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 16, 2013
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/with-more-wind-energy-pjm-could-save-customers-7-billion-per-year?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-May16-2013
With More Wind Energy, PJM Could Save Customers $7 Billion per Year
With More Wind Energy, PJM Could Save Customers $7 Billion per Year
By Jeff Postelwait, Associate Editor, Electric Light & Power
May 10, 2013
Tulsa, OK -- The PJM Interconnection could save its customers $6.9 billion if it more than doubled the amount of wind energy it currently plans to build. This is according to a study by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid and Synapse Energy Economics.
By the end of 2012, about 3.4 percent of PJM's total installed capacity was generated from wind. Over the next 13 years, with the advent of renewable portfolio standards, states within the PJM system will expand their wind energy capacity to 11 percent of their total installed capacity.
Bob Fagan, an economist with Synapse Energy Economics who worked on the report, said in a conference call that the study allowed for a significant build-out of transmission to allow this proposed new wind energy development to flow throughout the grid.
"Most of the wind resource is in the eastern portion of PJM," Fagan said. "A significant transmission build-out will be required in the western part of PJM to bring this electricity to market."
A large portion of the consumer savings come in by phasing out fossil fuel-fired generation, particularly coal power, which...
By Jeff Postelwait, Associate Editor, Electric Light & Power
May 10, 2013
Tulsa, OK -- The PJM Interconnection could save its customers $6.9 billion if it more than doubled the amount of wind energy it currently plans to build. This is according to a study by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid and Synapse Energy Economics.
By the end of 2012, about 3.4 percent of PJM's total installed capacity was generated from wind. Over the next 13 years, with the advent of renewable portfolio standards, states within the PJM system will expand their wind energy capacity to 11 percent of their total installed capacity.
Bob Fagan, an economist with Synapse Energy Economics who worked on the report, said in a conference call that the study allowed for a significant build-out of transmission to allow this proposed new wind energy development to flow throughout the grid.
"Most of the wind resource is in the eastern portion of PJM," Fagan said. "A significant transmission build-out will be required in the western part of PJM to bring this electricity to market."
A large portion of the consumer savings come in by phasing out fossil fuel-fired generation, particularly coal power, which...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/with-more-wind-energy-pjm-could-save-customers-7-billion-per-year?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-May16-2013
May 16, 2013
Report: OFFSHORE WIND TOWARD 2020
OFFSHORE WIND TOWARD 2020
2013
Europe has set itself ambitious climate and energy targets: A third of the continent's electricity needs are to be met from renewable energy sources by 2020. Offshore wind power places a pivotal role in the mix.
In our study "Offshore Wind Toward 2020 – On the Pathway to Cost Competitiveness", our experts state that they expect Europe to have installed offshore capacity of 40 GW by 2020. In the same year, global investment to ramp up offshore wind power will have reached around EUR 130 billion.
Yet huge challenges still lie ahead for the industry: Wind farms are growing in size all the time. They are moving further and further offshore. And they are being constructed in ever deeper waters. These factors are driving up the cost of investment and making projects more complex. If it is to compete with other forms of energy, the offshore wind industry must therefore sharply cut the cost of energy generation. A reduction of around 30% between now and 2020 would allow electricity generated from offshore wind power to be sold at an average price of 9 euro cents per kWh. But that will require technological innovation, new financing models and a stable political framework.
"The offshore wind industry will become increasingly important in the years ahead, because transforming the energy system without this one central pillar would be difficult to imagine," says Marcus M. Weber, Partner at Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. "That makes it all the more important for the industry to quickly achieve cost-cutting industrialization effects, and for the government to stake out a reliable framework."
Download study here: http://www.rolandberger.com/media/pdf/Roland_Berger_Offshore_Wind_Study_20130506.pdf
May 16, 2013
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/09/arjun-makhijani-building-small-modular-reactors/
Arjun Makhijani: Building small modular reactors senseless
Arjun Makhijani: Building small modular reactors senseless
The highly touted “nuclear renaissance” is ending with a whimper.
