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 5, 2012
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/05/01/power-plant-performance-load-factors-to-end-december-2011.html
Global Nuclear Capacity Factor Continues Decline - now 76%
Of course, that doesn't include plants that close for long periods of time. It is acceptable in nuclear accounting to simply ignore those failures.
Power Plant Performance - Load factors to end December 2011.
05/01/2012
The Fukushima accident dominated the nuclear industry during 2011, prompting safety re-evaluations and reviews of the lessons learned across the world, as well as the permanent closure of 12 reactors (eight in Germany and four in Japan) in the second quarter of 2011. The accident has also had a notable impact on nuclear electricity generation, which fell by more than 3% compared with 2010.
Data were available for 398 units (371.8 GW) with more than a year's operating experience on 31 December 2011, and they generated just over 2500 TWh of electricity during the year. In comparison, 407 units (379.5 GW) generated 2581.6 TWh of electricity in 2010. (Note that the 12 units closed in response to Fukushima generated an additional 15.2 TWh of electricity in 2011.)
A slight overall decrease in performance in 2011 is evident. Overall, the average annual load factor for all reactors fell from 77.0% at the end of 2010 to 76.0% in 2011. But the decline is magnified at the bottom end. When the reactors are grouped in quartiles, the lowest annual load factor in the top 25%, 50% and 75% changes little from 2010 to 2011 (91.8, 83.2 and 70.8 for 2011, respectively). But the lowest annual load factor in the top 90% in 2011, 37.6%, is a third lower than in 2010.
The fall in average annual load factor was the most prominent for BWR designs, dropping from 75.5% for 2010 to 67.7% for 2011. The BWR figure is affected most significantly by the operation of reactors in Japan, which is home to 30% of the BWRs listed in our main table. The average annual load factor for PWRs dropped less markedly from 81.1% in 2010 to 79.5%. However, it was a good year for RBMK and PHWR reactors, which improved from 60.3% to 80.6% and from 64.3% to 72.8%...
05/01/2012
The Fukushima accident dominated the nuclear industry during 2011, prompting safety re-evaluations and reviews of the lessons learned across the world, as well as the permanent closure of 12 reactors (eight in Germany and four in Japan) in the second quarter of 2011. The accident has also had a notable impact on nuclear electricity generation, which fell by more than 3% compared with 2010.
Data were available for 398 units (371.8 GW) with more than a year's operating experience on 31 December 2011, and they generated just over 2500 TWh of electricity during the year. In comparison, 407 units (379.5 GW) generated 2581.6 TWh of electricity in 2010. (Note that the 12 units closed in response to Fukushima generated an additional 15.2 TWh of electricity in 2011.)
A slight overall decrease in performance in 2011 is evident. Overall, the average annual load factor for all reactors fell from 77.0% at the end of 2010 to 76.0% in 2011. But the decline is magnified at the bottom end. When the reactors are grouped in quartiles, the lowest annual load factor in the top 25%, 50% and 75% changes little from 2010 to 2011 (91.8, 83.2 and 70.8 for 2011, respectively). But the lowest annual load factor in the top 90% in 2011, 37.6%, is a third lower than in 2010.
The fall in average annual load factor was the most prominent for BWR designs, dropping from 75.5% for 2010 to 67.7% for 2011. The BWR figure is affected most significantly by the operation of reactors in Japan, which is home to 30% of the BWRs listed in our main table. The average annual load factor for PWRs dropped less markedly from 81.1% in 2010 to 79.5%. However, it was a good year for RBMK and PHWR reactors, which improved from 60.3% to 80.6% and from 64.3% to 72.8%...
http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/05/01/power-plant-performance-load-factors-to-end-december-2011.html
May 5, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/04/477937/private-water-industry-defends-alec-membership/
Private Water Industry Defends ALEC Membership
Private Water Industry Defends ALEC Membership
by Sarah Pavlus, via the American Independent
An influential trade association representing companies that provide water services to one in four Americans says it will continue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that has worked with the energy industry to create loophole-filled water protections and opposes federal oversight of fracking.
The National Association of Water Companies represents the far-reaching privatized water utility industry that serves “nearly 73 million people every day,” according to the association’s website. NAWC represents more than 150 private water companies, each of whom pay an annual fee to the association. Its board of directors is drawn from the leadership of some of the country’s largest water companies.
