Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – The Pandering continues

I mean look, Oil Producers are just that and OIL is just a commodity. What we really need to do is to quit using the stuff for things like transportation, making plastics and heating homes. The last is just dumb. Every last fuel oil heated home should be outlawed. Their equipment yanked and recycled. What we need in this country is a rational energy policy that shifts us to solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy. 1/2 of this country’s population lives on or near a coast line and yet NO ONE is even mentioning tidal power. So this is what you say if you want to be elected President.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#oil

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

  • Increase Fuel Economy Standards. Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
  • Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
  • Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
  • Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Obama and Biden will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama and Biden will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
  • A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases. Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
  • Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

« Return to New Energy for America

I like the “use it or lose it” part. Especially since the International Energy Organization is going to force re-estimation of proven, know and simple reserves to reflect reality. But one could ask for so much more. How about declaring Hanford, WA a National Sacrifice Zone and immediately storing all low level radioactive material there? 

:}

:} 

John McCain’s Energy Policies – The “drill here, drill now” crowd looks pretty foolish right about now

Even Bill O’Reilly agrees with me:

www.billoreilly.com

The rapid rise in Oil Prices and the concurrent rise in gasoline prices was caused by speculators in the oil market, reductions in gas refinement, the drop in the dollar value because of speculators, and China stock piling diesel fuel for the Olympics. There is no way that it was remotely related to supply and demand. Demand fell as the price climbed. Even conservative estimates say that so far this year Americans have driven 50 billion miles fewer than just last year.

Even worse than that is the fact that the Congress conceded the point to an angry electorate and passed a bill expanding drilling. That inspite of the fact that there is no oil in ANWR or along most of the continental shelf, there will be no bids on the leases if they are ever put up for sale, and we don’t have any oil rigs to drill there anyway. Every last rigg in the WORLD is spoken for right now.

So given all of that why is John McCain still touting the policy below?:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit – 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

:}

Shouldn’t we be saying “anywhere but here, anytime but now”? Like New Orleanians say about hurricanes.
:}

Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – Why pander to the Public?

I find it a bit galling that Obama starts off his Energy Policy section with the section below. Yes everyone has been hurt by speculation enabled by Phil and Wendy Gramm who canceled the depression era Glass-Steagall Act. This brought us ENRON and then all the commodity speculation after the dollar shed it’s value like a winter coat on a summer day. But DEAL with that! Double the oil companies taxes if you must, but do it up front. Windfall Profit taxes never produce any money and it is sooooo Jimmy Carter.

If you wanted bold energy policy why not announce that you were going to ban the sale of gasoline by 2015? That would drop the price of gasoline into the toilet, divert oil to our real needs which is pharmacueticals and restructure our energy future in one clean break. If you wanted real productive energy policy, follow that with a ban on using oil and natural gas in plastics. That would leave most of the oil and coal where it belongs…IN the ground. Instead we get this:

 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#relief

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

  • Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
  • Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will close energy industry market loopholes and increase transparency to prevent traders from unfairly lining their pockets, while driving up oil prices at the expense of the American people.
  • Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices. With oil prices doubling in the past year, Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we have an economic emergency that requires a limited, responsible swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for heavy crude oil to help bring down prices at the pump.

« Return to New Energy for America

Barack Obama’s Climate Change Policies – He makes no distinction between Climate and Energy use

But John McCain does make such a distinction so in fairness, I did too.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas

Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

Learn More…
 

GET THE DETAILS:

Read the full version of The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan

The Obama-Biden environmental plan

The Obama-Biden plan to crack down on excessive energy speculation
 

Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – Please note that his Energy Policies and His Climate Policies are on one page

John McCain just does not get it. The Energy situation we are in and the Climate situation we are in are one and the same thing. For now let me say that in debate and in arguementation, when someone lists every possible answer they can think of, I think that they don’t know what they are talking about. That was John McCain’s approach. Obama’s policies are brief, pointed and focused.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

     

  • Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
  • Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  • Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  • Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  • Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Learn More…
 

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Learn More…
 

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Learn More…
 

:}
Please go to the site and look at the videos. They are very cool.
:}

John McCain’s Climate Change Policy – Please note there is no mention of Kyoto

Or for that matter any supporting evidence. Also note that he has 2 seperate policies, 1 for energy and 1 for climate change. Like the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Thus carbon is a problem twice. Also realize that cap and trade is an industry creation with the neoconservationists or collaboraters, thus suspect from the beginning.