...Now the Tennessee Valley Authority is looking to Small Modular Reactors...The rationale for this venture was set forth at a recent University of Tennessee colloquium by Dan Stout, TVA’s senior manager for SMRs. He claimed mass-manufacturing techniques, the “economics of replication” in building multiple SMRs, would replace the “economies of scale” gained from large reactors.
Stout said the contracting challenge is that B&W can’t afford to build a factory for SMRs based on one order. The first unit for TVA most likely would be “cobbled together” at existing facilities, not on an assembly line dedicated to SMRs. But if B&W could get 100 orders for SMRs from countries such as China and India, he said, the company would be able to get financing to build a new factory with a dedicated assembly line.
...It also stretches credulity that China and India, the main centers of nuclear power construction today, along with Russia, would place orders for 100 reactors. Why would China, with 28 large reactors under construction and an established supply chain, not license the design and set up an assembly line in Shanghai or Chengdu? So a possible, even likely, outcome, in the event of technical success, is that the federal government subsidy to B&W and TVA would pave the way for an assembly line in China.
And what happens if a common design or manufacturing problem is discovered...
The highly touted “nuclear renaissance” is ending with a whimper.
...Now the Tennessee Valley Authority is looking to Small Modular Reactors...The rationale for this venture was set forth at a recent University of Tennessee colloquium by Dan Stout, TVA’s senior manager for SMRs. He claimed mass-manufacturing techniques, the “economics of replication” in building multiple SMRs, would replace the “economies of scale” gained from large reactors.
Stout said the contracting challenge is that B&W can’t afford to build a factory for SMRs based on one order. The first unit for TVA most likely would be “cobbled together” at existing facilities, not on an assembly line dedicated to SMRs. But if B&W could get 100 orders for SMRs from countries such as China and India, he said, the company would be able to get financing to build a new factory with a dedicated assembly line.
...It also stretches credulity that China and India, the main centers of nuclear power construction today, along with Russia, would place orders for 100 reactors. Why would China, with 28 large reactors under construction and an established supply chain, not license the design and set up an assembly line in Shanghai or Chengdu? So a possible, even likely, outcome, in the event of technical success, is that the federal government subsidy to B&W and TVA would pave the way for an assembly line in China.
And what happens if a common design or manufacturing problem is discovered...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/09/arjun-makhijani-building-small-modular-reactors/
May 15, 2013
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-clean-energy-is-way-out-of-date?utm_source=Solar&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
There is a lot of negativity on this board and a great deal of it is aimed at the timetable for deploying renewables. The study in the OP confirms my own research on this topic - research that forms the basis for my outlook on what is coming down the pike for our energy future.
The thoughts I share on the our energy future are often termed "overly optimistic" (to use the most polite phrase), and inevitably the person holding that view will buttresses their argument with the IEA or EIA numbers. I hope this post gives some food for thought for those who misuse the word Cornucopian to let me know they think I'm being unrealistic. One particular poster, in fact, just loves to use the EIA, BP and IEA numbers to create graphs reflecting his feelings of gloom and despair.
Let's recap the numbers above:
..."projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected"
in 2000 International Energy Agency saysin 2010 wind power will be at 34 gigawatts;
actual level was 200 gigawatts.
1996 World Bank estimate for China by 2020:
9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV
China in 2011 has 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV (and they are just getting started - k)
10 years ahead of schedule and wind is 7X+ while solar is 6X. How much do you think they will exceed World Bank predictions by the time 2020 actually gets here?
So when you look at charts like this:
Or tables like this:
Remember who has a record of poor predictions. That isn't saying we are going to address this threat as fast as we need to, but at least let's start the discussion about what we are going to do with a realistic eye on what is good analysis and what isn't.
Conventional Wisdom About Clean Energy Is Still Way Out of Date - “It’s not 1990 anymore.”
Conventional Wisdom About Clean Energy Is Still Way Out of Date
“It’s not 1990 anymore.”
