Let's consider a meeting on May 1st, 2nd, 3rd, [Tuesday thru Thursday of the first week of May], or on May 7th (Monday) or May 10th (Thursday). PLEASE TELL ME YOUR AVAILABILITY ON THESE DATES. NOTE: Please direct correspondence and contributions to: MonValley Clean Air Coalition P. O. Box 4679 Morgantown, WV 26504-4679. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

2 1

37th Earth Day.. "inconvenient truth"
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Apr '07

22 Apr '07

How eager are we to fight global warming? Statewide poll finds most Pennsylvanians see individual efforts as too inconvenient Sunday, April 22, 2007By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette On this 37th Earth Day, most Pennsylvanians think global warming is an inconvenient truth, but not many are willing to be inconvenienced enough to do anything about it. Seven out of 10 Pennsylvanians agree that global warming exists and is a concern, according to a survey by two Mansfield University researchers released last week, but significantly fewer are willing to do so much as change a light bulb to help address the problem. Instead, they are looking to government or science for solutions, said Tim Madigan, associate professor of sociology at Mansfield University. "Our results suggest that a majority of people in the state are not very committed to taking broad action against global warming," said Mr. Madigan, who along with co-researcher Dr. Janice Purk surveyed 920 Pennsylvanians over the age of 18 about their willingness to take 10 specific steps to reduce global climate change. The survey results do show that the number of people who agree that global warming is occurring is up from 5-in-10 in 1999, to 7-in-10, a significant increase, but the impact on behavioral change has not been as great. The 10 personal actions that people were asked if they do, or would do, were: use compact fluorescent light bulbs, compost kitchen scraps, take reusable bags to the grocery store, buy from environmentally friendly companies, wash dishes by hand, own a hybrid car, purchase a solar power system for their home, allow clothes to air dry, buy a windmill and stop eating meat. If those surveyed were already taking the step, they received a score of two for that item. If they said they would take the step, they received a score of one. Those unwilling to change got a zero for that item. Out of 20 possible points, half of those surveyed scored a six or lower on the "action index," which the researchers created to measure the feasibility of a social solution to global warming. If few people are willing to change their behavior, a social solution is impossible and government action or scientific innovation, or both, will be required. "Since the majority of people are not very willing to change many of their behaviors, and belief in global warming is not strongly related to taking action, the social solution to the problem of global warming does not look very promising," Mr. Madigan said. Slightly more than half of those surveyed said they would use fluorescent light bulbs, take reusable bags to the grocery and buy from environmentally friendly companies. Slightly less than half said they'd feed the composter. Only 41 percent said they'd be willing to drive a hybrid car or install solar panels; 38 percent were willing to wash dishes by hand; 30 percent were willing to stop eating meat. Just 26 percent would let their clothes air dry and 25 percent said they would buy a windmill. Only 13 percent of those surveyed had seen former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," and those who had seen it scored less than a point higher than those who had not. "Assuming that Gore's movie had a casual impact," Mr. Madigan said, "it would take many more such movies to change attitudes and behaviors enough to reverse the trends as he calls for in his book and movie." The random telephone survey was done at the end of February and the beginning of March of residents throughout the state and has a 3.2 percent margin of error. ____________________________________ ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Why We Can't Wait
by Duane330＠aol.com 21 Apr '07