Climate Change John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children.John McCain’s Principles for Climate Policy
  Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
  Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
  Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
  Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
  Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.


John McCain’s Cap and Trade Policy
John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.

The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase “offsets” – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.Innovating, Developing and Deploying TechnologiesTo Support The Cap And Trade System, John McCain Will Promote The Innovation, Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technologies. John McCain will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to support the cap and trade emissions reduction goals and emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Under John McCain’s plan:

Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Funds will also be used to provide financial backing for a Green Innovation Financing and Transfer (GIFT) to facilitate commercialization.John McCain Will Streamline The Process For Deploying New Technologies And Requiring More Accountability From Government Programs To Meet Commercialization Goals And Deadlines.John McCain Will Ensure Rapid Technology Introduction, Quickly Shifting Research From The Laboratory To The Marketplace.

John McCain Will Employ The Inherent Incentives Provided By A Cap-And-Trade System Along With Government-Led Competitions As Incentives For New Technology Deployment.

John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth

John McCain Believes An Effective And Sustainable Climate Policy Must Also Support Rapid Economic Growth. John McCain will use a portion of auction proceeds to reduce impacts on low-income American families. The McCain plan will accomplish this in part by incorporating measures to mitigate any economic cost of meeting emission targets, including:

Trading Emission Permits To Find The Lowest-Cost Source Of Emission Reductions.Permitting “Banking” And “Borrowing” Of Permits So That Emission Reductions May Be Accelerated Or Deferred To More Economically Efficient Periods.Permitting Unlimited Initial Offsets From Both Domestic And International Sources.

Effectively Integrating U.S. Trading With Other International Markets, Thereby Providing Access To Low-Cost Permit Sources.

Establishing A Strategic Carbon Reserve As A National Source Of Permits During Periods Of Economic Duress.

Early Allocation Of Some Emission Permits On Sound Principles. This will provide significant amount of allowances for auctioning to provide funding for transition assistance for consumers and industry. It will also directly allocate sufficient permits to enable the activities of a Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency that will oversee the cap and trade program, provide credit to entities for reductions made before 2012, and ease transition for industry with competitiveness concerns and fewer efficiency technology options.

A commission will also be convened to provide recommendations on the percentage of allowances to be provided for free and the percentage of allowances to be auctioned, and develop a schedule for transition from allocated to maximum auctioned allowances. Cap-and-trade system will also work to maximize the amount of allowances that are auctioned off by 2050. John McCain Will Provide Leadership for Effective International Efforts John McCain Believes That There Must Be A Global Solution To Global Climate Change. John McCain will engage the international community in a coordinated effort by:Actively Engaging To Lead United Nations Negotiations.Permitting America To Lead In Innovation, Capture The Market On Low-Carbon Energy Production, And Export To Developing Countries – Including Government Incentives And Partnerships For Sales Of Clean Tech To Developing Countries.Provide Incentives For Rapid Participation By India And China, While Negotiating An Agreement With Each.

John McCain Will Develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan John McCain Believes A Comprehensive Approach To Addressing Climate Change Includes Adaptation As Well As Mitigation. He believes: An Adaptation Plan Should Be Based Upon National And Regional Scientific Assessments Of The Impacts Of Climate Change.An Adaptation Plan Should Focus On Implementation At The Local Level Which Is Where Impacts Will Manifest Themselves.A Comprehensive Plan Will Address The Full Range Of Issues: Infrastructure, Ecosystems, Resource Planning, And Emergency Preparation.