CHRIS NELDER: MAY 9, 2013
"We're fifteen to twenty years out of date in how we think about renewables," said Dr. Eric Martinot to an audience at the first Pathways to 100% Renewables Conference held April 16 in San Francisco. "It's not 1990 anymore."
Dr. Martinot and his team recently compiled their 2013 Renewables Global Futures report from two years of research in which they conducted interviews with 170 experts and policymakers from fifteen countries, including local city officials and stakeholders from more than twenty cities. They also reviewed more than 50 recently published scenarios by credible international organizations, energy companies, and research institutes, along with government policy targets for renewable energy, and various corporate reports and energy literature.
The report observes that "[t]he history of energy scenarios is full of similar projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected." For example, the International Energy Agency's 2000 estimate for wind power in 2010 was 34 gigawatts, while the actual level was 200 gigawatts. The World Bank's 1996 estimate for China was 9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV by 2020, but by 2011 the country had already achieved 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV.
Dr. Martinot's conclusion from this exhaustive survey? "The conservative scenarios are simply no longer credible."
There is now a yawning gap between "conservative" scenarios and more optimistic ones, as illustrated in this chart contrasting scenarios published in 2012 by entities like the IEA and ExxonMobil with those offered by groups like the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (an international scientific policy research organization), Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund...
“It’s not 1990 anymore.”
CHRIS NELDER: MAY 9, 2013
"We're fifteen to twenty years out of date in how we think about renewables," said Dr. Eric Martinot to an audience at the first Pathways to 100% Renewables Conference held April 16 in San Francisco. "It's not 1990 anymore."
Dr. Martinot and his team recently compiled their 2013 Renewables Global Futures report from two years of research in which they conducted interviews with 170 experts and policymakers from fifteen countries, including local city officials and stakeholders from more than twenty cities. They also reviewed more than 50 recently published scenarios by credible international organizations, energy companies, and research institutes, along with government policy targets for renewable energy, and various corporate reports and energy literature.
The report observes that "[t]he history of energy scenarios is full of similar projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected." For example, the International Energy Agency's 2000 estimate for wind power in 2010 was 34 gigawatts, while the actual level was 200 gigawatts. The World Bank's 1996 estimate for China was 9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV by 2020, but by 2011 the country had already achieved 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV.
Dr. Martinot's conclusion from this exhaustive survey? "The conservative scenarios are simply no longer credible."
There is now a yawning gap between "conservative" scenarios and more optimistic ones, as illustrated in this chart contrasting scenarios published in 2012 by entities like the IEA and ExxonMobil with those offered by groups like the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (an international scientific policy research organization), Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/conventional-wisdom-about-clean-energy-is-way-out-of-date?utm_source=Solar&utm_medium=Picture&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
There is a lot of negativity on this board and a great deal of it is aimed at the timetable for deploying renewables. The study in the OP confirms my own research on this topic - research that forms the basis for my outlook on what is coming down the pike for our energy future.
The thoughts I share on the our energy future are often termed "overly optimistic" (to use the most polite phrase), and inevitably the person holding that view will buttresses their argument with the IEA or EIA numbers. I hope this post gives some food for thought for those who misuse the word Cornucopian to let me know they think I'm being unrealistic. One particular poster, in fact, just loves to use the EIA, BP and IEA numbers to create graphs reflecting his feelings of gloom and despair.
Let's recap the numbers above:
..."projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected"
in 2000 International Energy Agency saysin 2010 wind power will be at 34 gigawatts;
actual level was 200 gigawatts.
1996 World Bank estimate for China by 2020:
9 gigawatts of wind and 0.5 gigawatts for solar PV
China in 2011 has 62 gigawatts of wind and 3 gigawatts of PV (and they are just getting started - k)
10 years ahead of schedule and wind is 7X+ while solar is 6X. How much do you think they will exceed World Bank predictions by the time 2020 actually gets here?