21 Apr '07

Climate Change: Why We Can't Wait By James Hansen, The Nation Posted on April 21, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/50795/ This is an adaptation of a talk delivered February 26 at the National Press Club. Comments relating to policy are Dr. Hansen's personal opinion and do not represent a NASA position. There's a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known about global warming by those who need to know: the public and policy-makers. We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree Fahrenheit of global warming. But there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline due to gases that are already in the atmosphere. And there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline because of the energy infrastructure now in place -- for example, power plants and vehicles that we're not going to take off the road even if we decide that we're going to address this problem. The Energy Department says that we're going to continue to put more and more CO2 in the atmosphere each year -- not just additional CO2 but more than we put in the year before. If we do follow that path, even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet -- one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones. I've arrived at five recommendations for what should be done to address the problem. If Congress were to follow these recommendations, we could solve the problem. Interestingly, this is not a gloom-and-doom story. In fact, the things we need to do have many other benefits in terms of our economy, our national security, our energy independence and preserving the environment -- preserving creation. First, there should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until we have the technology to capture and sequester the CO2. That technology is probably five or ten years away. It will become clear over the next ten years that coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester CO2 are going to have to be bulldozed. That's the only way we can keep CO2 from getting well into the dangerous level, because our consumption of oil and gas alone will take us close to the dangerous level. And oil and gas are such convenient fuels (and located in countries where we can't tell people not to mine them) that they surely will be used. So why build old-technology power plants if you're not going to be able to operate them over their lifetime, which is fifty or seventy-five years? It doesn't make sense. Besides, there's so much potential in efficiency, we don't need new power plants if we take advantage of that. Second, and this is the hard recommendation that no politician seems willing to stand up and say is necessary: The only way we are going to prevent having an amount of CO2 that is far beyond the dangerous level is by putting a price on emissions. In order to avoid economic problems, it had better be a gradually rising price so that the consumer has the option to seek energy sources that reduce his requirement for how much fuel he needs. And that means we should be investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies at the same time. The result would be high-tech, high-paid jobs. And it would be very good for our energy independence, our national security and our balance of payments. But a price on carbon emissions is not enough, which brings us to the third recommendation: We need energy-efficiency standards. That's been proven time and again. The biggest use of energy is in buildings, and the engineers and architects have said that they can readily reduce the energy requirement of new buildings by 50 percent. That goal has been endorsed by the US Conference of Mayors, but you can't do it on a city-by-city basis. You need national standards. The same goes for vehicle efficiency. We haven't had an improvement in vehicle efficiency in twenty-five or thirty years. And our national government is standing in court alongside the automobile manufacturers resisting what the National Research Council has said is readily achievable -- a 30 percent improvement in vehicle efficiency, which California and other states want to adopt. The fourth recommendation -- and this is probably the easiest one -- involves the question of ice-sheet stability. The old assumption that it takes thousands or tens of thousands of years for ice sheets to change is clearly wrong. The concern is that it's a very nonlinear process that could accelerate. The west Antarctic ice sheet in particular is very vulnerable. If it collapses, that could yield a sea-level rise of sixteen to nineteen feet, possibly on a time scale as short as a century or two. The information on ice-sheet stability is so recent that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report does not adequately address it. The IPCC process is necessarily long and drawn out. But this problem with the stability of ice sheets is so critical that it really should be looked at by a panel of our best scientists. Congress should ask the National Academy of Sciences to do a study on this and report its conclusions in very plain language. The National Academy of Sciences was established by Abraham Lincoln for just this sort of purpose, and there's no reason we shouldn't use it that way. The final recommendation concerns how we have gotten into this situation in which there is a gap between what the relevant scientific community understands and what the public and policy-makers know. A fundamental premise of democracy is that the public is informed and that they're honestly informed. There are at least two major ways in which this is not happening. One of them is that the public affairs offices of the science agencies are staffed at the headquarters level by political appointees. While the public affairs workers at the centers are professionals who feel that their job is to translate the science into words the public can understand, unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case for the political appointees at the highest levels. Another matter is Congressional testimony. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution expected that when a government employee -- a technical government employee -- reports to Congress, his testimony would have to be approved and edited by the White House first. But that is the way it works now. And frankly, I'm afraid it works that way whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican one. These problems are worse now than I've seen in my thirty years in government. But they're not new. I don't know anything in our Constitution that says that the executive branch should filter scientific information going to Congressional committees. Reform of communication practices is needed if our government is to function the way our Founders intended it to work. The global warming problem has brought into focus an overall problem: the pervasive influence of special interests on the functioning of our government and on communications with the public. It seems to me that it will be difficult to solve the global warming problem until we have effective campaign finance reform, so that special interests no longer have such a big influence on policy-makers. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC