Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil

By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

 
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

Nuclear Power – Mom all my friends are doing it, why can’t I

All my friends have nukes and they are building more. How come I can’t have one? Huh mom, Huh?

Lats see:

They are expensive,

They are dangerous,

They generate waste that is toxic for 1,000’s of years,

It is an inappropriate use of technology,

They are not sustainable,

And I said no!

But Moooom Everyone’s doing it?

I said NO!

Now go outside and PLAY!

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

Réseau “SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE “

Network phasing out the nuclear age

 

An alliance of 821 French organisations

Download our presentation document

If you are a group, please join us!

GATHERING TOGETHER TO CREATE A NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE

The Network ‘SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE’ is currently the main French antinuclear coalition, with a membership of 821 organizations and 18986 individual subscribers.
It is completely independent, entirely funded by donations and the subscriptions from its members.

Since 1997, 821 organizations have joined our Network “Sortir du nucléaire”.

Our mission is to unite everyone concerned with phasing out nuclear power.

Only  by combining our efforts can we build up enough strength to achieve concrete results.

Our goal is to convince France to phase out nuclear power generation by  :

  •  rethinking its energy policy
  •  improving the efficiency of electricity use
  •  developing alternative and sustainable generation scenarios.

The Network SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE :

  • supports actions for phasing out nuclear power, whether local, national or international,
  • launches petition and information campaigns,
  • is a resource center for nuclear power and sustainable alternatives : information, documents, access to experts and lecturers,
  • informs the public about the dangers of nuclear power and solutions for phasing it out thanks to its website, its quarterly magazine Sortir du Nucléaire and the publication of thematic documents aimed at the general public,
  • has a PR policy and close contact with the media for nuclear-related issues,
  • aims to inform elected representatives, local decision-makers, trade-unions, associations about all nuclear related issues.

Why phase out nuclear power ?

  • A nuclear accident provokes countless victims and leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. Is such risk morally permissible ?
  • There exists no possibility of rendering nuclear waste harmless. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years and more.
  • The real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, endless management of nuclear waste …
    Part of the radioactive material produced in nuclear reactors has the potential and is used for hostile military use and for atomic bombs.
  • It may be that nuclear power contributes only small amount of greenhouse gases, but its waste contaminates the earth for millions of years. There is no choosing the lesser of two evils. The goal of a responsible, sustainable energy policy should be : no to nuclear, no to greenhouse gases.
  • The large component of nuclear energy in French power generation is an exception : we are the only country in the world to make such a confident bet on nuclear power. Neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium have already chosen to phase out nuclear power. Therefore it is also possible to do so in France.

How can we phase out nuclear

power ?

 :}The Answer to that is very carefully

Then there are all these folks:

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/frames7.htm

British Columbia shuts door on uranium projects

25 APR’08, VANCOUVER–British Columbia has slapped an official moratorium on uranium exploration and development in the province, reinforcing a long-standing informal ban on the nuclear fuel and dashing the hopes of companies that hoped to take advantage of soaring prices for the commodity. The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province (more from The Globe and Mail)

Navajo Challenge Uranium Mining Permit on Tribal Lands

SANTA FE, New Mexico, April 19, 2008 (ENS)–For the first time in history, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, will be challenged in federal appeals court for its approval of a source materials license for an in situ leach uranium mine. The Navajo communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico will fight the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the permitted company, Hydro Resources, Inc., demanding that they stay off Navajo lands in New Mexico… The communities’ case is being presented with the assistance of the community group Eastern Navajo Dine against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, and [2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award recipient] Southwest Research and Information Center (more from Environment News Service)

Inuit halt Aurora in Labrador

9 APR.’08, TORONTO–Aurora Energy Resources Inc.’s hopes of extracting uranium in Labrador were dealt a crippling blow after Inuit in the region imposed a three- year moratorium on uranium mining. The Nunatsiavut government voted 8-7 in favour of the ban which will prevent Aurora or any other mining firm from producing the radioactive metal until at least 2011. Shares of Vancouver-based Aurora plunged almost 34 per cent in response to the vote results, which became effective immediately (more from Andy Hoffman in the Globe and Mail)

:}

:}

Juche – a simple name for a nasty idea. Kim Il Sungism

Jodie Foster, Pregnant Man, Iran, Prince Philip, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, American Idol, Obama, China, Beyonce, Rolling Stones. (sorry for the deception but please read below)

