Farm Groups Wary of New Climate Change Bill
05/12/2010
by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today
Senators John Kerry (D, Massachusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I, Connecticut) unveiled climate-change legislation on Wednesday, although the bill‘s chances of success are uncertain. The bill would focus on addressing the largest carbon-emitting sectors of the economy: heavy industry, power plants, and transportation infrastructure. It would target a 17% reduction in U.S. carbon pollution by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. It would contain a cap-and-trade system that would levy a tax against the largest emitters. Initially, the rate would be set at $12 a ton, increasing at 3% above inflation annually thereafter. An initial ceiling of $25 per ton would also be included.
The new legislation got a stamp of approval from the National Farmers Union, who supported the House version of cap-and- trade, “NFU has long supported legislation that provides an opportunity for agriculture to play a positive role in addressing our climate and energy needs. The discussion draft announced today continues along that path,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. The National Corn Growers Association took a more cautious approach. “The National Corn Growers Association is reviewing the discussion draft of the American Power Act released today by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. We have provided input to the Senate over the past several months on provisions pertaining to the agriculture industry, and we will continue to offer feedback after we have a chance to review the text of this important piece of legislation,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen.
Tamara Thies, Chief Environmental Council for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, says agriculture needs to beware of all efforts to regulate climate change, “All this regulation and expense is based on an alarmist environmental agenda and not on sound science.” She says, regardless of the specifics of the legislation, the science behind climate change is flawed, “The American people deserve better than decisions from this administration that are not based on science or truth, but rather are based on a radical, anti-business, anti-agriculture, alarmist agenda that lacks a credible scientific foundation.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation also expressed concerns about efforts to regulate climate change. AFBF President Bob Stallman released a statement that said, “As with other climate change bills, we have concerns about the economic impact on farmers and ranchers because of potentially higher fertilizer and energy costs. We do not want to see farmers driven out of business due to additional regulation and the potential for higher input costs. Agriculture also could be forced to shrink due to land moving out of production into trees to sequester carbon. We also believe it is imperative that any energy legislation must assure a greater supply of nuclear energy, renewable fuels, and natural gas for American consumers. Further, we note the absence of renewable electricity standards in the bill and will work toward their inclusion in the future.”
The Obama administration wants action on climate change, but other issues like immigration plus election year politics make many lawmakers uneasy about tacking such a controversial issue. In a prepared statement the President said, “This legislation will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create American jobs building the solar panels, wind blades, and the car batteries of the future. It will strengthen our national security by beginning to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.”
With most Republicans and many Democrats opposing climate change legislation, the White House may turn to the EPA to implement a cap-and-trade system. Thies says that would not be good for agriculture, “That would give the EPA authority to tell farmers they would have to get expensive permits in order to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.” She added many producers would be forced to shut down food production. Link
Everyone is still sifting through the legislation trying to determine what it will do, but one thing is for certain, it will increase the cost of energy every year. Over half of the electricity used in this country comes from coal. The cost of that will increase every year until they are forced out of business and the millions of miners and other workers in that industry will be out of job. Along with that, it will make electricity less affordable for working families in this country. Unless you use a sail to propel your vehicle, the cost of driving will go up as well, even if you have an electric car. I don’t disagree that we need to be finding newer sources of energy but it is reckless to get rid of our most reliable and affordable sources when we have nothing to replace them with.
Showing posts with label electricity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electricity. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Making Electricity From Manure
Project in southwest Kansas will turn cattle manure into electricity by early next year
By Associated Press
8:53 AM CST, December 9, 2009
ANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — The cattle manure in a feedlot in southwest Kansas may soon be providing electricity to nearby homes.
Gene Pflughoft is the economic development director for Grant County. He says that early next year, equipment at a cattle feedlot will begin turning manure into fuel that could make electricity for 30 homes.
If the project is successful, larger units could be placed at other feedlots to start making use of the ample supply of cattle manure in Kansas.
A Bipartisan Policy Conference in Washington recently issued a study that said 50,000 cows could provide enough dung to power 24,000 homes.
The report said Kansas, which has two cows for every human, could use more cattle manure by mixing it with coal. Link
Too many times I see people refer to manure as a waste product. Some even refer to it as toxic waste. If you hear those things, you can feel free to assume that whoever said it doesn’t know anything about the subject. It’s not a waste product, it’s a valuable nutrient. It can be used for organic fertilizer, thus reducing the need for fossil fuel based fertilizers. And, it can also be used to generate energy. Manure gets a bad rap when in fact we couldn’t do well without it.
By Associated Press
8:53 AM CST, December 9, 2009
ANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — The cattle manure in a feedlot in southwest Kansas may soon be providing electricity to nearby homes.