 
On The Issues• The Economy
• Health Care
• National Security
• Education
• Iraq
• Climate Change
• Veterans
• Immigration
• Values
• Second Amendment
• Judicial Philosophy
• Ethics Reform
• Natural Heritage
• Space Program



John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service.Read More 



Learn More About John McCain’s Climate Change Plan. Read More

The Down Side To Wind – It’s not like passing gas

OK so it is Friday and I miss Weird Bird Friday.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080924-pf-wind-energy.html

5 Myths About Wind Energy

By Michael Schirber

Wind energy might be the simplest renewable energy to understand. Yet there are misconceptions about what makes the wind industry turn.

The United States now has nearly 17,000 megawatts of wind power installed, which can supply about 1.2 percent of the nation’s demand for electricity, according to a recent report from the Department of Energy (DOE).

With these numbers projected to grow in the coming years, it might be good to be aware of a few myths that are blowing in the wind.

1. Wind is cheap

No one owns the wind, so it might seem like wind energy should cost less than other technologies that require costly fuel, such as coal or natural gas, to operate.

However, the initial investment for wind energy is high.

2. America is way behind the rest of the world

Denmark gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. Germany has the most wind turbines of any country. China is set to nearly double its wind energy capacity in just one year.

3. Wind turbines are loud

Wind turbines used to be loud, but newer designs are less so.

4. Wind turbines kill birds

This one is actually true, but the problem is not as bad as some people claim.

The impression that all turbines are dangerous to birds comes from Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California. This was one of the first big wind farms, and unfortunately it was placed in a migratory bird pathway, Moriarty said.

5. Any house can own a windmill

Unless you have a good chunk of land around your house, it’s probably not a good idea to get a wind turbine. If it’s too close to buildings or trees, the wind will be turbulent and won’t produce the power that it’s supposed to.

:}

And if you think that isn’t enough Myths well hell:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

Wind Energy

Top Myths About Wind Energy

Many people make many claims about wind turbines and the effects that they allegedly have. We’ve collated our favourites and given the answers.

  1. Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside
    Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK’s electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore.
  2. Myth: Wind farms won’t help climate change
    Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by 60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170 million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually3.
  3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
    Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
  4. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
    Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5 . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.
  5. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
    Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK’s transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation’s workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
    Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation’s electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
  6. Myth: Installing wind farms will never shut down power stations
    Fact: The simple fact is that power plants in the UK are being shut down, either through European legislation on emissions or sheer old age. We need to act now to find replacement power sources: wind is an abundant resource, indigenous to the UK and therefore has a vital role to play in the new energy portfolio.
  7. Myth: Wind power is expensive
    Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8 are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
    Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs.
  8. Myth: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency instead of wind power
    Fact: Wind energy’s role in combating climate change is not a matter of either/or. The UK will need a mix of new and existing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures, and as quickly as possible. Significant amounts of investment have been allocated for wave and tidal energy development, and these technologies, along with solar and biomass energy, will have an important role in the UK’s future energy mix. However, wind energy is the most cost effective renewable energy technology available to generate clean electricity and help combat climate change right now. Furthermore, developing a strong wind industry will facilitate other renewable technologies which have not reached commercialisation yet, accumulating valuable experience in dealing with issues such as grid connection, supply chain and finance.
  9. Myth: Wind farms should all be put out at sea
    Fact: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK’s challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than development offshore. However, more offshore wind farms are now under construction, with the first of the large-scale projects operational at the end of 2003, and prices will fall as the industry gains more experience. Furthermore, offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as the sea is inherently a more hostile environment. To expect offshore to be the only form of wind generation allowed would therefore be to condemn us to missing our renewable energy targets and commitment to tackle climate change.
  10. Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
    Fact: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be your personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape10. On average 80% of the public support wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted since the early 1990’s across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
  11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
    Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this. The UK’s first commercial wind farm at Delabole received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, while 10,000 visitors a year come to take the turbine tour at the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk. A MORI poll in Scotland showed that 80% of tourists would be interested in visiting a wind farm. Wind farm developers are often asked to provide visitor centres, viewing platforms and rights of way to their sites.
  12. Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
    Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices. However, there is evidence following a comprehensive study by the Scottish Executive that those living nearest to wind farms are their strongest advocates12.
  13. Myth: Wind farms kill birds
    Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms and birds13, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms“. Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members follow the industry’s Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites. Moreover, a recent report published in the journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate change14.
  14. Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans
    Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world15, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects16, says: “I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines.”
  15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy
    Fact: The evolution of wind farm technology over the past decade has rendered mechanical noise from turbines almost undetectable with the main sound being the aerodynamic swoosh of the blades passing the tower. There are strict guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions to ensure the protection of residential amenity. These are contained in the scientifically informed ETSU Working Group guidelines 199617 and must be followed by wind farm developers, as referenced in national planning policy for renewables18. The best advice for any doubter is to go and hear for yourself!

:}

THERE ARE JUST SOOOO MANY MYTHS – STELLA STELLA ok so there really only is a lot of talk sigh…

 http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windpower/myths.php

Dispelling Common Myths

about Wind Power

Compiled by the Wind Working Group

Myth #1: Wind turbines are unusually harmful to birds.

Although birds do infrequently collide with turbines, wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Based on numerous studies that have taken place in  New York, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and California, collision with turbines result in 1-2 bird deaths or less per turbine per year. For comparison, each year at least 60 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; at least 98 million in collisions with buildings and windows; and at least 4 million in collisions with communication towers. Important consideration should be given to placement of wind turbines to ensure that turbines are not located along migratory bird flight paths or the flight paths of threatened or rare species.
Consider the alternatives; bird deaths that result from fossil energy based power production:

  • Tall smokestacks- A study at a single Florida coal fired power plant with four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 bird kills in a single night during a fall migration.
  • Oil spills at sea – In a single oil shipping accident, – the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound – more than 500,000 migratory birds perished, or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in California’s wind power plants.
  • Additional threats to birds from other energy sources include: mercury emissions from coal fired power plants; global climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels; acid rain resulting from coal fired power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx and; destruction of habitat as a result of mining activities associated with the coal, gas, oil and uranium industries.

Myth #2: Wind turbines are noisy.

Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.

Myth #3: Many wind turbines are necessary for minimal power generation.

Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

Myth #5: Conventional power sources are less unsightly and environmentally harmful than wind turbines.

Wind turbines cause little damage to the surrounding environments beyond the footprint of the facility and transmissions system and are much less unsightly than conventional power sources.

For comparison, consider the following:

  • Conventional power sources require acres and acres of land for unsightly power plants that spew pollutants from smokestacks. In addition to the electric generating facility itself, the plants also require on-site fuel storage facilities and access to cooling water, both of which require additional land.
  • Construction of hydropower dams floods riverside lands, permanently eliminating riparian and upland habitat.
  • Most generating facilities also produce solid waste by-products of combustion that can be toxic. Solid wastes from power plants are typically dumped into a landfill, another way in which a generating facility impacts land as it extends its environmental footprint beyond the boundaries of the power plant site.
  • Mountain top removal strip mining – the process of blasting off entire mountaintops in order to extract thin seams of coal – can strip up to 10 square miles and dump hundreds of millions of waste into as many as 12 valley fills that can be 1,000 feet wide and 1 mile long.
  • Conventional power sources rely on the combustion of fossil fuels which are largely responsible for the 78% decrease in visibility from natural levels that has occurred in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, summertime visibility averages only 16 miles, and on many days air pollution reduces the visibility range to less than 5 miles. In this case, one might prefer to see a few turbines on top of a mountain than not be able to see the mountains at all.

Myth #6: Wind power will destroy mountain vistas.

Placement of wind turbines should be restricted so as to not detract from places of important scenic beauty. Potential areas that should be excluded from turbine placement consideration are:

  • National Parks
  • State Parks
  • National Forest lands
  • View shed buffers along the Appalachian Trail
  • View shed buffer zones along the Blue Ridge Parkway
  • Spruce-Fir Forest lands ( one of the most unique and endangered ecosystems in the Appalachian region)

Wind turbines should be located where there are:

  • Existing communication towers
  • Existing transmission lines
  • Other forms of existing structures

Myth #7: Wind power will decrease property values in surrounding areas.

