Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
May 3, 2012
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/fracking_fluid_can_migrate___into_marcellus_aquifers_new_study_says/3446/
Part of the reason I was willing to proceed slowly in firming my opposition to fracking is the traditional view of natgas having only 2/5ths the carbon footprint of coal, but also, and more importantly because I believed, and continue to believe, that the quantity that is recoverable is exaggerated. Rapid depletion of wells that were expected to last far, far longer fits with an economic incentive for developers to exaggerate their reserves.
Unfortunately there is another area I've been keeping my eyes on and developments in that area negate any chance that rapid depletion of fracked gas will soon result in a more rapid shift to renewables than would occur with coal. There have been hints of "progress" in this area, but the following news literally sent a shiver down my spine.
There is an embedded link to a discussion on estimated quantities of accessible methane hydrates.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/doe-completes-field-test-of-methane-hydrate-extraction-in-alaska
It gets worse...
I've been waiting for more evidence before taking a firm position on fracking and the ensuing huge expansion of the use of natural gas. My reasons were that the anecdotal evidence of negative environmental effects related to groundwater had not been confirmed.
I was worried, but not yet willing to acknowledge, that the CO2 footprint was so much worse than has been recorded. I'm still not at the point where I view the evidence as definitive, but I'm now of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that we must proceed cautiously in developing policy and assume that the damage is worst case until it is proven conclusively otherwise.
FRACKING FLUID CAN MIGRATE INTO MARCELLUS AQUIFERS, NEW STUDY SAYS
A new study estimates that fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region can migrate into underground drinking water supplies far more quicklythan experts have.
A surge in gas and oil drilling in the U.S. is helping drive the economic recovery and is enhancing energy security. But as the situation in Ohio shows, cheaper energy prices and the focus on fossil fuels has been bad news for the renewable energy industry.
READ THE e360 REPORT previously estimated. The study, based on computer modeling and funded by opponents of fracking, concluded that natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus shale, exacerbated by the effects of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” could allow chemicals to reach shallow drinking water supplies in as little as “just a few years.” Companies involved in fracking for natural gas have maintained that impermeable layers of rock in the Marcellus Shale formation would keep fracking fluids safely locked nearly a mile below water supplies. But independent hydrologist Tom Myers, who published his study in the journal Ground Water, says his modeling shows that is not the case. “Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable,” said Myers. The Marcellus Shale underlies large portions of the northeastern U.S., and thousands of fracking wells — each often using millions of gallons of water — have been drilled in recent years. The study was funded by two organizations opposed to gas fracking, and some scientists strongly disagree with its conclusions.
A new study estimates that fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region can migrate into underground drinking water supplies far more quicklythan experts have.
A surge in gas and oil drilling in the U.S. is helping drive the economic recovery and is enhancing energy security. But as the situation in Ohio shows, cheaper energy prices and the focus on fossil fuels has been bad news for the renewable energy industry.
READ THE e360 REPORT previously estimated. The study, based on computer modeling and funded by opponents of fracking, concluded that natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus shale, exacerbated by the effects of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” could allow chemicals to reach shallow drinking water supplies in as little as “just a few years.” Companies involved in fracking for natural gas have maintained that impermeable layers of rock in the Marcellus Shale formation would keep fracking fluids safely locked nearly a mile below water supplies. But independent hydrologist Tom Myers, who published his study in the journal Ground Water, says his modeling shows that is not the case. “Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable,” said Myers. The Marcellus Shale underlies large portions of the northeastern U.S., and thousands of fracking wells — each often using millions of gallons of water — have been drilled in recent years. The study was funded by two organizations opposed to gas fracking, and some scientists strongly disagree with its conclusions.
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/fracking_fluid_can_migrate___into_marcellus_aquifers_new_study_says/3446/
Part of the reason I was willing to proceed slowly in firming my opposition to fracking is the traditional view of natgas having only 2/5ths the carbon footprint of coal, but also, and more importantly because I believed, and continue to believe, that the quantity that is recoverable is exaggerated. Rapid depletion of wells that were expected to last far, far longer fits with an economic incentive for developers to exaggerate their reserves.