NAWC works with ALEC to persuade state and local officials to adopt policies favorable to the private water industry. NAWC declined to comment on when it first became involved with ALEC and the amount it pays in annual dues. According to The New York Times, ALEC “is primarily financed by more than 200 private-sector members, whose annual dues of $7,000 to $25,000 accounted for most of its $7 million budget in 2010.”
ALEC connects its corporate members with state legislators to create model bills on a variety of issues. In recent weeks, high-profile companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Kraft Foods have dropped their ALEC memberships after the organization’s support for controversial gun rights legislation and voter identification laws was exposed. Following the uproar, ALEC announced it would eliminate its task force that dealt with “non-economic” issues.
ALEC has also been active on issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing....
by Sarah Pavlus, via the American Independent
An influential trade association representing companies that provide water services to one in four Americans says it will continue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that has worked with the energy industry to create loophole-filled water protections and opposes federal oversight of fracking.
The National Association of Water Companies represents the far-reaching privatized water utility industry that serves “nearly 73 million people every day,” according to the association’s website. NAWC represents more than 150 private water companies, each of whom pay an annual fee to the association. Its board of directors is drawn from the leadership of some of the country’s largest water companies.
NAWC works with ALEC to persuade state and local officials to adopt policies favorable to the private water industry. NAWC declined to comment on when it first became involved with ALEC and the amount it pays in annual dues. According to The New York Times, ALEC “is primarily financed by more than 200 private-sector members, whose annual dues of $7,000 to $25,000 accounted for most of its $7 million budget in 2010.”
ALEC connects its corporate members with state legislators to create model bills on a variety of issues. In recent weeks, high-profile companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Kraft Foods have dropped their ALEC memberships after the organization’s support for controversial gun rights legislation and voter identification laws was exposed. Following the uproar, ALEC announced it would eliminate its task force that dealt with “non-economic” issues.
ALEC has also been active on issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/04/477937/private-water-industry-defends-alec-membership/
May 5, 2012
Take action to support this proposed decision. Remember the full Commission still has to approve it! TAKE ACTION HERE.
Here’s what our allies and partners had to say:
http://votesolar.org/2012/04/6914/
Do you want to see more rooftop solar?
This petition could use your support.
CPUC net metering decision would give more Californians a fair shake at going solar
April 12th, 2012
Today we’re celebrating an interim win for California rooftop solar along with our partners at SEIA, IREC and the Sierra Club. Together we have been working to encourage the utility regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to clarify the methodology being used to calculate the cap on the state’s net metering program, that billing arrangement that allows solar power customers’ meters to spin backwards and generate savings on their electricity bills. Well PUC Chairmain Peevey has just issued a proposed decision on the cap methodology that, if approved by the full Commission, will help boost solar use by homeowners, businesses, and public agencies in a big way.
Here’s how:
Net metering works like “rollover minutes,” with customers receiving credits on their bills for the excess power they generate that is put back on the grid. There is a cap on the amount of net metering that must be made available to customers – beyond that cap, there’s no guarantee that utilities continue to allow new solar customers to net meter. California’s law sets the cap at “5 percent of aggregate customer peak demand,” but does not specify how utilities should calculate that number. Consequently, utilities are using a more restrictive methodology that results in almost 50 percent less net metered solar and renewable energy than would otherwise be allowed. Chairman Peevey’s proposed decision clarifies that utilities should use the cap calculation methodology that results in more Californians having access to the energy bill saving benefits of net metering. Hooray!
Take action to support this proposed decision. Remember the full Commission still has to approve it! TAKE ACTION HERE.
Here’s what our allies and partners had to say:
“When we crafted California’s original net metering law, the goal was maximize the amount of clean distributed energy on the grid,” said former Assemblyman Fred Keeley, author of California’s net metering law “By proposing this methodology, the CPUC is complying with the original legislative intent and helping California lead the way toward a clean energy economy.”
“The PUC’s proposed decision...
http://votesolar.org/2012/04/6914/
May 5, 2012
Take action to support this proposed decision. Remember the full Commission still has to approve it! TAKE ACTION HERE.
Here’s what our allies and partners had to say:
http://votesolar.org/2012/04/6914/
Are you in California? Do you want to help promote home solar?
This petition could use your support.