Views of wind turbines will not negatively impact property values. A recent study on the economic impacts of wind power states that, “based on a nation-wide survey conducted of tax assessors in other areas with wind power projects, we found no evidence supporting the claim that views of wind farms decrease property values.” Other studies, conducted in both the US and abroad, have made similar findings.

Myth #8: Wind Energy will negatively affect tourism.

Large turbines have been found more often to be a positive influence on tourism. The British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms in the UK are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit them. In Australia, the wind farms are highlighted as one of the attractions for visitors amongst other historical and scenic points of interest. A Scottish study found that nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland’s top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away. Yet another survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll, Scotland found that 91% of visitors said the presence of wind farms in the area made no difference to whether they would return.

Myth #9: North Carolinians don’t support wind power.

North Carolinians are in favor of developing wind power in our state. A recent study on public attitudes towards wind power in Western North Carolina found that Western North Carolinians are favorably disposed toward the development of a wind energy industry in the Appalachian Mountains. They want more of their future electricity derived from renewable sources and less from fossil fuels. The study also found that, by over 2 to 1, western North Carolinians do not believe that ridge top turbines should be prohibited. 3 out of 4 study participants feel that if a ridge top already has existing cell towers, they would not mind adding a wind turbine to the clutter. An even higher ratio believes a person should be allowed to erect a turbine on his/her own property for residential use.

References and Contact Info

This fact sheet was prepared by the North Carolina Wind Energy Working Group, February 2003. For more information contact: Amber Lynn Munger (828) 216 2362 or Michael Shore (828) 254 7359


1“Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
2 “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States.” National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Research Document, 2001. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf
3 “Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Wind Power Market Update, Feb 2003 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/wpa/wpa_update.pdf
5 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.
16 From powerscorecard.org: http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=7
7 “Blueprint for Breathing Easier; Southeast Strategy for Clean Air,” Environmental Defense, 2002. http://www.cleanenergy.org/air/breathingeasier.pdf
8 Grover, S. for EcoNorthwest, “Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County.” Portland, OR, 2002.
9 View this study at: http://www.bwea.com/pdf/mori_briefing.pdf
10 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.

:}:} 

US Department of Energy Releases New Energy Efficiency Codes – Big Whoop

harry guy haynes, ckd

harryh@bourildesign.com

:}
Harry sent this along. My response is the US should have been here 30 years ago. The Republicans are getting swept up by the history they resisted:

 http://www.energy.gov/

Challenging the Status CodeThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) attended the Final Action Hearings of the International Code Council® on September 17-23, 2008, at the Minneapolis Convention Center, Minneapolis, MN. Released before the hearings, the new Setting the Standard highlights this event in its series about DOE’s goal to reduce the energy consumption of International Energy Conservation Code® (IECC) compliant homes by 30%, relative to the 2006 IECC, by the year 2012.
The Final Action Hearings closed a three-year code development cycle that considered more energy efficiency improvements than any development cycle in the history of the IECC. See the Final Action Hearings results at http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/2007-08cycle/results-MN.html.
Raising the Standard of Energy Efficiency
In each edition of Setting the Standard, Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) staff provide an update about their work to increase the efficiency of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010 by 30% relative to Standard 90.1-2004. BECP’s forward motion toward the 30% goal is being supported by a strong partnership with ASHRAE. Recent articles focused on BECP’s achievements in lighting to support the 30% goal. This article highlights another major BECP activity to improve the Standard: whole-building simulation.

BECP is using the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) new, state-of-the-art, simulation tool, EnergyPlus, to develop Benchmark buildings. Benchmark buildings will be used to provide feedback to DOE and ASHRAE on how ASHRAE is progressing toward 30% improvement as well as to prepare DOE’s formal determination of energy savings for Standards 90.1-2007 and 90.1-2010.

 


Setting the Standard is published by the Building Energy Codes Program. Visit www.energycodes.gov for more information.