So when you look at charts like this:
Or tables like this:
Remember who has a record of poor predictions. That isn't saying we are going to address this threat as fast as we need to, but at least let's start the discussion about what we are going to do with a realistic eye on what is good analysis and what isn't.
May 15, 2013
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/u-s-energy-policy-should-take-a-lesson-from-germany-s-energiewende.html
U.S. Energy Policy Should Take a Lesson From Germany’s Energiewende
U.S. Energy Policy Should Take a Lesson From Germany’s Energiewende
“Energiewende” may not be a household word in the United States today, but U.S. citizens and policymakers are likely to hear more about it. It’s the name of Germany's ambitious energy transformation, which aims to move the country to at least 80 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050.
Germany already gets nearly 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, up from just under 7 percent thirteen years ago. That is no small feat. Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse: It's the world's fifth largest economy and third largest exporter.
Germany's commitment to renewables has helped create jobs and drive economic opportunities. Since 2004, clean energy investments grew by 122 percent. Jobs in the renewable energy sector have more than doubled to around 380,000 jobs in the same timeframe.
The world faces rising risks from fossil fuels. Yet, they are expected to remain the dominant energy source globally, supported by subsidies of more than $523 billion, according to the latest IEA World Energy Outlook . Demand for these finite resources continues to grow -- likely by one-third by 2035 -- and harvesting them is in many cases growing more complicated and expensive. Fossil fuels are the leading driver of climate change, which is bringing increasing threats to people, businesses and economies.
Germany's success points the way to a very different future...
“Energiewende” may not be a household word in the United States today, but U.S. citizens and policymakers are likely to hear more about it. It’s the name of Germany's ambitious energy transformation, which aims to move the country to at least 80 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050.
Germany already gets nearly 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, up from just under 7 percent thirteen years ago. That is no small feat. Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse: It's the world's fifth largest economy and third largest exporter.
Germany's commitment to renewables has helped create jobs and drive economic opportunities. Since 2004, clean energy investments grew by 122 percent. Jobs in the renewable energy sector have more than doubled to around 380,000 jobs in the same timeframe.
The world faces rising risks from fossil fuels. Yet, they are expected to remain the dominant energy source globally, supported by subsidies of more than $523 billion, according to the latest IEA World Energy Outlook . Demand for these finite resources continues to grow -- likely by one-third by 2035 -- and harvesting them is in many cases growing more complicated and expensive. Fossil fuels are the leading driver of climate change, which is bringing increasing threats to people, businesses and economies.
Germany's success points the way to a very different future...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/u-s-energy-policy-should-take-a-lesson-from-germany-s-energiewende.html
May 15, 2013
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/scindia-in-germany-to-finalise-pact-for-green-energy-corridors-113051500984_1.html
India Finalizing Green Energy Corridors to add 30GW of wind and solar by 2020
Scindia in Germany to finalise pact for Green Energy Corridors
Power Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia is in Germany to discuss early finalisation of an agreement with the European nation which will provide support for setting up Green Energy Corridors for transmission of power.
The aim is to supply 30,000 MW of clean power (wind and solar) to the national grid by 2020.
Under the agreement, Germany has committed to provide an assistance of Euro 1 billion to India.
"The Green Energy Corridors will enable evacuation of over 30,000 MW of renewable energy generated from wind and solar power during the 12th FiveYear Plan in India into the national grid, for which Germany has committed to provide developmental and technical assistance of Euro 1 billion," the statement said....
Power Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia is in Germany to discuss early finalisation of an agreement with the European nation which will provide support for setting up Green Energy Corridors for transmission of power.
The aim is to supply 30,000 MW of clean power (wind and solar) to the national grid by 2020.
Under the agreement, Germany has committed to provide an assistance of Euro 1 billion to India.
"The Green Energy Corridors will enable evacuation of over 30,000 MW of renewable energy generated from wind and solar power during the 12th FiveYear Plan in India into the national grid, for which Germany has committed to provide developmental and technical assistance of Euro 1 billion," the statement said....