CPUC net metering decision would give more Californians a fair shake at going solar
April 12th, 2012
Today we’re celebrating an interim win for California rooftop solar along with our partners at SEIA, IREC and the Sierra Club. Together we have been working to encourage the utility regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to clarify the methodology being used to calculate the cap on the state’s net metering program, that billing arrangement that allows solar power customers’ meters to spin backwards and generate savings on their electricity bills. Well PUC Chairmain Peevey has just issued a proposed decision on the cap methodology that, if approved by the full Commission, will help boost solar use by homeowners, businesses, and public agencies in a big way.
Here’s how:
Net metering works like “rollover minutes,” with customers receiving credits on their bills for the excess power they generate that is put back on the grid. There is a cap on the amount of net metering that must be made available to customers – beyond that cap, there’s no guarantee that utilities continue to allow new solar customers to net meter. California’s law sets the cap at “5 percent of aggregate customer peak demand,” but does not specify how utilities should calculate that number. Consequently, utilities are using a more restrictive methodology that results in almost 50 percent less net metered solar and renewable energy than would otherwise be allowed. Chairman Peevey’s proposed decision clarifies that utilities should use the cap calculation methodology that results in more Californians having access to the energy bill saving benefits of net metering. Hooray!
Take action to support this proposed decision. Remember the full Commission still has to approve it! TAKE ACTION HERE.
Here’s what our allies and partners had to say:
“When we crafted California’s original net metering law, the goal was maximize the amount of clean distributed energy on the grid,” said former Assemblyman Fred Keeley, author of California’s net metering law “By proposing this methodology, the CPUC is complying with the original legislative intent and helping California lead the way toward a clean energy economy.”
“The PUC’s proposed decision...
http://votesolar.org/2012/04/6914/
May 5, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1
What did Edison think about the way we should get our electricity?
When Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced his vision of development in New York City over the next 25 years, he highlighted a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 percent. To anyone who has studied the history of power consumption in the United States, his proposal sounded a curious echo. New York, after all, was home to one of the country’s first central power stations, built by Thomas Edison in 1882. No individual deserves more credit, or blame, for America’s voracious electricity consumption than Edison, who conceived not only that generating station but also the notoriously inefficient incandescent bulb and a slew of volt-thirsty devices.
Thomas Edison holding one of the batteries used to power his early electric car, the Baker.
Yet Edison, godfather of electricity-intensive living, was also an unlikely green pioneer whose ideas about renewable power still resonate today. At the turn of the 20th century, when Edison was at the height of his career, the notion that buildings, which now account for more than a third of all energy consumed in the United States, would someday require large amounts of power was only just coming into focus. Where that power would come from — central generating stations or in-home plants; fossil fuels or renewable resources — was still very much up for debate.
A 1901 article about Edison in The Atlanta Constitution described how his unorthodox ideas about batteries could bring wattage to the countryside: “With a windmill coupled to a small electric generator,” a rural inhabitant “could bottle up enough current to give him light at night.” The earliest wind-powered house was fired up in Cleveland in 1888 by the inventor Charles Brush, but Edison aspired to take the technology to the masses. He made drawings of a windmill to power a cluster of four to six homes, and in 1911 he pitched manufacturers on building a prototype.
Edison’s batteries also fueled some cars and trucks, and he joined forces with Henry Ford to develop an electric automobile that would be as affordable and practical as the Model T. The Constitution article discussed plans to let people recharge their batteries at plug-in sites along trolley lines; the batteries could also be refreshed courtesy of the home windmill.
Talented not only at devising new technologies...
Thomas Edison holding one of the batteries used to power his early electric car, the Baker.
Yet Edison, godfather of electricity-intensive living, was also an unlikely green pioneer whose ideas about renewable power still resonate today. At the turn of the 20th century, when Edison was at the height of his career, the notion that buildings, which now account for more than a third of all energy consumed in the United States, would someday require large amounts of power was only just coming into focus. Where that power would come from — central generating stations or in-home plants; fossil fuels or renewable resources — was still very much up for debate.
A 1901 article about Edison in The Atlanta Constitution described how his unorthodox ideas about batteries could bring wattage to the countryside: “With a windmill coupled to a small electric generator,” a rural inhabitant “could bottle up enough current to give him light at night.” The earliest wind-powered house was fired up in Cleveland in 1888 by the inventor Charles Brush, but Edison aspired to take the technology to the masses. He made drawings of a windmill to power a cluster of four to six homes, and in 1911 he pitched manufacturers on building a prototype.