The Building Energy Codes Program would like to continue sending you information about energy codes and compliance tools, but if you would like your name removed from our contacts list, click unsubscribe. Please contact techsupport@becp.pnl.gov if you need immediate assistance; this mailbox is hosted by an automated system.

:}

You can read it there because I can’t copy it here:

http://www.energycodes.gov/news/sts/pdfs/standard_september08.pdf#page=3

:}

When you go to their actual website you would be hard pressed to find anything about the new codes however:

 http://www.eere.energy.gov/

September 17, 2008

Deputy Assistant Secretary Honored with Service to America Medal

Sept. 16, 2008 – Steven G. Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy in DOE’s Office of EERE, was honored with a Service to America Medal.

 

September 12, 2008

New Campaign Encourages Tweens to Make Smart Energy Choices

Sept. 12, 2008 – DOE and the Advertising Council announced the launch of a new series of public service advertisements designed to educate tweens about the importance of energy efficiency.

 

August 27, 2008

EERE Kicks Off Old Refrigerator Recycling Effort

A special exhibit at the National Building Museum features old refrigerators made into art for DOE’s ENERGY STAR® Recycle My Old Fridge Campaign.

DOE to Invest $35 Million in Concentrating Solar Power Projects

September 19, 2008

DOE Awards up to $7.3 Million to 14 Water Power Projects

September 18, 2008

DOE and Ad Council Launch Energy Efficiency Campaigns for Kids

September 12, 2008

  • Subscribe to EERE Newsletters
  • Information for Media 

:}

All the at way at the bottom is the “subscribe to the newsletter switch”. NOT the “read the newsletter switch” and their web pages collectively say nothing about the above newsletter at all. After 8 years of Bush and the science deniers, it is time to move on.

Oh and by the way, they are seeking 8 billion $$$ in loan gaurentees. Where is the irony in that.???

Fast Super Efficient Houses – Why is America so far behind?

This is at one time really cool, a really cool site and depressing if you live in the heart of the energy hog.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/09/12/sustainable-homes-from-easy-domes/

easydomes2.jpg

:} I can’t say enough about this publication. Its great! :}

 Echoing the structures of Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Domes, Danish Architect Kári Thomsen and Engineer Ole Vanggaard have created Easy Domes, a series of quick assembly, low-energy homes! Following the success of the first Easy Dome home built in 1992 for the Greenland Society on The Faroe Islands, a number of dome-shaped cottages were erected as tourist getaways. Since then, the buildings have been put into production and delivery of these fabulous prefab buildings was initiated early this summer!

The unique shape of the Easy Dome, called an icosahedron, is designed to optimize the amount of interior space inside each home. Made up of several hexagonal pieced together, the dome hosts a wealth of interior nooks and crannies, making it stand out from other prefab home designs.

The dome offers individuals the opportunity to build their own high quality homes, coming with pre-built wooden sections, ready to assemble on either a concrete or timber plinth. Once on site, the dome houses take only one day to raise and seal, and for domes less than 500 square feet, no crane is needed to complete construction. The load construction is extremely strong and built for extreme weather, including wind speeds of 200 mph with one meter of wet snow on the roof.

The completed two-floor homes come with living room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms and are constructed using only sustainable and recycled materials. The exterior is covered with non-toxic impregnated pinewood, and the roof is covered with grass. The construction is ventilated on the exterior and insulated with wood-wool or flax, with fiber gypsum to cover all installations and cables. The floor is made up of a plate of reinforced concrete with pressure-resistant insulation and vitrified gravel underneath. Laying on top of the concrete are insulation and floorboards. Furthermore, each home is installed with solar panels and a brick stove, both of which are thermostat-controlled and connected to a water tank. Other renewable energy systems are also available

With a minimum use of materials, the domes are sustainable, energy efficient, spacious and cost-efficient. There is also the potential to erect two or three domes together.

 :}

You can find much more at their site:

 http://www.easydomes.com/

easydomes1.jpg 

The Easy Domes concept sets up for advantages in a very quick and easy assembling and raising of the building and its finish. On a concrete or timber basic it takes one day to raise and seal the construction which is made of quality plywood and 3×4? to 3×6″ timber in pinewood.

