From ENN,

From American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Thursday, July 17, 2003

A new report, by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), examines the use of energy efficiency as a Clean Air Act compliance tool in the emissions trading system that emerged from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. ACEEE concluded that as Congress currently contemplates action on multi-pollutant legislation, it should include energy efficiency as a compliance option. If not, Americans will pay needlessly high costs for cleaner air... Read more in: Clearer Skies with Energy Efficiency
- posted by Daniel @ 12:41 PM

 
Just in off Alt Power Digest:

Environment groups slam Ontario energy sources

By ALLISON LAWLOR
Globe and Mail Update

Ontario's electricity woes will only get worse if
aging nuclear and coal plants are not phased out and
replaced with efficiency programs and renewable
energy, a new report by a coalition of leading
environmental groups.

The province, already struggling to produce enough
power, will lose about 35 per cent of its electricity
supply over the next 16 years as the province's
nuclear-power plants reach the end of their lifespans,
says the report released Thursday by the group
Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout.

Ontario, already struggling to produce enough power,
is then presented with the option of spending billions
to replace the plants or embarking on aggressive
conservation and efficiency programs, says the report
released Thursday.

"Ontario faces even more Pickering fiascos over the
next decade if the right decisions aren't made now,"
Ralph Torrie, the report's author, said in a news
release.

Mr. Torrie was referring to the restart of the
Pickering A station, located outside of Toronto, which
is more than $1-billion over budget and three years
behind schedule.

"The sun is setting on nuclear power in Canada. We can
have a sustainable energy future by phasing out
nuclear and coal, and phasing in efficiency and
renewable energy."

Astronomical costs and poor performance of Ontario's
nuclear reactors have been at the heart of Ontario's
electricity problems, the report says. Eight of
Ontario's 20 reactors were "laid up" between 1995 and
1998, and attempts to restart them have met with
lengthy delays and massive cost overruns, the report
says.

In addition, Canada's other nuclear reactors — the
Gentilly-2 in Quebec and New Brunswick's Point Lepreau
— face similar problems by the decade's end. The
study shows out how Quebec and New Brunswick could
also phase out their nuclear and coal plants, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent from
electricity production in New Brunswick and eliminate
them altogether in Québec.

Ontario could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by
75 per cent from electricity production by 2020
through a program that phases out both coal and
nuclear plants, the report says.

"What we need is a long-term plan," Shawn-Patrick
Stensil, national co-ordinator for the Campaign for
Nuclear Phaseout, told globeandmail.com. The plan
would mean investing more in renewable energy instead
of throwing more money at nuclear power.

Mr. Stensil said the Ontario government has made
several disastrous policy moves when it comes to
electricity. Among them, he pointed out the recent
change that considers nuclear power plants as green
energy so they can take advantage of tax breaks.

Earlier this month, the Ontario government announced
what was called the most ambitious alternative-energy
plan in the country.

The program is modelled after those adopted by many
European countries and American states, including
Texas and California, where power producers who create
pollution-free energy are guaranteed a share of the
electricity market.

Ontario plans to reserve about 8 per cent of its
market for these new suppliers, both to help slake its
burgeoning demand for electricity and to fight air
pollution.

Under the plan, the government will buy 1 per cent of
the province's current electricity needs from newly
constructed alternative-energy sources, starting in
2006.

The province will then purchase an additional 1 per
cent during each of the eight years of the program,
leading to the construction of about 3,000 megawatts
of new electrical capacity, about the same as a large
nuclear-power plant, by 2015.

Mr. Stensil said the Ontario government's actions so
far haven't been strong enough.

"Anything they have done is superficial," he said.

With a report from Canadian Press
- posted by Daniel @ 12:37 PM

 
Point and counterpoint in response to an Alt Power Digest Yahoo group message...


1. I think utilizing (and improving to handle it) the nation's existing natural gas delivery infrastructure for a faster entry into a hydrogen energy economy is a great idea. The piping will have to be replaced with materials not susceptible to hydrogenization, but the right of way and initial plumbing and technology is mostly there. Gas appliances can also be adapted by simply re-jetting the burners, which would open up a manufacturing niche for retrofit kits. Existing vehicles could be retrofitted to either directly burn hydrogen in their existing engines or with a fuel cell / sterling engine generator / high output electric motor combo designed to accomodate existing models and bolt right into them and onto the existing transmission housing. All this activity could result in gains in domestic economic volume and jobs. Having both options would satisfy the collector car market's "original equipment" leanings.