Edison’s batteries also fueled some cars and trucks, and he joined forces with Henry Ford to develop an electric automobile that would be as affordable and practical as the Model T. The Constitution article discussed plans to let people recharge their batteries at plug-in sites along trolley lines; the batteries could also be refreshed courtesy of the home windmill.
Talented not only at devising new technologies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-essay-t.html?_r=1
May 5, 2012
The amount of power the utility has to purchase is the same no matter whether it is coming from a home PV plant or a 150MW natural gas plant. All of the plants sell power on a market that sets the value for their power.
All of them except the small PV plants that is. Because the PV system is, shall we say, encroaching on an established set of players it is subject to being discriminated against in both access to the grid and access to the market that determines pricing. That is precisely the situation we have now.
The "Progressive Professor" would have you believe that paying the home PV owner for the real value of their power would take money from the pockets of the poor and line the pockets of the rich. That is a piece of corporate propaganda that stands the truth on its head.
In fact, as is perfectly obvious to anyone with a sliver of sense is that if there were no PV systems the utility would be buying the same set amount of electricity to meet its needs and paying fair market rates for all of it.
That is not and cannot be in dispute.
What the "Progressive Professor" seems to be trying to say is that the utility is saving money by stealing the electricity from the PV owners. He is trying to paint the PV owners as greedy rich people and saying essentially that they deserve to not be paid for the power they produce in order to keep costs low for the ratepayers. It is justice, the "Progressive Professor" says, to underpay this particular power plant alone among all other producers of peak power.
Wow.
It takes a very odd set of values to form that logical construct. Especially given two additional factors. First is the fact (and it is an established fact no matter what the "Professor" says) that the records of PV installations by zip code show that most are installed in middle class neighborhoods, not "rich" neighborhoods. The people may be comfortable, but they are hardly the 1% the "Progressive Professor" is trying to make them out to be.
Second is a fact already mentioned in a couple of other posts - by denying the owners of PV systems access to the same cash streams that all other power producers are receiving, two things are being accomplished; 1) the utility is enhancing its profits and 2) the utility is discouraging competition from distributed PV.
Let's say you could put in a solar array for payments lasting seven years. Further say that those payments are paid in full by the electricity you sell to the utility. After the system is paid off and for the next 20+ years you will then pocket that same cash stream which was going to pay the payments for your system.
Would you buy a home solar system?
More horsehocky.
Those with small independent PV installations with surplus power are generally well off enough to afford a substantive upfront investment. The rate scheme he advocates would pay them more in the aggregate than they get today. That money would have to come from those without PV systems, i.e.: those less well off or otherwise unable to do PV.
The amount of power the utility has to purchase is the same no matter whether it is coming from a home PV plant or a 150MW natural gas plant. All of the plants sell power on a market that sets the value for their power.
All of them except the small PV plants that is. Because the PV system is, shall we say, encroaching on an established set of players it is subject to being discriminated against in both access to the grid and access to the market that determines pricing. That is precisely the situation we have now.
The "Progressive Professor" would have you believe that paying the home PV owner for the real value of their power would take money from the pockets of the poor and line the pockets of the rich. That is a piece of corporate propaganda that stands the truth on its head.
In fact, as is perfectly obvious to anyone with a sliver of sense is that if there were no PV systems the utility would be buying the same set amount of electricity to meet its needs and paying fair market rates for all of it.
That is not and cannot be in dispute.
What the "Progressive Professor" seems to be trying to say is that the utility is saving money by stealing the electricity from the PV owners. He is trying to paint the PV owners as greedy rich people and saying essentially that they deserve to not be paid for the power they produce in order to keep costs low for the ratepayers. It is justice, the "Progressive Professor" says, to underpay this particular power plant alone among all other producers of peak power.
Wow.
It takes a very odd set of values to form that logical construct. Especially given two additional factors. First is the fact (and it is an established fact no matter what the "Professor" says) that the records of PV installations by zip code show that most are installed in middle class neighborhoods, not "rich" neighborhoods. The people may be comfortable, but they are hardly the 1% the "Progressive Professor" is trying to make them out to be.
Second is a fact already mentioned in a couple of other posts - by denying the owners of PV systems access to the same cash streams that all other power producers are receiving, two things are being accomplished; 1) the utility is enhancing its profits and 2) the utility is discouraging competition from distributed PV.