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/scindia-in-germany-to-finalise-pact-for-green-energy-corridors-113051500984_1.html
May 15, 2013
Just enough more to make it all make sense at: http://grist.org/climate-energy/utilities-vs-rooftop-solar-what-the-fight-is-about/
The battle between Investor Owned Utilities and Solar Energy explained
Utilities vs. rooftop solar: What the fight is about
By David Roberts
...There’s a short-term problem and a long-term problem. The former is about how electricity rates are structured, specifically how utilities compensate (or don’t) customers who generate power with rooftop solar PV panels. The latter is about developing an entirely new business model for utilities, one that aligns their financial interests with the spread of distributed energy. The danger is that fighting over the former could delay solving the latter.
Today, let’s dig into the fight at hand. It’s about utility rates, specifically “net metering,” yet another nerdy green term no one understands. I will endeavor to make clear what it is and why the fight over it is so damn interesting and exciting. Exciting, I tell you! Wake up!
The utility perspective
First, note that I’m focusing here mostly on investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which serve about 70 percent of America’s customers. These are the old-school, for-profit, regulated-monopoly utilities, with a captive customer base and profits guaranteed by law. IOUs are the main (though not exclusive) force pushing back against distributed solar.
Here’s how IOUs make money:
1) they estimate how much power their customers will need;
2) they estimate the investments they’ll need to make in power plants, fuel, transmission lines, etc. in order to meet that demand;
3) they estimate what rate they need to charge customers to cover those investments and offer a reasonable “rate of return” to their investors;
4) they go to the state public utility commission (PUC) to make a “rate case” justifying the rate;
5) if the PUC signs off, the IOU charges that rate until time to make their next rate case...
By David Roberts
...There’s a short-term problem and a long-term problem. The former is about how electricity rates are structured, specifically how utilities compensate (or don’t) customers who generate power with rooftop solar PV panels. The latter is about developing an entirely new business model for utilities, one that aligns their financial interests with the spread of distributed energy. The danger is that fighting over the former could delay solving the latter.
Today, let’s dig into the fight at hand. It’s about utility rates, specifically “net metering,” yet another nerdy green term no one understands. I will endeavor to make clear what it is and why the fight over it is so damn interesting and exciting. Exciting, I tell you! Wake up!
The utility perspective
First, note that I’m focusing here mostly on investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which serve about 70 percent of America’s customers. These are the old-school, for-profit, regulated-monopoly utilities, with a captive customer base and profits guaranteed by law. IOUs are the main (though not exclusive) force pushing back against distributed solar.
Here’s how IOUs make money:
1) they estimate how much power their customers will need;
2) they estimate the investments they’ll need to make in power plants, fuel, transmission lines, etc. in order to meet that demand;
3) they estimate what rate they need to charge customers to cover those investments and offer a reasonable “rate of return” to their investors;
4) they go to the state public utility commission (PUC) to make a “rate case” justifying the rate;
5) if the PUC signs off, the IOU charges that rate until time to make their next rate case...
Just enough more to make it all make sense at: http://grist.org/climate-energy/utilities-vs-rooftop-solar-what-the-fight-is-about/
May 15, 2013
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/14/like-it-or-not-solar-energy-is-here-to-stay.aspx
Like It or Not, Solar Energy Is Here to Stay
Like It or Not, Solar Energy Is Here to Stay
By Travis Hoium
May 14, 2013
Investors and politicians have been debating the merits of solar power for decades. In the late '70s and early '80s, the industry went through a boom because of government subsidies that were extremely short-lived, and it took until a subsidy-driven boom in Germany in the early 2000s to get back on the map again. Solar power was always a pipe dream that couldn't get off the ground, unable to compete with fossil fuels that were cheap and plentiful.
But over the past decade, the narrative has changed. Today, solar power is becoming a force in energy, and while subsidies play a role in solar energy's growth, it's the falling cost of solar power that's driving the boom. Like it or not, solar power is here to stay.