>1. Consider the problem with hydrogen-powered cars. The
>Honda FCX can travel 350 km before it needs more
>hydrogen, but no regular gasoline station can
>currently deal with that. (Researchers at Britain's
>University of Warwick, however, are working on a
>program called "Hydrofueler" to develop technology to
>connect gas stations to the normal natural-gas supply
>to fuel hydrogen-powered vehicles.)


2. No matter how safe the USAGE of nuclear power becomes, it will never overcome the devastating problem of nuclear waste disposal in my personal opinion. Far, far better to devote the surface area to wind, solar, geothermal, ocean tide, wave, and thermal differential systems and eventually put up solar sattelites. Keep the nuclear reactions on the Sun. After all, all energy sources other than geothermal are nuclear derived through a stellar reactor off the planet, with the POSSIBLE exception of geothermal. (Thank goodness, "off the planet.") Let the nuclear crowd comfort themselves with that knowledge and let's stick to no radioactrive waste production increases, shall we?

>2. Grant admits there are problems, but suggests that
>those with fossil fuels (and wind- and solar-derived
>electricity, which would require vast areas of land)
>are bigger.
>
>"I believe that a resurgence of nuclear power is
>necessary for the continuing industrialization of
>world society with minimal environmental impact and
>eco-invasion, one in which hydrogen will supplant
>fossil fuels."


3. Actually, in the USA, where shift work often accompanies long commute distances, a vehicle has become a necessity. I spend five days a week commuting over 40 miles one way to and from my place of employment and praying there aren't any traffic jams due to my employer being the most prodigious clock watcher in my life. Since my hours are very inconvenient to local mass transportation schedules, such that I would have to suffer three hours to get there and three to get home to work eight, mass transit is a very poor option unless it becomes available 24 hours / 7-days on a half-hourly schedule. Personal vehicles are a necessity. However, were there a hydrogen conversion kit that could match the functionality of my vehicle's current power plant at a price I could afford and available fuel, I would spend up to an additional hour to get the fuel and gladly install it.

I wonder the feasiblity of laying permanent magnets under our roadways and having the vehicle power plant run an electromagnet built into the body of the vehicle and run on a fuel cell coupled to a Sterling cycle engine and secondary generator to propel the vehicle? The roadways are under construction so often any more that the delays produced by the installation work would seem routine.

>3. In 1964, the Canadian communications scholar Marshall
>McLuhan wrote, "The car has become an article of dress
>without which we feel uncertain, unclad and incomplete
>in the urban compound."


Dan
- posted by Daniel @ 1:31 PM

 
A couple of interesting pieces coming in on Alternative Power Digest on Yahoo groups:

Subject: GE's giant's shadow

GE's giant's shadow

National ads use wind energy to project a new image
for the old-line company - and perhaps the local wind
farm debate

By ETHAN ZINDLER
STAFF WRITER
Under ominous skies, a scraggly crew of medieval
oarsmen struggles to row a galley across the ocean.

Suddenly, an apparition.

A vessel carrying a happy and relaxed group of
medieval partyers cruises by. The sun is now visible.
Strains of steel drum music fill the air.

Lo and behold, the boat is traveling under sail.

Trailing off the back is a water-skier who turns,
flashes a smile, and gives the miserable wretches back
on the rowboat a thumbs-up.

"Imagine what a pleasant surprise it must have been
when man first harvested the power of wind," a
narrator says. "At GE, we still believe in wind as a
pure, natural source of power. GE wind energy. For a
cleaner, more fuel-efficient world."

An image of GE wind turbines in action appears briefly
followed by the company's new motto: "GE, imagination
at work."

Dubbed "Galley," the commercial, aired nationally, is
one of the first in GE's new $100 million, multimedia
campaign to promote the company's role in a number of
high-technology fields.

A spokesman for GE declined to provide details about
how much the company has spent on airing the
television ad in the Boston market, other than to say
the size of the buy was no larger than in similar
sized media markets across the country. The spot is
not intended to influence public policy debates over
specific wind farm projects, he said.

But by throwing its hat into the wind-energy ring in
such a public manner, GE has injected the long
fledgling industry with a dose of credibility. And
that could bolster the prospects for proposed wind
farms in various locations along the Eastern Seaboard,
including here on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

Wind power advocates, including those for Cape Wind
Associates, the local company hoping to develop the
130-turbine Nantucket Sound project, say they couldn't
be more pleased. Having a company of GE's stature and
reputation is a significant feather in their cap.
Advertisements that reinforce the validity of wind
power can only boost their efforts regionally.

But opponents of the Nantucket Sound wind farm say
GE's advertising won't have any significant impact on
the local debate. The issue for Cape Codders, they
say, is not wind power's viability but whether the
region's natural resources are protected from
opportunistic developers.