Normally I wouldn’t bother to cover this but since it’s on the list I felt I needed to “dis” it as much as I could. I even took the time to get Buzzes top searches for the week to punch it up a bit. I even checked every category Energy Tough Love has to publicize this human indignity. The list of “Religions” that I used to start this meditation on the relationship between Religion and the Environment placed Juche well down on the list but with 18 million adherents that still alot of folks. I had never heard of it before and I even asked a couple of people if they had heard of it. Imagine my suprise when I typed it into a search engine and up popped this Prick who claimed he was god:

www.dictatorofthemonth.com

kim.jpg

During his lifetime he forced millions of people in North Korea to worship him. Can you imagine anything more degrading or disgusting then a man who points a loaded gun at your head and demands that you treat him like a god. You must pray to him. Oh most Divine Leader. Makes me want to puke. But then he is followed by this buffoon:

www.beconfused.com

jong.jpg

Now they are “worshiping” something no better than a trained monkey. If they had an ENVIRONMENTAL group in North Korea, I wish them the best of luck but I ain’t gonna publish it. I ain’t even gona type it into a search engine. If anybody ever deserved to get a nuke shoved up his poop shoot. This would be it.

Some Of My Favorite Energy Blogs Are Going Silent

Where the Rubber meets the Road
>

What Some of My Favorite Blogs are Thinking Today

 thefraserdomain.typepad.com/ 

The Energy Blog


The following are the posts that define The Energy Revolution. They describe the causes and solutions as I envision them. I hope that you will find them useful in providing a background for your journeys in exploring The Energy Revolution.

Consumer technology

March 18, 2008

FYI: GE Demonstrates World’s First ”Roll-to-Roll” Manufactured Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs


Press release – GE Global Research and GE Consumer & Industrial in conjunction with ECD announced the successful demonstration of the world’s first roll-to-roll manufactured organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lighting devices. This demonstration is a key step toward making OLEDs and other high performance organic electronics products at dramatically lower costs than what is possible today.  . . .OLEDs have the potential to deliver dramatically improved levels of efficiency and environmental performance when compared to traditional products.

GE researchers provided the organic electronics technology and were responsible for developing the roll-to-roll processes, while ECD provided its unique roll-to-roll equipment-building expertise to build the machine that manufactures the OLED devices.

When commercialized this technology will make possible low cost high, efficieny lighting. Lighting currently comsumes about 22% of the total electricity generated in the U.S. and about 25% of the average homes electric bill.

Thanks to Tyler at Clean Break for the tip.

Sadly one of  the only true commenters on CES’ blog has not up date his blog since August. So disappointing to see a commenter to go quiet.

alt-e.blogspot.com 

Then there is the ever present and all encompassing:

www.energyblogs.com 

1-20 of 348 items listed     

Most Commented and Most Viewed 03/21/2008 at 05:03 PM   |   Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio – Electricity Without Price Controls Blog   This is a take of a snapshot of today’s EnergyBlogs stat. Most Commented (7 EWPC articles) Response to Professor Banks (46) I… 


Missing From Gridwise 03/21/2008 at 04:30 PM   |   Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio – Electricity Without Price Controls Blog Missing from the GridWise approach is the need to restructure as soon as possible the power industry to eliminate the barriers imposed by “the … 


MON DIEU – FRENCH HYPOCRISY 03/21/2008 at 06:48 AM   |   Martin Rosenberg – From the Editor’s Desk Blog With the world shrinking and all, I have made it a policy of keeping an eye on what goes on in Europe. Some of if is fascinating. New technologies are… 

Again sadness, another one has not been updated since December 2007, but I missed it so here it is:

www.energyplanet.info/blog 

Central Florida Homebuilder Goes Solar

Sebring Builders, a privately owned Builder/Developer is hoping to become a trendsetter. In 2006, Sebring Builders started planning to build Stone Ridge, a private, gated community in the small central Florida town of Sebring. With single family homes starting just under $200,000, they thought this development had everything to offer, great location, clubhouse with many amenities, maintenance fee that included lawn care, wireless internet and cable TV, etc. Then, in early 2007, Florida Solar Innovators contacted owners, Rick Bennett and Randy Bean, about using one of the model homes in Stone Ridge to install a Photovoltaic System and possibly offering this as an option to home buyers. Read more…

December 12th, 2007

Last one for today:

curtrosengren.typepad.com/alternative_energy

Support from an unlikely source. This place hasn’t been up dated since February. Maybe I need to get some new best friends.