Gene Pflughoft is the economic development director for Grant County. He says that early next year, equipment at a cattle feedlot will begin turning manure into fuel that could make electricity for 30 homes.
If the project is successful, larger units could be placed at other feedlots to start making use of the ample supply of cattle manure in Kansas.
A Bipartisan Policy Conference in Washington recently issued a study that said 50,000 cows could provide enough dung to power 24,000 homes.
The report said Kansas, which has two cows for every human, could use more cattle manure by mixing it with coal. Link
Too many times I see people refer to manure as a waste product. Some even refer to it as toxic waste. If you hear those things, you can feel free to assume that whoever said it doesn’t know anything about the subject. It’s not a waste product, it’s a valuable nutrient. It can be used for organic fertilizer, thus reducing the need for fossil fuel based fertilizers. And, it can also be used to generate energy. Manure gets a bad rap when in fact we couldn’t do well without it.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Give Up Coal? No, Let's Not
Give up coal? No, let’s not
By Hasso Hering, Commentary
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:00 am
The Sierra Club is trying to get students at universities including Oregon State to agitate against the use of coal as an energy source. The campaign is misguided. Let's hope it fails.
The organization has launched what it calls a coal-free campus campaign. There's no coal at Oregon State, so the campaign has won before it started. But if they mean they don't want colleges to buy electricity generated from coal, OSU would have to give up buying from Pacific Power.
Pacific has sources of alternative energy, but by far most of its supply, some 70 percent according to one recent brochure, comes from burning coal, mostly in Wyoming.
Coal has environmental drawbacks, but so do other forms of generating vast amounts of electricity. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee notes that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles in the desert Southwest with solar collectors. Other federal energy goals call for 186,000 50-story windmills, covering an area the size of West Virginia. Alexander calls this a "massive intrusion into the natural landscape." By comparison, coal plants and the mines on which they depend occupy only a few square miles each. Read More
There are many environmentalists that would try to tell you it’s impossible to use coal energy and not destroy the planet. However, there is technology to deal with many of these environmental issues. It’s irresponsible to advocate for the elimination of a energy source that powers half the country without first having an equally affordable system ready to replace it. There is no doubt that our society will evolve into using different forms of energy, but it shouldn’t be done if it is going to bankrupt our nation and leave us with massive amounts of people that can't afford electricity.
By Hasso Hering, Commentary
Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:00 am
The Sierra Club is trying to get students at universities including Oregon State to agitate against the use of coal as an energy source. The campaign is misguided. Let's hope it fails.
The organization has launched what it calls a coal-free campus campaign. There's no coal at Oregon State, so the campaign has won before it started. But if they mean they don't want colleges to buy electricity generated from coal, OSU would have to give up buying from Pacific Power.
Pacific has sources of alternative energy, but by far most of its supply, some 70 percent according to one recent brochure, comes from burning coal, mostly in Wyoming.
Coal has environmental drawbacks, but so do other forms of generating vast amounts of electricity. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee notes that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles in the desert Southwest with solar collectors. Other federal energy goals call for 186,000 50-story windmills, covering an area the size of West Virginia. Alexander calls this a "massive intrusion into the natural landscape." By comparison, coal plants and the mines on which they depend occupy only a few square miles each. Read More
There are many environmentalists that would try to tell you it’s impossible to use coal energy and not destroy the planet. However, there is technology to deal with many of these environmental issues. It’s irresponsible to advocate for the elimination of a energy source that powers half the country without first having an equally affordable system ready to replace it. There is no doubt that our society will evolve into using different forms of energy, but it shouldn’t be done if it is going to bankrupt our nation and leave us with massive amounts of people that can't afford electricity.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Cows Are Effecient Fuel Producers
Ag Engineer: Animal manure management could go 'green'
Manure has the potential to make dairies energy self-sufficient
July 10, 2009 Writer(s): Robert Burns, 903-834-6191,rd-burns@tamu.edu
COLLEGE STATION -- A recent Texas AgriLife Research survey of Texas and California dairies found that cows, like people, are big energy users.
That's the bad news. The good news is there's enough potential energy within the manure dairy cows produce to pay their electrical bill and more -- a lot more, according to Dr. Cady Engler, AgriLife Research agricultural engineer.
"Total energy usage ranged from as low as 464 kilowatt hour per year per animal for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas to as high as 1,637 kilowatt hour for a hybrid facility in Central Texas," Engler said.
"The estimated daily potential energy availability from manure – 25 kilowatt hours per day per cow – is much greater than the average daily on-farm energy requirement of 3.2 kilowatt hours per day per cow," he said.