The U.S. begins to see the light
The entrenched energy industry and political powers in the U.S. have been fighting any assistance to the solar industry, but their efforts have failed to slow down its growing momentum. Last year, Congress failed to extend the 1603 Treasury Grant program -- a 30% cash grant given to anyone who installed solar -- cutting one of the main subsidies to the industry. Solar installers were still left with an investment tax credit, but that requires taxable income, creating a financing challenge.
How did the solar industry respond to the cut in subsidies? U.S. installations rose 76% last year on the back of a 27% drop in installation costs, according to GTM Research. Growth was driven by utility-scale installation, but even the less volatile residential market grew 62% as leasing programs from companies such as SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR ) and SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY ) spread like wildfire.
The largest federal solar subsidy....
By Travis Hoium
May 14, 2013
Investors and politicians have been debating the merits of solar power for decades. In the late '70s and early '80s, the industry went through a boom because of government subsidies that were extremely short-lived, and it took until a subsidy-driven boom in Germany in the early 2000s to get back on the map again. Solar power was always a pipe dream that couldn't get off the ground, unable to compete with fossil fuels that were cheap and plentiful.
But over the past decade, the narrative has changed. Today, solar power is becoming a force in energy, and while subsidies play a role in solar energy's growth, it's the falling cost of solar power that's driving the boom. Like it or not, solar power is here to stay.
The U.S. begins to see the light
The entrenched energy industry and political powers in the U.S. have been fighting any assistance to the solar industry, but their efforts have failed to slow down its growing momentum. Last year, Congress failed to extend the 1603 Treasury Grant program -- a 30% cash grant given to anyone who installed solar -- cutting one of the main subsidies to the industry. Solar installers were still left with an investment tax credit, but that requires taxable income, creating a financing challenge.
How did the solar industry respond to the cut in subsidies? U.S. installations rose 76% last year on the back of a 27% drop in installation costs, according to GTM Research. Growth was driven by utility-scale installation, but even the less volatile residential market grew 62% as leasing programs from companies such as SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR ) and SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY ) spread like wildfire.
The largest federal solar subsidy....
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/14/like-it-or-not-solar-energy-is-here-to-stay.aspx
May 15, 2013
False Balance Lives: Bloomberg News Gives Equal Weight To Climate Disinformer And Scientists
False Balance Lives: Bloomberg News Gives Equal Weight To Climate Disinformer And Scientists
By Joe Romm on May 14, 2013 at 12:25 pm
False balance is alive and well at even the best media outlets (see links below). Bloomberg news, famous for the post-Sandy cover story,“It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” now proves they can be the stupid ones, in a Monday piece on “Greenhouse Gases Hit Threshold Unseen in 3 Million Years”:
Yes, “Happy Plants” is Bloomberg’s header. Plants will be so damn happy when it is 10° F warmer and a third of the arable land has been turned to dust bowl!
And yes, Bloomberg actually quoted Marc Morano, the Charlie Sheen of global warming, former denier-in-chief for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL) — “among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign.”
As Media Matters notes, you should know your news article is pushing false balance when you are quoting someone making the exact same argument as a “rock bottom” Wall Street Journal op-ed:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/14/2008601/false-balance-lives-bloomberg-news-gives-equal-weight-to-climate-disinformer-and-scientists/
By Joe Romm on May 14, 2013 at 12:25 pm
False balance is alive and well at even the best media outlets (see links below). Bloomberg news, famous for the post-Sandy cover story,“It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” now proves they can be the stupid ones, in a Monday piece on “Greenhouse Gases Hit Threshold Unseen in 3 Million Years”:
Happy Plants
“The Earth has had many-times-higher levels of CO2 in the past,” said Marc Morano, former spokesman for Republican Senator James Inhofe and executive editor of Climate Depot, a blog that posts articles skeptical of climate change. “Americans should welcome the 400 parts-per-million threshold. This means that plants are going to be happy, and this means that global-warming fearmongers are going to be proven wrong.”