Unfortunately there is another area I've been keeping my eyes on and developments in that area negate any chance that rapid depletion of fracked gas will soon result in a more rapid shift to renewables than would occur with coal. There have been hints of "progress" in this area, but the following news literally sent a shiver down my spine.
There is an embedded link to a discussion on estimated quantities of accessible methane hydrates.
DOE Completes Field Test of Methane Hydrate Extraction in Alaska
POSTED BY: DAVE LEVITAN / WED, MAY 02, 2012
The Department of Energy, along with the Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corporation and ConocoPhillips, completed a successful field trial of methane hydrate extraction along Alaska's North Slope.
Methane hydrate is basically natural gas locked up in ice. Actual, commercial-scale production of gas from these formations has never been accomplished, but the DOE's success here might open the door to the industry. The method the DOE used was novel: carbon dioxide was injected into the hydrates, where it was exchanged with the methane molecules locked up in the ice. Using this technique, they were able to extract natural gas continuously for 30 days. The previous longest run was six days.
If methane hydrate production becomes cheap and easy, it could change the global energy picture dramatically. The exact amounts aren't totally clear, but around the world there could be more energy locked up in hydrates than in all the rest of the planet's fossil fuels combined....
POSTED BY: DAVE LEVITAN / WED, MAY 02, 2012
The Department of Energy, along with the Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corporation and ConocoPhillips, completed a successful field trial of methane hydrate extraction along Alaska's North Slope.
Methane hydrate is basically natural gas locked up in ice. Actual, commercial-scale production of gas from these formations has never been accomplished, but the DOE's success here might open the door to the industry. The method the DOE used was novel: carbon dioxide was injected into the hydrates, where it was exchanged with the methane molecules locked up in the ice. Using this technique, they were able to extract natural gas continuously for 30 days. The previous longest run was six days.
If methane hydrate production becomes cheap and easy, it could change the global energy picture dramatically. The exact amounts aren't totally clear, but around the world there could be more energy locked up in hydrates than in all the rest of the planet's fossil fuels combined....
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/doe-completes-field-test-of-methane-hydrate-extraction-in-alaska
May 2, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/french-greenpeace-activist-paraglides_n_1471384.html
France Greenpeace Activist Paraglides, Throws Smoke Flare Onto Nuclear Plant
France Greenpeace Activist Paraglides, Throws Smoke Flare Onto Nuclear Plant
* Greenpeace enters nuclear site, drops smoke flare
* Intrusion just days before presidential runoff
* France's high use of nuclear is issue in campaign
* Man entered Civaux plant's security zone (Adds separate intrusion, details)
PARIS, May 2 (Reuters) - A Greenpeace activist dropped a smoke flare as he flew over a French nuclear reactor on a paraglider on Wednesday, seeking to draw attention to what green activists call gaps in nuclear security four days before a presidential election runoff.
The plant's owner, EDF, confirmed an engine-powered paraglider had landed within its Bugey nuclear site in southeastern France...
* Greenpeace enters nuclear site, drops smoke flare
* Intrusion just days before presidential runoff
* France's high use of nuclear is issue in campaign
* Man entered Civaux plant's security zone (Adds separate intrusion, details)
PARIS, May 2 (Reuters) - A Greenpeace activist dropped a smoke flare as he flew over a French nuclear reactor on a paraglider on Wednesday, seeking to draw attention to what green activists call gaps in nuclear security four days before a presidential election runoff.
The plant's owner, EDF, confirmed an engine-powered paraglider had landed within its Bugey nuclear site in southeastern France...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/french-greenpeace-activist-paraglides_n_1471384.html
May 2, 2012
http://my.firedoglake.com/gregglevine/2012/02/24/nuclear-renaissance-meets-economic-reality-but-who-gets-the-bill/
Nuclear “Renaissance” Meets Economic Reality, But Who Gets the Bill?
More on Progress Energy and their adventures with nuclear power in Florida. What have they been up to with their existing NPP in Florida, Crystal River?
See also: Nuclear industry success story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112713616
Nuclear “Renaissance” Meets Economic Reality, But Who Gets the Bill?
By: Gregg Levine Friday February 24, 2012 10:15 am
Crystal River is back in the news. Regular readers will recall when last we visited Progress Energy Florida’s (PEF) troubled nuclear reactor it was, shall we say, hooked on crack:
Sara Barczak of CleanEnergy Footprints provides more detail on the last couple of years:
That July crack was later revealed to be 12-feet long and 4-feet wide–and here, at least when it came to notifying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “later” means much later. . . like four months later.
...
By: Gregg Levine Friday February 24, 2012 10:15 am
Crystal River is back in the news. Regular readers will recall when last we visited Progress Energy Florida’s (PEF) troubled nuclear reactor it was, shall we say, hooked on crack:
The Crystal River story is long and sordid. The containment building cracked first during its construction in 1976. ...The latest problems started when Crystal River needed to replace the steam generator inside the containment building. Rather than use an engineering firm like Bechtel or SGT–the companies that had done the previous 34 such replacements in the US–Progress decided it would save a few bucks and do the job itself.
Over the objections of on-site workers....
Sara Barczak of CleanEnergy Footprints provides more detail on the last couple of years:
The Crystal River reactor has been plagued with problems ever since PEF self-managed a steam generation replacement project in September 2009. The replacement project was intended to last 3 months, until PEF informed the Commission that it had cracked the containment structure during the detensioning phase of the project. PEF subsequently announced that the CR3 reactor would be repaired and back in service by the 3rd quarter of 2010…then by the 4th quarter of 2010…and then by the first quarter of 2011. On March 15, 2011 PEF informed the Commission that it had cracked the reactor again during the retensioning process and subsequently told the Commission that it estimated repair costs of $1.3 billion and a return to service in 2014. Shortly thereafter, the Humpty Dumpty Crystal River reactor suffered yet another crack on July 26, 2011.
That July crack was later revealed to be 12-feet long and 4-feet wide–and here, at least when it came to notifying the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “later” means much later. . . like four months later.
...
http://my.firedoglake.com/gregglevine/2012/02/24/nuclear-renaissance-meets-economic-reality-but-who-gets-the-bill/
May 2, 2012
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120429/BUSINESS01/304290074/Political-talk-threatens-Ohio-energy-project
More nuclear subsidies? "Political talk threatens Ohio energy project"
We are told routinely how low the fuel costs are for nuclear power. If that is the case, then why is the industry not able to privately fund a modern domestic enrichment plant?
Political talk threatens Ohio energy project
Firm seeks loan to build centrifuges that provide power
2:06 AM, Apr. 29, 2012
Written by
Gregory Korte
PIKETON, OHIO
...The stakes are high: It’s an election year, and Ohio is a swing state. USEC estimates the project at its peak will generate 3,158 jobs in Ohio, and 4,284 elsewhere. Pike County, home to the centrifuges, has a 13 percent unemployment rate — the highest in Ohio. The median household income is about $40,000, while the average job at USEC pays $77,316.
The project has enjoyed bipartisan support. A USA TODAY review of DOE records shows at least 46 members of Congress — 32 Republicans and 14 Democrats — have pressured the Obama administration to approve the loan guarantee for USEC. “Quick action is paramount,” said one bipartisan letter. “It is imperative that this application move forward now,” said another.
The congressional support comes from states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina — an almost exact overlay of states that would benefit from the 7,442 jobs the company says would be created.
USEC executives have also funneled another $461,000 through its political action committee to members of Congress from both parties. Since 2005, when Congress first authorized the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, USEC has invested $15.6 million on lobbying, congressional records show.
...
USEC, which is spending $15 million a month just to keep the test project running, lost $540 million last year. Its stock price closed Thursday at 83 cents a share, near an all-time low and down from a high of $23.91 five years ago. That means a company worth less than $120 million is seeking $2 billion in financing.
Firm seeks loan to build centrifuges that provide power
2:06 AM, Apr. 29, 2012
Written by
Gregory Korte
PIKETON, OHIO
...The stakes are high: It’s an election year, and Ohio is a swing state. USEC estimates the project at its peak will generate 3,158 jobs in Ohio, and 4,284 elsewhere. Pike County, home to the centrifuges, has a 13 percent unemployment rate — the highest in Ohio. The median household income is about $40,000, while the average job at USEC pays $77,316.
The project has enjoyed bipartisan support. A USA TODAY review of DOE records shows at least 46 members of Congress — 32 Republicans and 14 Democrats — have pressured the Obama administration to approve the loan guarantee for USEC. “Quick action is paramount,” said one bipartisan letter. “It is imperative that this application move forward now,” said another.
The congressional support comes from states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina — an almost exact overlay of states that would benefit from the 7,442 jobs the company says would be created.
USEC executives have also funneled another $461,000 through its political action committee to members of Congress from both parties. Since 2005, when Congress first authorized the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, USEC has invested $15.6 million on lobbying, congressional records show.
...
USEC, which is spending $15 million a month just to keep the test project running, lost $540 million last year. Its stock price closed Thursday at 83 cents a share, near an all-time low and down from a high of $23.91 five years ago. That means a company worth less than $120 million is seeking $2 billion in financing.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120429/BUSINESS01/304290074/Political-talk-threatens-Ohio-energy-project
May 2, 2012
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
Mitt’s Plan
More fossil fuels and less regulation for nuclear. He is obviously proposing the deregulation of nuclear because of his concern over climate change. 
Mitt’s Plan
As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.
Significant Regulatory Reform
The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.
Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
Increasing Production
The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.
Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
Open America’s energy reserves for development
Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.
Significant Regulatory Reform
The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.
Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
Increasing Production
The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.
Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
Open America’s energy reserves for development
Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
May 1, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/01/474711/independent-analysis-confirms-that-hydraulic-fracturing-caused-drinking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/
Confirmed: Hydraulic Fracturing Caused Drinking Water Contamination In Wyoming
Independent Analysis Confirms That Hydraulic Fracturing Caused Drinking Water Contamination In Wyoming
May 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm by Jessica Goad
A recent study from the Environmental Protection Agency showing that chemicals from hydraulic fracturing had contaminated groundwater has just been validated by an independent hydrology expert.
....
In December 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency found official evidence that poisonous chemicals from fracking had contaminated water near drill rigs in Pavillion, Wyoming. That study has now been backed up by an independent expert. In a report released today, commissioned by several environmental groups, Dr. Tom Myers writes that:
Myers then details the Pavillion area’s unique geology and water pathways, as well as the shoddy construction of the wells that likely contributed to water contamination. He also outlines a number of ways that EPA can improve on its analysis and continue to collect critical data.
When EPA released the draft findings last December, the natural gas industry and its elected allies were quick to pounce and attacked it as “scientifically questionable,” “reckless,” and lacking “a definitive conclusion.”
Importantly, Myers notes in his report that:
...
May 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm by Jessica Goad
A recent study from the Environmental Protection Agency showing that chemicals from hydraulic fracturing had contaminated groundwater has just been validated by an independent hydrology expert.
....
In December 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency found official evidence that poisonous chemicals from fracking had contaminated water near drill rigs in Pavillion, Wyoming. That study has now been backed up by an independent expert. In a report released today, commissioned by several environmental groups, Dr. Tom Myers writes that:
After consideration of the evidence presented in the EPA report and in URS (2009 and 2010), it is clear that hydraulic fracturing (fracking [Kramer 2011]) has caused pollution of the Wind River formation and aquifer… The EPA’s conclusion is sound.
Myers then details the Pavillion area’s unique geology and water pathways, as well as the shoddy construction of the wells that likely contributed to water contamination. He also outlines a number of ways that EPA can improve on its analysis and continue to collect critical data.
When EPA released the draft findings last December, the natural gas industry and its elected allies were quick to pounce and attacked it as “scientifically questionable,” “reckless,” and lacking “a definitive conclusion.”
Importantly, Myers notes in his report that:
The situation at Pavillion is not an analogue for other gas plays because the geology and regulatory framework may be different.
...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/01/474711/independent-analysis-confirms-that-hydraulic-fracturing-caused-drinking-water-contamination-in-wyoming/
May 1, 2012
Yes they are. I didn't hear you objecting to their projections on nuclear.