Not just window dressing
GE did not enter the wind power game last year just to
make environmentally friendly commercials. Its Wind
Energy division has generated more than $1 billion in
wind-related revenues so far and has contracts worth
$2 billion more. Should the Nantucket Sound project
receive regulatory approval, GE has a preliminary
contract to build the wind turbines and towers in a
contract worth $495 million, perhaps more.

Currently, the proposed $750 million project is
undergoing environmental review by various regional,
state and federal agencies. Proponents say it would
produce enough electricity to meet 75 percent of the
Cape's power needs.

For a company that produces everything from credit
cards to "Must See TV" (on its NBC network), casting
wind power as the star of its new ad campaign is an
interesting gambit - especially since sales of
wind-related products and services accounted for less
than 1 percent of its $132 billion revenues in 2002.
In fact, GE only entered the wind power game last year
when it purchased Enron's wind assets.

But the current television commercials and
accompanying print and Internet ads do not highlight
the GE of old, which boasted of being able to "bring
good things to life" such as light bulbs and
dishwashers.

"The goals of the campaign are to portray GE's
technological leadership in a number of areas," said a
company spokesman, Gary Sheffer. "(Wind power)
exemplifies one of the world-class technology
businesses that represents GE."

Is the wind spot meant to sway public opinion here,
where the debate has raged over allowing wind farms in
federal waters?

"None of this is meant to influence the debate on any
specific project," said Sheffer.

John Lister, chairman of the brand-consulting firm
Lister Butler in New York, agrees.

"Even the windfall of $400 million is a drop in the
bucket for GE," he said, referring to the revenues the
company would generate should the Nantucket Sound
project come to fruition.

But the ad, coupled with GE's entry into the wind
energy field, could affect the public's perception of
wind energy, Lister said.

"If GE makes a solid commitment to this and moves
ahead successfully it will, in fact, do wonders for
the wind power business," he said.

That buoys veteran wind-power advocates such as Bob
Thresher, director of the federal government's
National Wind Technology Center in Golden, Colo.

"The biggest hurdle (facing wind power) in 30 years
has been the perception that it's a bunch of hippies
trying to change the world," said Thresher who has
working been in the field for that long. "It's not,
it's a business."

"To see GE say, 'yeah this technology is ready to be
implemented' is absolutely great."

But one of the Cape's leading wind farm opponents
discounts the impact GE's advertisements or presence
in the wind energy field will have on the Nantucket
Sound project or others that have been proposed for
the region.

"Wind power is credible and the more that large
companies like GE get involved the more viability wind
power has," acknowledges Isaac Rosen, executive
director of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

But he says that's beside the point to Cape Codders
who are more concerned about "the utter gold rush
that's taking place along our coast."

"What generally congeals people on this issue is not
wind power but how we regulate our public resources,"
he said.

Rosen also questions whether GE's wind ad is an
accurate portrayal of the company, given its
environmental track record.

"There's a reason why they're not spending $100
million advertising the pollution that they've
caused," he said.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ruled that GE must pay to dredge 150,000 pounds of
harmful PCBs from a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson
River in New York. The company expects to spend
between $120 million and $170 million on environmental
remediation projects annually for the next two years,
according to its 2002 annual report.

Via an e-mail, GE's Sheffer dismissed Rosen's
criticism.

"It's unfortunate that Mr. Rosen finds it necessary to
engage in these kinds of attacks rather than limiting
his comments to the relative merits of the project,"
he said.

"We have an excellent environmental compliance program
and record. We also meet our responsibilities to
address environmental contamination that occurred
decades before the advent of modern environmental
laws."

One local homeowner bound to be affected by the
construction of a wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal is GE's
former CEO Jack Welch, who has owned a Nantucket
vacation home for more than a decade. A spokesperson
for Welch said it is his policy not to comment on
ongoing projects where GE is involved.

Cape project could help GE
Last year, Cape Wind Associates signed a preliminary
agreement with GE's Power Systems division. Under the
deal, GE would build the wind turbines and towers that
support them.

Construction of both would take place somewhere in
southern New England but not on the Cape because the
region does not have a deep enough port, according to
Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind Associates.
The project would create 600 to 1,000 construction
jobs. GE could get the contract to oversee
installation.

Neither Cape Wind nor GE is willing to attach a dollar
figure to the current deal to build the materials for
the turbines, but if previous offshore projects in
Europe are any guide, it could range between 48 and 66
percent of the project's overall cost. Cape Wind
estimates total cost at $750 million, meaning GE's
contract could be valued between $360 million and $495
million.