Engler will be presenting a paper, "Energy Usage Survey of Dairies in the Southwestern United States" at the upcoming Texas Animal Manure Management Issues, scheduled Sept. 29-30 at the Austin Marriott North in Round Rock. More information can be found at the conference's Web site at http://grovesite.com/tamu/tammi. Read More
One of the things that is very aggravating for me is to hear people refer to manure as waste. It’s far from it. This is not only a valuable nutrient that vastly improves the ability of plants to grow and produce, but it could also become a very valuable source of energy. This concept is nothing new. Dried manure was often used as heating fuel by our ancestors as they attempted to settle this country. It wasn’t considered a waste product then and it shouldn’t be now. The efficiencies of cattle and their ruminant digestive system have always been a marvel and they are proving it again to us.
Manure has the potential to make dairies energy self-sufficient
July 10, 2009 Writer(s): Robert Burns, 903-834-6191,rd-burns@tamu.edu
COLLEGE STATION -- A recent Texas AgriLife Research survey of Texas and California dairies found that cows, like people, are big energy users.
That's the bad news. The good news is there's enough potential energy within the manure dairy cows produce to pay their electrical bill and more -- a lot more, according to Dr. Cady Engler, AgriLife Research agricultural engineer.
"Total energy usage ranged from as low as 464 kilowatt hour per year per animal for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas to as high as 1,637 kilowatt hour for a hybrid facility in Central Texas," Engler said.
"The estimated daily potential energy availability from manure – 25 kilowatt hours per day per cow – is much greater than the average daily on-farm energy requirement of 3.2 kilowatt hours per day per cow," he said.
Engler will be presenting a paper, "Energy Usage Survey of Dairies in the Southwestern United States" at the upcoming Texas Animal Manure Management Issues, scheduled Sept. 29-30 at the Austin Marriott North in Round Rock. More information can be found at the conference's Web site at http://grovesite.com/tamu/tammi. Read More
One of the things that is very aggravating for me is to hear people refer to manure as waste. It’s far from it. This is not only a valuable nutrient that vastly improves the ability of plants to grow and produce, but it could also become a very valuable source of energy. This concept is nothing new. Dried manure was often used as heating fuel by our ancestors as they attempted to settle this country. It wasn’t considered a waste product then and it shouldn’t be now. The efficiencies of cattle and their ruminant digestive system have always been a marvel and they are proving it again to us.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Sierra Club's War On Affordable Electricity
Utah coal plant scuttled, 100th in U.S. since 2002
Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:23am EDT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its plant in Utah.
The Sierra Club said the once-proposed Unit 3 at the Intermountain power station 120 miles southwest of Salt Lake City is the 100th coal-fired power plant to be scuttled since 2002.
IPA spokesman John Ward said allowing an application for an air permit to expire was a formality as plans for the plant have not been viable since 2007 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pulled out of the project.
There are no plans to stop production of the existing two units at Intermountain, which produce 1,800 MW of power.
"More than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution, a main cause of global warming, have been kept out of the air annually as a result of stopping these 100 plants," said a Sierra Club statement issued Thursday. Read More
The Sierra Club continues their war on affordable electricity. It’s interesting that they endlessly brag about stopping coal plants from being built, but I never see the progress they are making to replace them. Where is our electricity going to come from? With their plans, electricity may very well become a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. They continue to say they want renewable energy, but that’s as far as it goes. It must be a hard way to go through life being against everything. The sad part is that hard working families will be the ones that suffer for the Sierra Club’s actions. Remember, a tree doesn't think CO2 is a poison.
Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:23am EDT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its plant in Utah.
The Sierra Club said the once-proposed Unit 3 at the Intermountain power station 120 miles southwest of Salt Lake City is the 100th coal-fired power plant to be scuttled since 2002.
IPA spokesman John Ward said allowing an application for an air permit to expire was a formality as plans for the plant have not been viable since 2007 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pulled out of the project.
There are no plans to stop production of the existing two units at Intermountain, which produce 1,800 MW of power.
"More than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution, a main cause of global warming, have been kept out of the air annually as a result of stopping these 100 plants," said a Sierra Club statement issued Thursday. Read More
The Sierra Club continues their war on affordable electricity. It’s interesting that they endlessly brag about stopping coal plants from being built, but I never see the progress they are making to replace them. Where is our electricity going to come from? With their plans, electricity may very well become a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. They continue to say they want renewable energy, but that’s as far as it goes. It must be a hard way to go through life being against everything. The sad part is that hard working families will be the ones that suffer for the Sierra Club’s actions. Remember, a tree doesn't think CO2 is a poison.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pricing Electricity Out of Reach
Renewable power will cost consumers more
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fighting Coal
EPA Rejects S.D. Coal-Fired Power Plant
SustainableBusiness.com News
Environmentalists say a new era has begun concering coal-fired power plants in the U.S., following a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday to overturn the State of South Dakota's approval of a massive coal-fired power plant.