T. Boone Pickens voices alternative energy support

In another indication of the momentum building behind alternative energy development, T. Boone Pickens, a man who made his billions in the oil biz, recently voiced his support for alternative energy.

…Pickens, who heads the $4 billion BP Capital Management hedge fund, also voiced some support for alternative energy development, saying a half-trillion dollars a year is leaving the United States economy to buy oil.

Pickens said solar power technology is “almost there,” and there could be “corridors” of wind power developed from Texas through the Great Plains and west to California.

The Peak Oil People Are Unsure – Is this their halcyon dream or their worst nightmare?

The cost of oil is hovering around $110 per barrel and Gold is at $1000 a troy ounce.

http://www.peakoil.com/

http://www.theoildrum.com/

And this is the AP’s take on it:

http://www.ap.org/

OPEC blames U.S. for

 fueling record oil prices


 

By WILLIAM J. KOLE

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

VIENNA, Austria — OPEC on Wednesday accused the U.S. of economic “mismanagement”

that it said is pushing oil prices

to record highs and rebuffed calls to boost output, laying the blame on the Bush administration.

Oil prices surged after the OPEC announcement and the re­lease of a U.S. government report

showing a surprise

drop in crude oil stockpiles. Light, sweet crude for April delivery jumped $5 to

settle at a record $104.52 per bar­rel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The 13-nation Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said it would maintain current

production levels because crude supplies are plentiful and demand is expected to weaken

during the second quarter.

OPEC President Chakib Khelil said the global market is being af­fected by what he called

“the mis­management

of the U.S. econo­my,” and that America’s problems were a key factor in the cartel’s

decision to hold off on any action.

“If the prices are high, definite­ly they are not due to a lack of crude. They are due to

what’s happening

in the U.S.,” Khelil said. “There is sufficient supply. There’s plenty of oil there.”

Khelil’s comments came one day after President Bush lashed out at the organization,

warning Tuesday:

“I think it’s a mistake to have your biggest customers’ economies slowing down as a

re­sult of higher energy prices.”

White House spokesman Dana Perino said Wednesday that Bush

was “disappointed” OPEC didn’t do more to rein in prices, which some say are pushing

the U.S. economy into recession.

Analyst John Hall, of John Hall Associates in London, said OPEC probably should have

added oil to the market as Bush had asked.

“But in this time of intense geopolitical tension, it would be difficult for Saudi (Arabia) or

any other producer to

acquiesce sim­ply because President Bush had asked them to,” he said. “In the short

term, any true respite for the

 consumer is still out of reach.”

The Net result is without dispute, Gasoline Prices Skyrocketed:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-04-19-world-gas_N.htm

Gas prices on April 17 or 18 2007. Data for EU countries were provided by the AA Motoring Trust. Prices are listed in U.S. dollars
United Kingdom

$8.37

Netherlands

$7.52

Norway

$7.33

Belgium

$6.95

Denmark

$6.95

Germany

$6.72

Portugal

$6.65

Finland

$6.57

France

$6.50

Sweden

$6.50

Hungary

$5.63

Poland

$5.63

Slovakia

$5.59

Austria

$5.40

Ireland

$5.40

Slovenia

$5.36

Switzerland

$5.17

Spain

$5.14

Czech Republic

$5.10

Greece

$4.91

Italy

$4.80

Lithuania

$4.72

Latvia

$4.61

Estonia

$4.30

Luxembourg

$4.27

Japan

$4.16

United States

$2.88

Kazakhstan

$2.75

Russia

$2.68

Mexico

$2.38

China

$2.19

Nigeria

$1.92

Saudi Arabia

$0.45

Venezuela

$0.19

Joel Lou from the EPA cites these prices for Europe as of March, 2008

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html

(U.S. Dollars per Gallon)

Date Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands UK US
3/10/2008 8.37 7.95 8.24 8.07 8.91 8.10 3.44

Did the Saudi’s really blame our Mortgage Fraud Scandal and Economic Collapse for the high price of Oil? No matter what, however, our shattered Economy and resulting dollar devaluation will do nothing but drive up the price of oil further. 

>

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Bad Idea – What are we to do when our protectors betray us

Where I come from most Environmentalists and Energy Advocates would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit against any Toxic Deep Well Injection Site proposed in their area. Yet in an amazing sellout the organizations that could stop this are ADVOCATING For It. This is a sad and tragic turn of events.