There are a lot of criticisms leveled at them, and one of the main ones comes from a view that I share - they represent a view that is founded in preserving the existing systems we have, including our energy systems.
Whether I agree with them or not the significance of this projection on solar is important precisely because they are inclined towards finding more value in traditional energy sources like coal and nuclear than I think is warranted. In this report, in fact, they are quoting both new nuclear and new coal as competition at far lower costs than is justified by what is happening in the world where externalized costs are increasingly playing a significant role in decision-making.
In short, this report uses assumptions that are not particularly favorable to solar. It is primarily oriented towards market forces operating independently of policy direction and even then it doesn't take into account the erosion of market share that coal and nuclear will experience with rapidly escalating renewable penetration. As such, it is hard to see it as anything other than a conservative appraisal.
May 1, 2012
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energy-raises-price-tag-delays-start-date-of-levy-nuclear-plant/1227830
** See: 1000 gigawatts of new solar every year by 2020?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112713577
*** See: Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711888
Nuclear industry success story
The emphasis is on "industry" in "nuclear industry success story".
For those paying the tab? Not so much.
At $24B this 2.2gigawatt facility is a complete economic clusterf&*k for the consumer (original price was $14B), but an incredible success for the industry that has taken the consumer hostage with "advanced cost recovery". I mean seriously, slipping the date from 2016 to 2024 isn't a clue to someone that there is a problem here? There is an awful lot of carbon reduction the money spent on this plant could have produced by the time the plant comes online.
Progress Energy raises price tag, delays start date of Levy nuclear plant
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
Posted: May 01, 2012 09:53 AM
Progress Energy announced Tuesday that the cost for its proposed Levy County nuclear plant could reach a new high of $24 billion with a new start date of 2024.
The new estimate, included among documents filed with the state Public Service Commission for its annual nuclear cost recovery, would raise the cost of the project almost $2 billion and delay when it comes online from 2021 to 2024 — almost a decade after its original projected date of 2016.
...
Progress' proposal would increase the amount customers pay from the current $3.05 per 1,000 kilowatt hours of usage for advances fees for Levy and its existing Crystal River nuclear plant to $5.09 beginning Jan. 1, 2013.
....
"Nuclear power," Dolan said, "remains a key component of Progress Energy's balanced solution strategy to meet our customers' future energy needs with efficient, carbon-free electricity."***
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
Posted: May 01, 2012 09:53 AM
Progress Energy announced Tuesday that the cost for its proposed Levy County nuclear plant could reach a new high of $24 billion with a new start date of 2024.
The new estimate, included among documents filed with the state Public Service Commission for its annual nuclear cost recovery, would raise the cost of the project almost $2 billion and delay when it comes online from 2021 to 2024 — almost a decade after its original projected date of 2016.
...
Progress' proposal would increase the amount customers pay from the current $3.05 per 1,000 kilowatt hours of usage for advances fees for Levy and its existing Crystal River nuclear plant to $5.09 beginning Jan. 1, 2013.
....
"Nuclear power," Dolan said, "remains a key component of Progress Energy's balanced solution strategy to meet our customers' future energy needs with efficient, carbon-free electricity."***
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energy-raises-price-tag-delays-start-date-of-levy-nuclear-plant/1227830
** See: 1000 gigawatts of new solar every year by 2020?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112713577
*** See: Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711888
May 1, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473484/public-opinion-the-death-of-public-support-for-global-warming-action-is-greatly-exaggerated/
The Death Of Public Support For Global Warming Action Is Greatly Exaggerated
Public Opinion Snapshot: The Death Of Public Support For Global Warming Action Is Greatly Exaggerated
By Climate Guest Blogger on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:25 pm
by Ruy Teixeira
President Barack Obama recently observed that tackling climate change remains vitally important despite difficulties moving legislation forward. Conservatives, of course, are trying their utmost to remove the issue permanently from political discussion, claiming that the public is tired of the debate and no longer has an appetite for combating global warming.
But a just-released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs reveals the lie in this claim. 63 percent of respondents said the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do, compared to 3 percent who said we should await action by industrialized countries, 8 percent who said we should wait for both industrialized and developing countries to move, and 5 percent who said we shouldn’t bother reducing emissions.