The decision came less than three days after President Barack Obama took office; however, Carl Daly, unit chief for EPA Region 8, said "It would be fair to say" the decision would have been made under the Bush administration.
Nonetheless, the Sierra Club said the EPA's decision to require state-of-the-art pollution controls on the new facility marks a turnign point.
"This is a great day not only for clean energy and people's health, it's a victory for the rule of law," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's Move Beyond Coal Campaign. "EPA is signaling that it is back to enforcing longstanding legal requirements fairly and consistently nationwide." Read More
You can almost hear the joy in their voices through this article. The Sierra Club, in all of their shortsightedness, has successfully blocked the building of an electric plant. And while they are celebrating, the hard working people of Minnesota and South Dakota will suffer from an increasingly unreliable power supply.
SustainableBusiness.com News
Environmentalists say a new era has begun concering coal-fired power plants in the U.S., following a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Friday to overturn the State of South Dakota's approval of a massive coal-fired power plant.
The decision came less than three days after President Barack Obama took office; however, Carl Daly, unit chief for EPA Region 8, said "It would be fair to say" the decision would have been made under the Bush administration.
Nonetheless, the Sierra Club said the EPA's decision to require state-of-the-art pollution controls on the new facility marks a turnign point.
"This is a great day not only for clean energy and people's health, it's a victory for the rule of law," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's Move Beyond Coal Campaign. "EPA is signaling that it is back to enforcing longstanding legal requirements fairly and consistently nationwide." Read More
You can almost hear the joy in their voices through this article. The Sierra Club, in all of their shortsightedness, has successfully blocked the building of an electric plant. And while they are celebrating, the hard working people of Minnesota and South Dakota will suffer from an increasingly unreliable power supply.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Pro-Coal
Saving Lives with Coal
Paul Driessen
Saturday, January 03, 2009
There is no such thing as “clean coal,” environmentalists insist. Burning coal to generate electricity emits soot particles that cause respiratory problems, lung cancer and heart disease, killing 24,000 Americans annually.
It’s the kind of claim that eco-activist Bruce Hamilton says “builds the Sierra Club,” by generating cash and lobbying clout for his and similar groups.
It’s also disingenuous, unethical and harmful.
Since 1970, unhealthy power plant pollutants have been reduced by almost 95% per unit of energy produced. Particulate emissions (soot) decreased 90% below 1970 levels, even as coal use tripled, and new technologies and regulations will nearly eliminate most coal-related pollution by 2020, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz.
Moreover, the vast bulk of modern power plant particulates are ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. “Neither substance is harmful, even at levels tens of times greater than are ever found in the air Americans breathe,” Schwartz says. Read More
If you follow coal stories in the media, you will see it being cussed and discussed, but rarely appreciated. The fact of the matter is that we need electricity and more of it all the time. With a growing population, demand continues to rise. There are alternative sources for electricity, but they all have their drawbacks as well. Meanwhile, we have several hundred years worth of coal at our disposal. It’s a great natural resource that can be used responsibly.
Paul Driessen
Saturday, January 03, 2009
There is no such thing as “clean coal,” environmentalists insist. Burning coal to generate electricity emits soot particles that cause respiratory problems, lung cancer and heart disease, killing 24,000 Americans annually.
It’s the kind of claim that eco-activist Bruce Hamilton says “builds the Sierra Club,” by generating cash and lobbying clout for his and similar groups.
It’s also disingenuous, unethical and harmful.
Since 1970, unhealthy power plant pollutants have been reduced by almost 95% per unit of energy produced. Particulate emissions (soot) decreased 90% below 1970 levels, even as coal use tripled, and new technologies and regulations will nearly eliminate most coal-related pollution by 2020, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz.
Moreover, the vast bulk of modern power plant particulates are ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. “Neither substance is harmful, even at levels tens of times greater than are ever found in the air Americans breathe,” Schwartz says. Read More
If you follow coal stories in the media, you will see it being cussed and discussed, but rarely appreciated. The fact of the matter is that we need electricity and more of it all the time. With a growing population, demand continues to rise. There are alternative sources for electricity, but they all have their drawbacks as well. Meanwhile, we have several hundred years worth of coal at our disposal. It’s a great natural resource that can be used responsibly.
Friday, November 14, 2008
New Power Plants Denied Permits
Coal plant permit blocked
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has been blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed Utah coal plant without addressing global warming, jeopardizing the fate of scores of other proposed coal plants that will likely be left to the Obama administration.