All sections are premade and ready to assemble with bolts and nuts and the sealing of the edges with asphaltpaper or rubber. The climate shelter and finish out – and inside are also precutted plates / sections ready for mounting.

Floor, partition walls and windows and doors are offered as the house by this becomes ready for kitchen, bathroom, furniture, lamps and other installations done by the dome owner.

The Easy Domes products are certified and of high quality and precision made materials fullfilling  international building rules and standards.  Transport is easy in container  and no crane is needed to erect buildings untill the 50 sq.ft. domes.

As domes are geometrical structures optimized on loads and climate conditions – with a minimum use of materials –  advantages are reached in a sustainable, energy efficient and  spatial building on a very suitable cost level.

Houses That Heat Themselves – I had to stop with the surface transportation stuff – if we were smart we would all use horses

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3098:new-experimental-homes-will-heat-themselves&catid=919:housing&Itemid=233

New experimental homes will heat themselves      
Friday, 12 September 2008 10:20
“We’ve learnt the lessons of the 1970s,” construction officials insist. DENSITY, compactness and insulation are the current focus of architects and planners. New housing in Finland is being built more compactly than previously so that heating is more energy- and cost-efficient. Constructed in the right way, advocates maintain, compacter housing does not even require a heating system.This sort of design is being experimented north of Helsinki in Tikkurila, Vantaa, where semi-detached houses are being built without a separate heating system.

The house will draw its heat primarily from the people, household appliances and lamps it contains. Jorma Vuoritsalo realises that, for many people, it’s hard to believe that a house’s contents alone could provide adequate heat, but he remains convinced that he won’t need to freeze in his new home.

Quite the opposite, according to Pekka Haikonen, director of development at Paroc, a company specialising in building insulation. He argues that, when built correctly, self-heating homes are perfectly pleasant since the internal temperature is self-regulating and heat is naturally distributed evenly. Paroc, along with the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), is responsible for the design and execution of the Tikkurila development.

According to Paroc’s estimates, residents of the planned homes will face heating expenses of some 350 euros per year, whereas the annual bill incurred in heating the current average single-family house is closer to 1,200 euros. Even more strikingly, the energy consumed annually by one of the new experimental houses will be less than a sixth of that currently swallowed by a more conventional model.

An unpleasant flashback?

Compacter housing models are not an easy idea to market to Finns since they often provoke fears of poor air circulation and mould. Many have unpleasant memories of the houses built in response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, which were soon riddled with damp and mould-related damage.

But the lessons of the 1970s have been learnt, Helena Säteri reassures people. The director general of Finland’s environmental administration explains that the key is to ensure that air circulation in densely-built housing is both thorough and effective.

Pekka Rönkkö is also quick to calm fears of stuffy interiors. A product manager at Paroc, Rönkkö’s role as a technical expert on the Vantaa project has left him confident that every room in the new houses will contain fresh, well-circulated air.

Circulation won’t come in the form of an unpleasant draught, however, since air coming into the building will first be heated. Normally, this process will not require any power, since it will utilise the heat already inside the house.

When required, though, air entering the house can also be heated electrically. This may be necessary during winter following a period when the house has been empty and the internal temperature has fallen, when the family has returned from a winter holiday, for example.

Improving older buildings

Older houses are not easily modified in order to make them dense enough to go without a separate heating system, but they can certainly be made more energy-efficient, Rönkkö says. The key is to insulate them properly.

In particular, he encourages people to concentrate on insulating the building’s foundations, calling it a small but lucrative investment which fundamentally improves a house’s energy-efficiency and dramatically reduces annual electricity expenses.

Double glazing for the windows is slower to pay for itself long-term, he concedes, but remains a worth-while investment. Moreover, better-insulated windows reduce unwanted draught, which makes a house a much more pleasant place to live in.

Rönkkö also has a message for the housing cooperatives of apartment buildings: when renovating the building’s facade, it makes sense to improve insulation at the same time.

:}

:}