Let's say you could put in a solar array for payments lasting seven years. Further say that those payments are paid in full by the electricity you sell to the utility. After the system is paid off and for the next 20+ years you will then pocket that same cash stream which was going to pay the payments for your system.
Would you buy a home solar system?
May 4, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
Interior Department Releases Draft Fracking Rule Lacking Basic Public Right-To-Know Measures
Interior Department Releases Draft Fracking Rule Lacking Basic Public Right-To-Know Measures
By Jessica Goad
This morning the U.S. Department of the Interior released new draft regulations on oversight of natural gas drilling on public lands. The rule specifically addresses public disclosure of drilling chemicals, well-construction techniques, and “flowback” water that returns to the surface after drilling.
This rule will only apply to public lands, where about 3,400 wells per year are hydraulically fractured. Public lands produce 20% of the nation’s natural gas.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a press release today:
The Interior Department should be commended for modernizing rules that were last updated in 1988 — in particularly for creating new provisions that strengthen the government’s ability to regulate the construction and oversight of wells. However, the rule lacks a handful of basic public right-to-know measures.
It would require natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals being used after the fracking has taken place, not beforehand. This makes baseline testing of water quality nearly impossible....
By Jessica Goad
This morning the U.S. Department of the Interior released new draft regulations on oversight of natural gas drilling on public lands. The rule specifically addresses public disclosure of drilling chemicals, well-construction techniques, and “flowback” water that returns to the surface after drilling.
This rule will only apply to public lands, where about 3,400 wells per year are hydraulically fractured. Public lands produce 20% of the nation’s natural gas.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a press release today:
“…it is critical that the public have full confidence that the right safety and environmental protections are in place. The proposed rule will modernize our management of well stimulation activities – including hydraulic fracturing – to make sure that fracturing operations conducted on public and Indian lands follow common-sense industry best practices.”
The Interior Department should be commended for modernizing rules that were last updated in 1988 — in particularly for creating new provisions that strengthen the government’s ability to regulate the construction and oversight of wells. However, the rule lacks a handful of basic public right-to-know measures.
It would require natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals being used after the fracking has taken place, not beforehand. This makes baseline testing of water quality nearly impossible....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
May 4, 2012
More at: http://www.ncwarn.org/2012/05/duke-energy-rigs-rates-against-small-businesses-and-families/
Duke Energy Rigs Rates against Small Businesses and Families (re: Apple, Google server farms)
Duke Energy Rigs Rates against Small Businesses and Families
May 1st, 2012
News Release
Contact: Jim Warren
(919) 416-5077
Jim@ncwarn.org
Legal challenge filed against expansionist business model that gives huge breaks to “No jobs” Apple and Facebook by driving up rates on small customers for years to come
DURHAM, NC – A watchdog group says Duke Energy is fueling demand for expensive new power plants by offering rock-bottom rates and other subsidies to energy gobbling data centers while shifting costs onto North Carolina’s small businesses and families – in violation of well-established case law. Following two controversial rate hikes since early 2010, and with three utility rate cases planned this year, NC WARN today called for state regulators to abolish Duke’s unfair rate system.
The group says Duke Energy is harming the state economy by causing small businesses to pay three times more per kilowatt hour, excluding fuel costs, than Apple, Google and other “server farms” being drawn into North Carolina. And they say the problem is poised to get much worse.
NC WARN today released a report called On the Backs of Families and Small Businesses: Duke Energy Carolinas Justifies New Power Plants by Giving Breaks to the World’s Richest Corporations. Attorney John Runkle filed the report as part of a petition calling for the NC Utilities Commission to conduct a rulemaking process that will “replace the unfair and outmoded” Summer Coincident Peak cost allocation method “with one that is fairer to all ratepayers.”
The watchdogs’ analysis found that Duke Energy justifies its highest rates for small businesses – and lowest rates for the biggest users – by allocating all costs related to generation of power based only on the single hottest hour of the year, when homes and small businesses are running air conditioning. No consideration is given to the high power usage year-round by the data processing and storage centers, which use up to 80,000 times more electricity than the average home.