This from Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center had this to say:

http://www.elpc.org/news/statementfuturegensiteannouncement.php

elpc_logo_protecting.gif

ELPC > Newsroom

Statement of Howard A. Learner on

 FutureGen Site Announcement

Contact: Shannon Rooney(312) 795-3720
Srooney@elpc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 18, 2007

 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD A. LEARNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER
FUTUREGEN SITE ANNOUNCEMENT

CHICAGO, IL – Illinois scored a major victory with today’s announcement that Mattoon, Illinois has been selected as the first site for the experimental FutureGen “clean coal” plant. It is designed to test an innovative carbon capture and sequestration approach to burn coal without emitting carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere.

“Illinois is now positioned to be an advanced clean energy technology leader. The proposed FutureGen technology, if it works, is the Holy Grail enabling the economic boost from using Illinois coal while avoiding global warming pollution that harms our environment,” said Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “We look forward to continuing to work as a member of the FutureGen coalition to help this project succeed.”

The FutureGen plant is expected to begin operation in the fall of 2012.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) is the Midwest’s leading environmental, legal advocacy and eco-innovation organization. For more information go to www.elpc.org.

                                                                            ###

And then there’s this Letter To the Editor from Dave Kolata, Executive Director of the Citizens Utility Board, published in Springfield’s State Journal-Register.  It’s bad enough that he publishes this in the Illinois State Capital, but their web site claims he published something similar, in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, though their web site refused to give up the actual text.

 www.citizensutilityboard.org

February 28, 2008

State needs to get on with clean coal plans

We applaud your editorial supporting the Taylorville Energy Center (“A clean coal plant may yet be built in state,” Feb. 7). We agree wholeheartedly that despite the disappointing loss of FutureGen, Illinois still has a chance to show leadership on clean coal.

Using cutting-edge technology that gasifies coal to remove pollutants, the privately financed Taylorville project would be the cleanest coal plant in the world, dramatically reducing the exposure to harmful environmental triggers of asthma and lung cancer. At the same time, this $2.5 billion facility would create thousands of jobs, provide Illinois with a needed source of power, and reduce consumers’ energy costs by using coal instead of expensive natural gas to produce energy.

Indeed, the Taylorville plant could provide a badly needed boost to the state’s coal industry. Illinois is home to the second largest coal reserves in the nation, but with FutureGen off the table and our state having recently suffered the shutdown of the Crown II and Monterey mines, the Illinois coal industry needs a shot in the arm that only Taylorville can provide.

As your editorial points out, last year legislation that would have allowed the project to proceed got caught bogged down in Springfield and no final action was taken. Unlike FutureGen, the Taylorville plant is 100 percent within our state’s control. We urge the Illinois General Assembly to act quickly to secure our state’s energy future while doing right by consumers, the economy and the environment.

Phil Gonet President  Illinois Coal Association

David Kolata Executive Director Citizens Utility Board

Michael Carrigan President, AFL-CIO

Angela Tin  Director Environmental Programs American Lung Associationof Illinois


I mean really, you want to threaten downstate aquifers so the air can stay clean?  Where is the outrage here. And what is Angela Tin thinking? That us downstaters will trade Lung Cancer for Stomach Cancer when we drink polluted water? This is crazy, but even the Sierra Club gets into the act
 >.http://illinois.sierraclub.org/ >

December 18, 2007 Sierra Club Statement on FutureGen Siting
No New Coal Plants Until Technology Proven

Statement of Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, in response to today’s announcement that Mattoon in East Central Illinois was picked as the site for the $1.8 billion FutureGen project — an experimental coal plant that would capture and store its carbon.

“If coal is to remain a part of our energy future, it must be mined responsibly, burned cleanly and not contribute to global warming. FutureGen will allow the coal industry to determine whether or not it is technologically and financially feasible to continue to burn coal without accelerating global warming

“It will still be years before we see if the highly experimental FutureGen project is successful in capturing and safely storing its carbon emissions–until then it is critical that no additional coal plants are permitted and constructed in the United States. We need to continue to invest in the demonstrated clean energy alternatives that are available today and don’t contribute to global warming, like wind power and energy efficiency.  

“We can expand our energy choices beyond the limited, unhealthy options of the past. We should be offering incentives for alternatives to coal that can meet our energy needs and save us money while boosting the economy, improving public health and combating global warming. Illinois and many other states are already reaping the benefits of transitioning to cleaner energy. While we continue to look for cleaner ways to use existing energy sources, we should also be investing and supporting alternative, renewable sources of energy and increasing efficiency.”