An EPA appeals panel ruled Thursday that the agency's regional office didn't adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza coal burning power plant in Utah without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
Michael Gerrard, an attorney not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the EPA appeals panel decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate. Read More
There is no doubt that all efforts should be made to have the most efficient coal plants that we can. However, this new ruling has shifted the burden to the power companies to prove their limited impact on the climate rather than the benefit to human beings that need electricity to maintain life. As a society, we can’t continue to let our electric infrastructure deteriorate or fall behind demand. The irony of writing this this morning is that we don’t have any electricity right now, most likely related to our recent blizzard. It’s not much fun when the power goes out, but apparently that is the path that the Sierra Club would like us to go down.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has been blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed Utah coal plant without addressing global warming, jeopardizing the fate of scores of other proposed coal plants that will likely be left to the Obama administration.
An EPA appeals panel ruled Thursday that the agency's regional office didn't adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza coal burning power plant in Utah without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
Michael Gerrard, an attorney not involved in the Bonanza case and author of "Global Climate Change and the Law," said the EPA appeals panel decision "will embolden the lawsuits" challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on climate. Read More
There is no doubt that all efforts should be made to have the most efficient coal plants that we can. However, this new ruling has shifted the burden to the power companies to prove their limited impact on the climate rather than the benefit to human beings that need electricity to maintain life. As a society, we can’t continue to let our electric infrastructure deteriorate or fall behind demand. The irony of writing this this morning is that we don’t have any electricity right now, most likely related to our recent blizzard. It’s not much fun when the power goes out, but apparently that is the path that the Sierra Club would like us to go down.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Former SC Official Favors Coal Plant
Sierra Club blasts ex-official over coal plant ad
MADISON, Wis.
The Sierra Club is blasting one of its former officials for using its name in an ad supporting a proposed coal-fired power plant in Wisconsin.
Brett Hulsey appears in the Alliant Energy radio ad as part of the company's push to convince regulators to approve the $1.3 billion plant in Cassville. He notes he's the Sierra Club's former Midwest representative.
The Sierra Club opposes the project, saying it would cause too much pollution. The group says the ad is an attempt to confuse the public into thinking it will be good for the environment.
Hulsey admits he's been a paid consultant for Alliant for two years, but says he supports the plant because it will generate up to 20 percent of its energy from burning biomass.
Hulsey says the Sierra Club is being unreasonable in opposing the project. Link
Even a former Sierra Club official admits that the group is being unreasonable when it comes to generating electricity from coal. Our electrical needs have to come from somewhere, and while the Sierra Club has a laundry list of where it shouldn’t come from, a list of ways we should generate it seems hard to come by.
MADISON, Wis.
The Sierra Club is blasting one of its former officials for using its name in an ad supporting a proposed coal-fired power plant in Wisconsin.
Brett Hulsey appears in the Alliant Energy radio ad as part of the company's push to convince regulators to approve the $1.3 billion plant in Cassville. He notes he's the Sierra Club's former Midwest representative.
The Sierra Club opposes the project, saying it would cause too much pollution. The group says the ad is an attempt to confuse the public into thinking it will be good for the environment.
Hulsey admits he's been a paid consultant for Alliant for two years, but says he supports the plant because it will generate up to 20 percent of its energy from burning biomass.
Hulsey says the Sierra Club is being unreasonable in opposing the project. Link
Even a former Sierra Club official admits that the group is being unreasonable when it comes to generating electricity from coal. Our electrical needs have to come from somewhere, and while the Sierra Club has a laundry list of where it shouldn’t come from, a list of ways we should generate it seems hard to come by.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Fighting Back
Electric co-op sues Sierra Club for trying to stop coal-fired generators
10/1/2008 10:00 AM
By Michelle Massey, Texarkana Bureau
MARSHALL - The East Texas Electric Cooperative claims the actions of the Sierra Club to stop the co-op from constructing coal-fired generators will only result in higher electric bills for rural customers, according to a recent lawsuit.
The ETEC is a not-for-profit rural electric cooperative that provides the generation and transmission of electric services to rural customers in East Texas and Louisiana. ETEC provides electricity to the Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. and Northeast Texas Electric Cooperatives.
The co-op participates in a government program enacted by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which guarantees government loans to bring electricity to rural Americans. ETEC uses the money for construction and expansion of electric generation facilities, distribution lines and other physical structures necessary to generate and carry electricity. Read More
I have shared other stories about the Sierra Clubs’s goal of stopping all new development of coal fired plants. What you get from the Sierra Club in return is higher electricity costs, which make it especially tough on our rural electric co-ops. However, the Sierra Club finds themselves on the other side of a coal related lawsuit this time. Electricity is something that none of us would look forward to not having. But, if we do not build new generation plants, they will not be able to keep up with demand.