Yes, “Happy Plants” is Bloomberg’s header. Plants will be so damn happy when it is 10° F warmer and a third of the arable land has been turned to dust bowl!
And yes, Bloomberg actually quoted Marc Morano, the Charlie Sheen of global warming, former denier-in-chief for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL) — “among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign.”
As Media Matters notes, you should know your news article is pushing false balance when you are quoting someone making the exact same argument as a “rock bottom” Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific education. He is paid by an oil-industry funded organization to confuse the public about climate change, and has compared climate science to the Mayan calendar, Nostradamus, and medieval witchcraft. Moreover, his argument is laughable: by focusing on how carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth in a controlled environment, he ignores that our huge emissions of it and other greenhouse gases are warming up the planet, thereby increasing the risk of extreme rainfall and drought to the detriment of agriculture. A Wall Street Journal op-ed made the same argument on Thursday, leading to a deluge of condemnation.
So why is Bloomberg News not ...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/14/2008601/false-balance-lives-bloomberg-news-gives-equal-weight-to-climate-disinformer-and-scientists/
May 14, 2013
http://www.theledger.com/article/20130514/EDIT01/130519735/1002/SPORTS?Title=Nuclear-Power-Plants-Freeloading-in-Florida
Nuclear Power Plants: Freeloading in Florida
The rest of the article shows how a "reform" the public is demanding was completely subverted by the nuclear industry.
Nuclear Power Plants: Freeloading in Florida
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, May 13, 2013 at 11:40 p.m.
Lawmakers have reminded us once again who their masters are when they're in session in Tallahassee — and it's not the people of Florida. No, the Florida Legislature serves big business first, and nothing makes the point stronger than the House and Senate votes in the final week of this year's legislative session on what was touted as a reform of the state's nuclear Cost Recovery Act.
The Recovery Act was created by the Legislature in 2006 to help big power companies, particularly Duke Power (formerly Progress Energy) and Florida Power & Light, pay for the design and construction of costly nuclear power plants. The idea was to allow the companies to expand Florida's power-generating capacity on a pay-as-you-go basis, theoretically saving consumers in the long run.
But the law was and is flawed. It does not require the companies to actually build the plants for which they are collecting fees. Most offensive of all, it does not require the companies to reimburse customers if those plants are never built.
So far, Duke Energy and FP&L have collected some $1.5 billion, with most of Duke's portion presumably going toward the construction of two proposed Levy County nuclear power plants. Yet, increasingly it appears Duke has no immediate plans to move forward with the project. Slowed population growth and falling natural gas prices have made the urgency for more nuclear power wane.
MINIMAL OVERSIGHT
The law that ...
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, May 13, 2013 at 11:40 p.m.
Lawmakers have reminded us once again who their masters are when they're in session in Tallahassee — and it's not the people of Florida. No, the Florida Legislature serves big business first, and nothing makes the point stronger than the House and Senate votes in the final week of this year's legislative session on what was touted as a reform of the state's nuclear Cost Recovery Act.
The Recovery Act was created by the Legislature in 2006 to help big power companies, particularly Duke Power (formerly Progress Energy) and Florida Power & Light, pay for the design and construction of costly nuclear power plants. The idea was to allow the companies to expand Florida's power-generating capacity on a pay-as-you-go basis, theoretically saving consumers in the long run.
But the law was and is flawed. It does not require the companies to actually build the plants for which they are collecting fees. Most offensive of all, it does not require the companies to reimburse customers if those plants are never built.
So far, Duke Energy and FP&L have collected some $1.5 billion, with most of Duke's portion presumably going toward the construction of two proposed Levy County nuclear power plants. Yet, increasingly it appears Duke has no immediate plans to move forward with the project. Slowed population growth and falling natural gas prices have made the urgency for more nuclear power wane.
MINIMAL OVERSIGHT
The law that ...
http://www.theledger.com/article/20130514/EDIT01/130519735/1002/SPORTS?Title=Nuclear-Power-Plants-Freeloading-in-Florida
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