 ###

  

>This is heinous. There is no other word for State based groups selling out their own.
>

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Really Bad Idea – Deep Well Injection (DWI) is not good in Illinois

First a slight mea culpa. A gentleman from an Advance Gasification Publication emailed me and took me to task for being a “know nothing” blogger. Is that great or what! He pointed out that my description of Gasification was flawed. On each Blog I put up all kinds of site addresses like Wikipedia and others so that people can “click and read” about any subject I Blog about if they wanted to. I do not view myself as a babysitter. Google being what it is (or any other search engine for that matter) I don’t even really have to put up the links. A reader can just type in the subject and get a list sources for their own selves. I do it to make it easy for people to READ about what I am writing about and to show the sources I am using.

If you go to the site below you can see the gentleman in all his indignant fury:

http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/

For the record the hydrogen to run the plant come from electrolysis like catalytic effect from steam heated in part by the coal. Also for the record this is a dumb way to generate electricity, almost as dumb using coal to make steam. Solar is more direct and more efficient than this crap ever could be. Also for the record, I try to write for the normal Joes and Jackies in the world. The only thing they care about is that the “lights come on when they flip the switch” and the health of their children. It’s the health and welfare of their children and their grand children where this whole project falls apart.

Back to DWI. Illinois is a real bad place to put a Commercial Toxic Waste Deep Well Injection Site and that is what Tenaska is trying to do. The Energy Portion of the Project is In One Sense is a smokescreen. If they get their financial way and get around regulation of the site By the ICC By declaring it an Independent Power producer AND pass Legislation Mandating the Purchase of the Power by Illinois Utilities then they could make a fortune. More on that later. Trust me much more. But lets say, for the moment that RATE BASING a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant ain’t happening and that a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant will be “Too Expensive To Meter” What’s the game here?

There are only 5 Commercial Toxic Waste DWI’s in the nation:

http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfdeepwells.php

 deepwells.bmp

 

As you can see they all sit atop spent or partially spent rock trapped oil fields. Though there is no evidence that these sites are fool proof they at least have the intellectual possibility of succeeding. Most of the other Non-Commercial Toxic Waste DWI sites that are usually operated to get rid of human waste and wastewater have proved troublesome at best.

http://www.stopthetoxicwells.com/

http://eelink.net/EJ/well.html

 

Their failure rate for something that was supposed, “to solve the waste problems” in the US have not worked out so well.

When you look at Illinois, which has 3 major rivers the Mississippi, the Wabash and the Illinois, and a soft coal-filled  Center:

 

herrin_coal_map.jpg

 

then putting a Commercial Toxic DWI right in its center seems unjustified. But think about this for a moment once it is open who else might dump their Toxic stuff there as well? It is widely rumored in the Environmental and Energy communties that the only reason that Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin signed as a “supporting Governor” is that he believes he could ship some of his States sequestered carbon here. This is what a proper sequestration system in North Dakota looks like:

m-24_weyburn-co2.jpg

www.netl.doe.gov/…/core_rd/mmv/41149.html

 

Build a PIPELINE to the nearest  stone encased oilfield. Hint: It’s not in Illinois.

 

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – At least as formulated now

As I have said many times, collaboration between Environmentalists and Industry is never a good idea because the Environmentalists have to sacrifice some of their integrity to participate. We have no time for that now. Every little bit of the Earth that is unsullied is now sacred.

www.futuregenalliance.org

www.futuregenforillinois.com

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen


How can a project that has 2 of its own web sites and a Wikipedia listing be so wrong? Well let’s see COST?

Officials vow to

 not give up on

FutureGen

Durbin blames politics for decision to scrap plant

By DAVID MERCERTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHAMPAIGN — Officials promised Wednes­day to fight the Department of Energy’s decision to scrap a futuristic, low-pollution power plant planned for central Illinois, but the leader of the state’s congressional delegation seemed resigned to its end.Sen. Dick Durbin said he hopes to fund the $1.8 billion FutureGen power plant through ear­marks in the federal budget, but wasn’t opti­mistic it would work.“If the administration doesn’t support it, we’ve seen that this president is willing to use his veto pen over and over again,” Durbin said. “Without the support of the administration, it’s an uphill struggle.”Durbin spoke not long after Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said publicly what he’d told members of Illinois’ congressional delegation and Illinois economic development officials in a private meeting Tuesday.Rather than spend money on FutureGen, which was to have been built by a consortium of coal and power companies in Mattoon using mainly federal funds, the DOE plans to put its fi­nances into a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.“This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” Bodman, an Illinois native, said in making the announcement to scuttle the program.The department will now solicit industry ap­plications for participation in the new projects. The idea is for the government to pay for build­ing the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the lead­ing greenhouse gas linked to global warming, of­ficials said.The coal and power companies planning to build the plant, known as the FutureGen Al­liance, issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.FutureGen was envisioned as a unique re­search project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth.