Even worse, most big customers reduce their electric load during that hottest hour – on cue from Duke – shifting even more costs to households and small businesses, according to utility documents analyzed by NC WARN. In addition, Duke assigns millions of distribution and overhead dollars by the mere number of customers in a rate class – regardless of how much electricity the customer uses. So Apple and Google pay the same dollar amount of those costs as a retired apartment renter or small retailer.
“Duke Energy is ...
May 1st, 2012
News Release
Contact: Jim Warren
(919) 416-5077
Jim@ncwarn.org
Legal challenge filed against expansionist business model that gives huge breaks to “No jobs” Apple and Facebook by driving up rates on small customers for years to come
DURHAM, NC – A watchdog group says Duke Energy is fueling demand for expensive new power plants by offering rock-bottom rates and other subsidies to energy gobbling data centers while shifting costs onto North Carolina’s small businesses and families – in violation of well-established case law. Following two controversial rate hikes since early 2010, and with three utility rate cases planned this year, NC WARN today called for state regulators to abolish Duke’s unfair rate system.
The group says Duke Energy is harming the state economy by causing small businesses to pay three times more per kilowatt hour, excluding fuel costs, than Apple, Google and other “server farms” being drawn into North Carolina. And they say the problem is poised to get much worse.
NC WARN today released a report called On the Backs of Families and Small Businesses: Duke Energy Carolinas Justifies New Power Plants by Giving Breaks to the World’s Richest Corporations. Attorney John Runkle filed the report as part of a petition calling for the NC Utilities Commission to conduct a rulemaking process that will “replace the unfair and outmoded” Summer Coincident Peak cost allocation method “with one that is fairer to all ratepayers.”
The watchdogs’ analysis found that Duke Energy justifies its highest rates for small businesses – and lowest rates for the biggest users – by allocating all costs related to generation of power based only on the single hottest hour of the year, when homes and small businesses are running air conditioning. No consideration is given to the high power usage year-round by the data processing and storage centers, which use up to 80,000 times more electricity than the average home.
Even worse, most big customers reduce their electric load during that hottest hour – on cue from Duke – shifting even more costs to households and small businesses, according to utility documents analyzed by NC WARN. In addition, Duke assigns millions of distribution and overhead dollars by the mere number of customers in a rate class – regardless of how much electricity the customer uses. So Apple and Google pay the same dollar amount of those costs as a retired apartment renter or small retailer.
“Duke Energy is ...
More at: http://www.ncwarn.org/2012/05/duke-energy-rigs-rates-against-small-businesses-and-families/
May 3, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/03/green-growth-nothing
See also:
UK must go green to stimulate growth, says Chris Huhne
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/03/uk-green-growth-chris-huhne
Chris Huhne: It's green growth or nothing
It's green growth or nothing
We have no choice. High energy prices are here to stay and resource-frugality is our only hope for a sustainable future
Chris Huhne guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 May 2012 15.00 EDT
Much of our economic debate implies we must choose between going green or going for growth. That view may be the opposite of the truth. There is now hard evidence that the real choice is between green growth or no growth at all.
For the first time in the postwar period, energy and other commodity prices are unusually high for this point of the global recovery. Normally the cost of basic materials falls in real terms for at least two years after a recovery begins. In the past, this boosted real incomes, supported spending and fuelled recovery.
No more. Today there is a different phenomenon in the developed world: the "squeezed middle". Far from boosting incomes and spending, high energy and material prices have undermined an already fragile recovery buffeted by financial crisis and the legacy of debt. The new pattern of high prices and squeezed incomes has enormous consequences for our future.
Since 1970, there have been four big global recessions. If we take the first three, energy prices in the two years after recovery began in the US were flat (on average, just 1%). In real terms, energy prices fell. By contrast, the rise since the global trough in 2008-9 has been a painful 63%. Nor is this just about energy. For commodities like food and minerals, price rises after those earlier recessions averaged 11%. This time it has been five times as big.
The phenomenon has lasted too long and has been on too big a scale to blame the hedge funds...
We have no choice. High energy prices are here to stay and resource-frugality is our only hope for a sustainable future
Chris Huhne guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 May 2012 15.00 EDT
Much of our economic debate implies we must choose between going green or going for growth. That view may be the opposite of the truth. There is now hard evidence that the real choice is between green growth or no growth at all.
For the first time in the postwar period, energy and other commodity prices are unusually high for this point of the global recovery. Normally the cost of basic materials falls in real terms for at least two years after a recovery begins. In the past, this boosted real incomes, supported spending and fuelled recovery.