In the same poll, the public supported — by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent — requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if that would cost the average household an extra $100 per year.
The poll also found that 65 percent of Americans support an international treaty to require a 90 percent cut in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
.......
By Climate Guest Blogger on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:25 pm
by Ruy Teixeira
President Barack Obama recently observed that tackling climate change remains vitally important despite difficulties moving legislation forward. Conservatives, of course, are trying their utmost to remove the issue permanently from political discussion, claiming that the public is tired of the debate and no longer has an appetite for combating global warming.
But a just-released poll from the Yale and George Mason climate change communication programs reveals the lie in this claim. 63 percent of respondents said the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do, compared to 3 percent who said we should await action by industrialized countries, 8 percent who said we should wait for both industrialized and developing countries to move, and 5 percent who said we shouldn’t bother reducing emissions.
In the same poll, the public supported — by a margin of 63 percent to 37 percent — requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if that would cost the average household an extra $100 per year.
The poll also found that 65 percent of Americans support an international treaty to require a 90 percent cut in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
.......
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473484/public-opinion-the-death-of-public-support-for-global-warming-action-is-greatly-exaggerated/
May 1, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/
That's what I'm talking about! 1TW new solar/yr by 2020?
Three Charts That Illustrate Why Solar Has Hit A True Tipping Point
By Stephen Lacey on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm
A new report from the prominent global consulting firm McKinsey shows why solar photovoltaics have hit a tipping point.
As the economics of solar PV continue to improve steadily and dramatically, McKinsey analysts conclude that the yearly “economic potential” of solar PV deployment could reach 600-1,000 gigawatts (1 million megawatts) by 2020....
...
1. Because solar mostly competes with retail rates, the economic potential for the technology in high resource areas is far bigger than actual deployment figures would suggest. McKinsey predicts that the cost of installing a commercial-scale solar PV system will fall another 40 percent by 2015, growing the “unsubsidized economic potential” (i.e. the economic competitiveness without federal subsidies) of the technology to hundreds of gigawatts by 2020.
2. The most important cost reductions in the next decade will come not through groundbreaking lab-scale improvements, but through incremental cost reductions due to deployment. The McKinsey analysis shows how the dramatically these cumulative cost improvements can change the economics of solar. (For more, see: Anatomy of a Solar PV System: How to Continue “Ferocious Cost Reductions” for Solar Electricity.)
3. Solar is already competitive in a variety of markets today. As the chart below illustrates, there are at least three markets where solar PV competes widely today: Off-grid, isolated grids, and the commercial/residential sectors in high-resource areas. Of course, the competitiveness of the technology varies dramatically depending on a variety of local factors. But this comparison shows just how steadily the cross-over is approaching.
...
By Stephen Lacey on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm
A new report from the prominent global consulting firm McKinsey shows why solar photovoltaics have hit a tipping point.
As the economics of solar PV continue to improve steadily and dramatically, McKinsey analysts conclude that the yearly “economic potential” of solar PV deployment could reach 600-1,000 gigawatts (1 million megawatts) by 2020....
...
1. Because solar mostly competes with retail rates, the economic potential for the technology in high resource areas is far bigger than actual deployment figures would suggest. McKinsey predicts that the cost of installing a commercial-scale solar PV system will fall another 40 percent by 2015, growing the “unsubsidized economic potential” (i.e. the economic competitiveness without federal subsidies) of the technology to hundreds of gigawatts by 2020.
2. The most important cost reductions in the next decade will come not through groundbreaking lab-scale improvements, but through incremental cost reductions due to deployment. The McKinsey analysis shows how the dramatically these cumulative cost improvements can change the economics of solar. (For more, see: Anatomy of a Solar PV System: How to Continue “Ferocious Cost Reductions” for Solar Electricity.)
3. Solar is already competitive in a variety of markets today. As the chart below illustrates, there are at least three markets where solar PV competes widely today: Off-grid, isolated grids, and the commercial/residential sectors in high-resource areas. Of course, the competitiveness of the technology varies dramatically depending on a variety of local factors. But this comparison shows just how steadily the cross-over is approaching.
...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