But Glenn Watley, an advisor to the Alliance to
Protect Nantucket Sound, a nonprofit group that has
taken the lead in opposing the Nantucket Sound
project, said the overall cost will be closer to $823
million. That could put the price tag on GE's contract
closer to $540 million.

Furthermore, publicity generated by GE's involvement
with the nation's first offshore wind farm could be
substantial.

Mere debate over the project has garnered national
media attention in The New York Times Magazine and
elsewhere. Should it get the go-ahead, all eyes will
be on the Cape.

Indeed, GE's association with the project might
deliver the "Imagination at Work" message more
powerfully than any spot Madison Avenue could dream
up.

"I think all large companies ... are looking for ways
to say they're out front, they're ahead of the game,"
said Lister. "This certainly would be a feather in
their cap if they can pull it off without having to
put barbed wire around every installation."

Despite all GE has to gain if the local project is
approved, there is no clear indication that the wind
advertisements are aimed at swaying public opinion or
public policy leaders who have not taken firm
positions on the issue - although the ads do run
during "Meet the Press" and "The McLaughlin Group,"
two popular programs with the Washington, D.C., crowd.

(Published: July 13, 2003)


=====
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

All-Energy News and Discussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/All-Energy

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

__________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Green Bean
Subject: Wind farm panel OK'd in Mass. Senate

July 12, 2003

Wind farm panel OK'd in Senate

By DAVID KIBBE
TIMES BOSTON BUREAU
BOSTON - The state Senate this week approved a study
commission on wind farms, marking the Legislature's
first debate in a controversy that has roiled the Cape
and islands.

The legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Robert
O'Leary, D-Barnstable, passed the Senate
overwhelmingly on Thursday. But the issue triggered a
confrontation between O'Leary and a ranking Senate
Republican which could be the first salvo in a Beacon
Hill fight over the merits of offshore wind farms.

The bill largely duplicates action already taken on
Beacon Hill in the contentious battle over proposed
wind farms.

O'Leary's legislation would require Gov. Mitt Romney
to appoint a study commission on wind farms -
something the governor did earlier this summer when he
named a task force on ocean management.

Developers Cape Wind Associates are seeking to build
130 wind turbines on a 24-quare-mile area of Nantucket
Sound. The development would be the first offshore
wind farm in the U.S.

Part of the wind farm debate has centered on the lack
of regulatory oversight, particularly at the federal
level.

Since Cape Wind's proposal was first aired, several
other developers have proposed wind farms of varying
sizes.

O'Leary, a Cape Wind skeptic, viewed the study
commission as a precursor to zoning of state waters.
He said it would not affect the Cape Wind proposal,
because it would be located in federal waters outside
of state jurisdiction.

"It's not about snob zoning," O'Leary said when his
bill was introduced on the Senate floor. "It's about
environmental protection, and it's about a very
complicated and difficult issue that has truly divided
my community, and I concede that. There are good
people on both sides, people who don't live along the
coastline, who don't have big 'McMansions,' who have
real deep concerns about the impact of that project on
the Cape."

Although passing 30 to 6, the legislation triggered an
intense debate on wind farms between O'Leary and
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow.

Lees accused O'Leary of trying to use the legislation
to delay the Cape Wind proposal in Nantucket Sound.

Lees branded it a "NIMBY" issue - Not in My Back Yard
- and accused wind farm opponents of being snobs. Lees
contrasted the wind farm controversy to the creation
of the Quabbin Reservoir.

In an aside, he implied that U.S. Sen. John Kerry had
hedged his position on the wind farm to rake in more
money from the Cape and islands.

"This is as NIMBY a thing as I have ever seen," Lees
said. "There are four communities in western
Massachusetts that are underwater today to provide
(drinking) water for Boston. But you're afraid that a
little view from a $5 million house may be impinged by
some wind farm way, way out. Give me a break.

"We need ways of finding efficient energy. We need
ways of finding clean energy."

State Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, also objected to
the bill, saying it duplicated Romney's ocean task
force.
- posted by Daniel @ 5:35 PM

 
Also from ENS, attempts are afoot to try to make environmental policy a boon to poor regions in: New Fund Uses Kyoto Protocol to Aid Poor Communities
- posted by Daniel @ 3:27 AM

 
From ENS, there is an effort underway to help clean up the Great Lakes...
- posted by Daniel @ 3:21 AM

 
Also from ENN, researchers in Illinois (Champaign_Urbana) are researching the effects of increased CO2 and ozone on crops on a large scale. Read more in: Researchers test climate change's impact on crops
- posted by Daniel @ 12:37 PM

 
From ENN, more on the British wind farm initiative, including opposition by conservatives who have been out-voted. (I wonder if they own stocks in Halli...naaaaw. Couldn't be.)
- posted by Daniel @ 12:32 PM

 
Also from ENS,

Healing Our World: Weekly Comment

By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.