10/1/2008 10:00 AM
By Michelle Massey, Texarkana Bureau
MARSHALL - The East Texas Electric Cooperative claims the actions of the Sierra Club to stop the co-op from constructing coal-fired generators will only result in higher electric bills for rural customers, according to a recent lawsuit.
The ETEC is a not-for-profit rural electric cooperative that provides the generation and transmission of electric services to rural customers in East Texas and Louisiana. ETEC provides electricity to the Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas Inc. and Northeast Texas Electric Cooperatives.
The co-op participates in a government program enacted by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which guarantees government loans to bring electricity to rural Americans. ETEC uses the money for construction and expansion of electric generation facilities, distribution lines and other physical structures necessary to generate and carry electricity. Read More
I have shared other stories about the Sierra Clubs’s goal of stopping all new development of coal fired plants. What you get from the Sierra Club in return is higher electricity costs, which make it especially tough on our rural electric co-ops. However, the Sierra Club finds themselves on the other side of a coal related lawsuit this time. Electricity is something that none of us would look forward to not having. But, if we do not build new generation plants, they will not be able to keep up with demand.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Asking for Explanations, Solutions
Activists owe Georgia an explanation for opposing progress
By George Israel Guest Columnist
Monday, August 18, 2008
Environmental activists seem to be having difficulty explaining why they're waging war on affordable energy and economic development in Georgia.
They haven't explained to the people of southwest Georgia why they blocked construction of a coal-fired power plant there -- a plant that would have brought $2 billion and 125 high-paying jobs to one of the poorest counties in the state.
They haven't explained to homeowners across Georgia why they will be forced to swallow ever-higher energy costs -- because the only energy sources Georgia can now develop will drive monthly power bills through the roof.
AND THEY HAVEN'T explained to businesses, hospitals, churches and schools why they may have to waste months or years getting a clean-air permit the next time they want to build anywhere in Georgia -- while no other state imposes such onerous regulations.
Instead, they prefer to hide behind the poorly reasoned decision of an over-reaching Atlanta judge. Read More
Judicial activism has struck again. Single handedly, this judge has changed the law concerning the release of carbon dioxide. And, singlehandedly, she has threatened future electrical generation. Our electricity has to come from somewhere and demand is growing everyday.
By George Israel Guest Columnist
Monday, August 18, 2008
Environmental activists seem to be having difficulty explaining why they're waging war on affordable energy and economic development in Georgia.
They haven't explained to the people of southwest Georgia why they blocked construction of a coal-fired power plant there -- a plant that would have brought $2 billion and 125 high-paying jobs to one of the poorest counties in the state.
They haven't explained to homeowners across Georgia why they will be forced to swallow ever-higher energy costs -- because the only energy sources Georgia can now develop will drive monthly power bills through the roof.
AND THEY HAVEN'T explained to businesses, hospitals, churches and schools why they may have to waste months or years getting a clean-air permit the next time they want to build anywhere in Georgia -- while no other state imposes such onerous regulations.
Instead, they prefer to hide behind the poorly reasoned decision of an over-reaching Atlanta judge. Read More
Judicial activism has struck again. Single handedly, this judge has changed the law concerning the release of carbon dioxide. And, singlehandedly, she has threatened future electrical generation. Our electricity has to come from somewhere and demand is growing everyday.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Litigating us Out of Electricity
Coal at a crossroad
By Stephanie I. Cohen
Supreme Court decision aiding environmental groups, hurting coal plant developers
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Coal power plants are having a hard time finding the welcome mat as concerns about global warming and carbon emissions become pivotal issues in the permitting fight for new coal-fired power plants.
Across the nation, legal battles have been fought and won against the building of plants being fueled by coal, and environmentalists and the coal industry are in pitched battle in scores of other fights.
The Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign keeps tabs on proposed coal plants across the country and has claimed "victory" in halting the development of 67 traditional coal-fired power plants with dozens of more cases underway.
What impact decisions to nix coal plants will have on national energy supplies and growing electricity demand is uncertain. Roughly 50% of the electricity consumed in the U.S. is produced from coal, according to the Energy Information Administration, the Energy Department's statistical arm. As nuclear power plant proposals remain years away from becoming reality and natural gas prices continue to climb, the absence of additional coal plants that provide low cost generation could pose a problem for energy consumers.
"With growing electricity demand and the retirement of 45 gigawatts of capacity, 263 gigawatts of new generating capacity...will be needed by 2030," the agency said in its' Annual Energy Outlook for 2008. Read More
Coal is one of our most abundant natural resources. At the same time, we have an ever growing demand for electricity. The Sierra Club doesn’t seem to be concerned about where we are going to get our electricity from. Rather than objectively looking at each proposed coal project, they have an army of lawyers to automatically dismiss all of them. While renewable resources are being developed for the future, we need a reliable source of electricity today.