No more. Today there is a different phenomenon in the developed world: the "squeezed middle". Far from boosting incomes and spending, high energy and material prices have undermined an already fragile recovery buffeted by financial crisis and the legacy of debt. The new pattern of high prices and squeezed incomes has enormous consequences for our future.
Since 1970, there have been four big global recessions. If we take the first three, energy prices in the two years after recovery began in the US were flat (on average, just 1%). In real terms, energy prices fell. By contrast, the rise since the global trough in 2008-9 has been a painful 63%. Nor is this just about energy. For commodities like food and minerals, price rises after those earlier recessions averaged 11%. This time it has been five times as big.
The phenomenon has lasted too long and has been on too big a scale to blame the hedge funds...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/03/green-growth-nothing
See also:
UK must go green to stimulate growth, says Chris Huhne
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/03/uk-green-growth-chris-huhne
May 3, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/open-free-access-academic-research
UK to make all public funded academic research publications Open Access
Open, free access to academic research? This will be a seismic shift
Opening up access to academic research will put more data and power in the hands of the people who pay for it
David Willetts
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 May 2012 16.00 EDT
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales will be helping ensure that the publicly funded portal promotes collaboration and engagement. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty
My department spends about £5bn each year funding academic research – and it is because we believe in the fundamental importance of this research that we have protected the science budget for the whole of this parliament.
We fund this research because it furthers human knowledge and drives intellectual, social and economic progress. In line with our commitment to open information, tomorrow I will be announcing at the Publishers Association annual meeting that we will make publicly funded research accessible free of charge to readers. Giving people the right to roam freely over publicly funded research will usher in a new era of academic discovery and collaboration, and will put the UK at the forefront of open research.
The challenge is how we get there without ruining the value added by academic publishers. The controversy about the status and reliability of reviews on TripAdvisor is a reminder of how precious genuine, objective peer review is. We still need to pay for such functions, which is why one attractive model – known as gold – has the funders of research covering the costs. Another approach, known as green, includes a closed period before wider release during which journals can earn revenues.
While opening up the fruits of research is a seismic shift for academic publishing, it is not a leap into the unknown. There are many good examples in medicine. For instance, the Wellcome Trust requires all the research it funds to be made freely available online. A report this year from the U.S. Committee for Economic Development has concluded that the US National Institute of Health's policy of open access has accelerated the transition from basic research to commercialisation, generated more follow-on research and reduced duplicate or dead-end lines of inquiry – so increasing the US government's return on its investment in research. And the researcher Philip Davis has found that, when publishers randomly make articles open access on journal websites, readership increases by up to 250%.
Moving from an era ...
Opening up access to academic research will put more data and power in the hands of the people who pay for it
David Willetts
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 May 2012 16.00 EDT
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales will be helping ensure that the publicly funded portal promotes collaboration and engagement. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty
My department spends about £5bn each year funding academic research – and it is because we believe in the fundamental importance of this research that we have protected the science budget for the whole of this parliament.
We fund this research because it furthers human knowledge and drives intellectual, social and economic progress. In line with our commitment to open information, tomorrow I will be announcing at the Publishers Association annual meeting that we will make publicly funded research accessible free of charge to readers. Giving people the right to roam freely over publicly funded research will usher in a new era of academic discovery and collaboration, and will put the UK at the forefront of open research.
The challenge is how we get there without ruining the value added by academic publishers. The controversy about the status and reliability of reviews on TripAdvisor is a reminder of how precious genuine, objective peer review is. We still need to pay for such functions, which is why one attractive model – known as gold – has the funders of research covering the costs. Another approach, known as green, includes a closed period before wider release during which journals can earn revenues.
While opening up the fruits of research is a seismic shift for academic publishing, it is not a leap into the unknown. There are many good examples in medicine. For instance, the Wellcome Trust requires all the research it funds to be made freely available online. A report this year from the U.S. Committee for Economic Development has concluded that the US National Institute of Health's policy of open access has accelerated the transition from basic research to commercialisation, generated more follow-on research and reduced duplicate or dead-end lines of inquiry – so increasing the US government's return on its investment in research. And the researcher Philip Davis has found that, when publishers randomly make articles open access on journal websites, readership increases by up to 250%.
Moving from an era ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/open-free-access-academic-research
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