Why Is Defending the Earth Considered Extremist?
- posted by Daniel @ 12:20 PM

 
From ENS, The British are introducing massive new off shore wind energy projects, enough to power 15% of British households when completed. Read all about it in:

Windy Britain Powers Up More Offshore Windfarms

LONDON, United Kingdom, July 14, 2003 (ENS) - Offshore windfarms with the potential to power one in every six UK households were given the green light for development today by Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) released proposals for the next generation of offshore windfarms to provide up to six gigawatts of new energy generation by 2010, enough to power 15 percent of all households in the United Kingdom.

Hewitt said, "This announcement is good for the environment, good for Britain's energy needs and good for jobs. The expansion will create around 20,000 new jobs in manufacturing, installing and maintaining the windfarms. ...Read More

- posted by Daniel @ 12:11 PM

 
From the Alternative Power digest Yahoo group:

Japan To Launch Major Field Tests For Home Fuel Cell
Systems
Tuesday July 15, 1:01 am ET

TOKYO -(Dow Jones)- A group of Japanese firms,
organizations and local governments will join forces
this year to carry out large-scale field tests of
home-use fuel cell systems, as Japan seeks to lead the
world in the lucrative next-generation energy market.

Japanese companies are shaping up as pioneers of the
new technology and hope to commercially launch in 2005
a stand-alone fuel cell co-generator that provides
power and hot water to the home. Fuel cells generate
electricity, without pollutants, via an
electrochemical reaction that uses oxygen and
hydrogen.

By using such co-generators, homeowners can cut their
power and gas costs, as well as cut carbon dioxide
emissions. The market for the cleaner fuel cell
systems - dubbed mini home power plants - is widely
expected to take off by 2010.

"We started field-testing from last October in 12
sites mainly in major metropolitan areas. This year we
will add 31 new sites throughout the country," an
official at the New Energy Foundation said Tuesday.

The government-backed foundation is leading the
subsidized project. The next round of testing will
commence around September, he said.

The number of companies providing fuel cell systems
will also increase to 11 from last year's six, he
said.

New entrants include Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy
Industries Co. (J.ISH or 7013), Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries Ltd. (J.MHI or 7011) and Hitachi Ltd. (HIT
or 6501). Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (MC or
6752), Sanyo Electric Co. (SANYY or 6764) and Toyota
Motor Corp. (TM or 7203) were among the original
providers.

Firms and organizations, which will cooperate by
installing the systems and conducting on-site testing,
include major power suppliers Tokyo Electric Power Co.
(J.TER or 9501) and Kansai Electric Power Co. (J.KEP
or 9503), oil refiners Japan Energy Corp. and Idemitsu
Kosan Co. , and the Japan Gas Association, an industry
body representing city gas suppliers.

Before the commercial launch of the systems, "we need
to accumulate field data under various working
environments, including cold regions," the official
said. Most of necessary field testing will probably be
completed in the annual project starting this year, he
added.

The fuel cell co-generators will use city gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha and kerosene to
extract hydrogen.

The domestic market for such co-generators is forecast
to grow to about Y290 billion in 2010 - Y180 billion
in the home-use market and Y110 billion in the
business-use market, Osamu Tajima, general manager at
Sanyo's fuel cell research department, told Dow Jones
Newswires in April.

Sanyo expects that by 2010 fuel cell co-generators
will replace about one third of Japan's annual
gas-powered water heater shipments of about 1.2
million units.

But to make that happen, Sanyo and other makers will
have to overcome a daunting task - reducing the price
of the state-of-the-art device to an affordable level.

"We don't expect users to start feeling they are
reaping benefits unless the unit price is lowered to
Y500,000 or so," Tajima said. His view seems to be an
industry consensus.

With that price, and based on current power and gas
rates, the combined cost of initial investments and
running costs for fuel cell systems will fall below
those for conventional full-automatic water heaters
about five years after installation, Sanyo estimates.

Five other system providers in the project are Ebara
Corp. (J.EBA or 6361), Kurita Water Industries Ltd.
(J.KUW or 6370), Nippon Oil Corp. (J.NPO or 5001),
Marubeni Corp. (J.MRB or 8002) and Toshiba
International Fuel Cells - a joint venture between
Toshiba Corp. (J.TOS or 6502) and International Fuel
Cells Llc. of the U.S., according to the New Energy
Foundation.
- posted by Daniel @ 11:51 AM