By Stephanie I. Cohen
Supreme Court decision aiding environmental groups, hurting coal plant developers
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Coal power plants are having a hard time finding the welcome mat as concerns about global warming and carbon emissions become pivotal issues in the permitting fight for new coal-fired power plants.
Across the nation, legal battles have been fought and won against the building of plants being fueled by coal, and environmentalists and the coal industry are in pitched battle in scores of other fights.
The Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign keeps tabs on proposed coal plants across the country and has claimed "victory" in halting the development of 67 traditional coal-fired power plants with dozens of more cases underway.
What impact decisions to nix coal plants will have on national energy supplies and growing electricity demand is uncertain. Roughly 50% of the electricity consumed in the U.S. is produced from coal, according to the Energy Information Administration, the Energy Department's statistical arm. As nuclear power plant proposals remain years away from becoming reality and natural gas prices continue to climb, the absence of additional coal plants that provide low cost generation could pose a problem for energy consumers.
"With growing electricity demand and the retirement of 45 gigawatts of capacity, 263 gigawatts of new generating capacity...will be needed by 2030," the agency said in its' Annual Energy Outlook for 2008. Read More
Coal is one of our most abundant natural resources. At the same time, we have an ever growing demand for electricity. The Sierra Club doesn’t seem to be concerned about where we are going to get our electricity from. Rather than objectively looking at each proposed coal project, they have an army of lawyers to automatically dismiss all of them. While renewable resources are being developed for the future, we need a reliable source of electricity today.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The War on Coal
Georgia Judge Cites Carbon Dioxide in Denying Coal Plant Permit
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 1, 2008
A judge in Georgia has thrown out an air pollution permit for a new coal-fired power plant because the permit did not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Both opponents of coal use and the company that wants to build the plant said it was the first time a court decision had linked carbon dioxide to an air pollution permit.
The decision’s broader legal impact was not clear, either for the plant, proposed to be built near Blakely, in Early County, Ga., or for others outside Georgia, but it signaled that builders of coal plants would face continued difficulties in the court system as well as with elected officials in many states. Read More
Coal is one of our most abundant natural resources in this country. We have many centuries worth of coal available to us. With electricity demands always increasing, every proposed coal plant project has been met with lawsuits over the plant food (carbon dioxide) that they emit. At the same time, there are no guidelines to regarding the emissions of carbon dioxide. Why is it that those who like to complain about how our electricity is made are still more than happy to consume it?
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 1, 2008
A judge in Georgia has thrown out an air pollution permit for a new coal-fired power plant because the permit did not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Both opponents of coal use and the company that wants to build the plant said it was the first time a court decision had linked carbon dioxide to an air pollution permit.
The decision’s broader legal impact was not clear, either for the plant, proposed to be built near Blakely, in Early County, Ga., or for others outside Georgia, but it signaled that builders of coal plants would face continued difficulties in the court system as well as with elected officials in many states. Read More
Coal is one of our most abundant natural resources in this country. We have many centuries worth of coal available to us. With electricity demands always increasing, every proposed coal plant project has been met with lawsuits over the plant food (carbon dioxide) that they emit. At the same time, there are no guidelines to regarding the emissions of carbon dioxide. Why is it that those who like to complain about how our electricity is made are still more than happy to consume it?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Birds or Electricity?
Utility, animal rights activists in court over birds' nests
May 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Animal rights activists are in court trying to stop the United Illuminating Co. from killing monk parakeets that nest on utility poles.
The long-running battle has landed in New Haven Superior Court. United Illuminating wants a judge to declare Connecticut's monk parakeet population a threat to public health and safety.
It says dozens of power outages have been linked to the nests and that the most effective solution is to capture and kill the birds. Read More
If these nests are interfering with supplying the area with a reliable source of electricity it is absolutely a threat to public safety. Not only that, but it becomes very costly to continually repair the damage from these outages. The safety and well-being of the communities served by this company should come before these birds.
May 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Animal rights activists are in court trying to stop the United Illuminating Co. from killing monk parakeets that nest on utility poles.
The long-running battle has landed in New Haven Superior Court. United Illuminating wants a judge to declare Connecticut's monk parakeet population a threat to public health and safety.
It says dozens of power outages have been linked to the nests and that the most effective solution is to capture and kill the birds. Read More
If these nests are interfering with supplying the area with a reliable source of electricity it is absolutely a threat to public safety. Not only that, but it becomes very costly to continually repair the damage from these outages. The safety and well-being of the communities served by this company should come before these birds.
Friday, April 18, 2008
No more Electricity?
Junk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count Begins
Thursday , April 17, 2008
By Steven Milloy
The world has an ever-growing population that needs more and more energy, but the greens are doing everything they can to constrict the world’s energy supply.