>
>

For a listing of the last ten AP postings on FutureGen go here.

Click on the Length of Search box and pick Archive, the type in FutureGen in the submit Box and click submit.

The Project escalated in cost from 750,000 million $$$ to 1.8 billion $$$ in a little less than 5 years. That is more than enough to build a “new generation” nuke on the same site. But think about this. What would it actually cost. We all know that typical Utility Construction Projects come in with at least 20% cost over runs and sometime as high as 40% is acceptable. Which means that the real cost would likely hover at just under 3 billion $$$. Can anyone say Too Cheap To Meter???

Pete Seeger Says It All – We just got one place to live

 We just keep screwing it up. Stop lighting things on fire. Stop burning things up. We don’t need to do that anymore.

http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/

Please see this new publication – as the heat turns up. 

As The Tropics Move North



In Illinois we have a new phenomonon – Lightening and Snow Storms…Pretty creepy.

Study: Winters in Northeast are warming



By MICHAEL HILL

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS___________

ALBANY, N.Y.               Earlier

blooms. Less snow to shovel. Un­seasonable warm spells.

Signs that winters in the North­east are losing their bite have been abundant in recent years and now researchers have nailed down numbers to show just how big the changes have been.

A study of weather station data from across the Northeast from 1965 through 2005 found Decem­ber to March temperatures in­creased by 2.5 degrees. Snowfall totals dropped by an average of 8.8 inches across the region over the same period, and the number of days with at least 1 inch of snow on the ground decreased by nine days on average.

‘Winter is warming greater than any other season,” said Elizabeth Burakowski, who analyzed data from dozens of stations for her master’s thesis in collaboration with Cameron Wake, a professor at the University of New Hampshire’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space.

Burakowski,   who   graduated


from UNH in December, found that the biggest snowfall decreases were in December and February. Stations in New England showed the strongest decreases in winter snowfall, about 3 inches a decade.

There were wide disparities in snowfall over the eight-state re­gion, with average totals ranging from 13.5 inches at Cape May, N.J., to 137.6 inches at Oswego, N.Y. Some stations on the Great Lakes, where lake-effect storms are com­mon, showed an increase.

The reduction in days with at least an inch of snow on the ground was the most pronounced at sta­tions between 42 and 44 degrees latitude — a band that includes most of Massachusetts, a thick slice of upstate’New York and southern sections of Vermont and New Hampshire.

Burakowski cites two likely caus­es for the reduction in so-called snow-covered days: higher maxi­mum temperatures and “snow-albedo feedback,” in which less snow cover to begin with allows more sunshine warmth to be ab­sorbed by the darker ground, mak­ing it less conducive to snow cover.

The research has yet to appear in


a peer-reviewed journal, though meteorologists who have studied long-term climate trends said the observations appear to be in line with other research.

Richard Heim of the National Climatic Data Center looked at trends in snowfall totals nationwide from 1948 to 2006 and found that patterns varied regionally and sea­sonally. For the Northeast in win­ter, he found totals mostly decreas­ing along coastal areas, with an in­creasing trend along the Great Lakes. Art DeGaetano, of the Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University, said regions around New York state have recorded negative trends in snow­fall since 1970.

DeGaetano cautioned that snow­fall totals can vary a lot from year to year. Last month, for example, snow totals were well above aver­age for December across much of the Northeast.


Ski center operators also have noticed an incremental increase in temperatures over the decades, said Parker Riehle, president of the trade association Ski Vermont, but he echoed DeGaetano’s point that snow totals have gone up and down.

‘We’ve seen some erratic winters in recent years,” Riehle said. “The mood swings of Mother Nature, perhaps, are deeper than they used to be.”

But while ski slopes can fire up snow-making guns to compensate for lack of flurries, snowmobilers and cross-country skiers have com­plained about later starts and fewer trails covered with snow.

Cross-country skiers never even get in the right frame of mind dur­ing some winters, said Mark Boos-ka of the Hudson Valley Ski Club.

“They look out their window and they’re not thinking skiing,” he said.