As the Sierra Club campaigns to shut down our coal-fired electricity capabilities, the Natural Resources Defense Council campaigns to prevent nuclear power from taking its place. The demise of coal-fired power and the blockage of increased nuclear power will increase the demand for supply constraints on, and the prices for, natural gas.
But then again, environmental advocacy group Earth First perhaps is helping to alleviate the looming natural gas crisis by campaigning against power plants that use the fuel. In a recent campaign against a South Florida power plant, an Earth First campaigner stated that the environment ought not be threatened "so that people can fuel their greedy energy desires." "Just say 'no' to electricity," seems to be the bottom line of eco-think.
Even wind power is becoming more and more politically incorrect. Environmentalist-friendly Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley this week announced that wind farms will not be allowed on state lands because they are eyesores. Read More
There won’t be much left to generate electricity with if we let the environmentalist have their way. One way we use now that wasn’t mentioned in this article was hydro-electric. Can you imagine what would happen if the government wanted to dam a river to generate electricity today? We should all feel fortunate that our grandfather’s generation realized the importance of utilizing this resource because my generation probably never will.
Thursday , April 17, 2008
By Steven Milloy
The world has an ever-growing population that needs more and more energy, but the greens are doing everything they can to constrict the world’s energy supply.
As the Sierra Club campaigns to shut down our coal-fired electricity capabilities, the Natural Resources Defense Council campaigns to prevent nuclear power from taking its place. The demise of coal-fired power and the blockage of increased nuclear power will increase the demand for supply constraints on, and the prices for, natural gas.
But then again, environmental advocacy group Earth First perhaps is helping to alleviate the looming natural gas crisis by campaigning against power plants that use the fuel. In a recent campaign against a South Florida power plant, an Earth First campaigner stated that the environment ought not be threatened "so that people can fuel their greedy energy desires." "Just say 'no' to electricity," seems to be the bottom line of eco-think.
Even wind power is becoming more and more politically incorrect. Environmentalist-friendly Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley this week announced that wind farms will not be allowed on state lands because they are eyesores. Read More
There won’t be much left to generate electricity with if we let the environmentalist have their way. One way we use now that wasn’t mentioned in this article was hydro-electric. Can you imagine what would happen if the government wanted to dam a river to generate electricity today? We should all feel fortunate that our grandfather’s generation realized the importance of utilizing this resource because my generation probably never will.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Manure is a Renewable Resource, Not Toxic Waste
Poultry Litter Power Company To Build In Sampson Co.
Wednesday, Apr 16, 2008
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. -- A company that creates energy from poultry litter has selected Sampson County for its next plant.
Fibrowatt announced Wednesday that it will build a new plant in Sampson County -- its first plant in North Carolina. This will be the second plant of its kind in the nation.
The plant will be located in the middle of North Carolina's poultry industry.
According to the company's press release, the plant will offer three benefits:
A new source of biomass energy, helping the state meet its commitment to renewable energy and providing important greenhouse gas benefits
An alternative, beneficial use for poultry litter that will reduce a grower’s exclusive reliance on land application
The creation of about 100 new jobs in the Sampson County area Read More
This is the latest article of several articles that I have brought to you showing that manure is not toxic waste but rather a commodity that contains valuable nutrients. Manure isn’t waste but rather a co-product of food production.
Wednesday, Apr 16, 2008
By NBC17
SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C. -- A company that creates energy from poultry litter has selected Sampson County for its next plant.
Fibrowatt announced Wednesday that it will build a new plant in Sampson County -- its first plant in North Carolina. This will be the second plant of its kind in the nation.
The plant will be located in the middle of North Carolina's poultry industry.
According to the company's press release, the plant will offer three benefits:
A new source of biomass energy, helping the state meet its commitment to renewable energy and providing important greenhouse gas benefits
An alternative, beneficial use for poultry litter that will reduce a grower’s exclusive reliance on land application
The creation of about 100 new jobs in the Sampson County area Read More
This is the latest article of several articles that I have brought to you showing that manure is not toxic waste but rather a commodity that contains valuable nutrients. Manure isn’t waste but rather a co-product of food production.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sierra Club tries to stop Power Plants
Global warming has a new battleground: coal plants
By Judy Pasternak Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.
They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.
The campaign against new coal-powered plants has infuriated utilities, which say the environmentalists' tactics are an abuse of the regulatory and judicial systems. They are counterpunching with ads, lobbying and court briefs of their own, bringing the clash over coal to a pitch that rivals the environmental and legal fights over nuclear power decades ago. Read More
The Sierra Club is going to stop every coal plant by any means necessary because, they say, the plants are making too much plant food. Remember, that’s what carbon dioxide is, is plant food. And once again, Sierra Club puts its agenda and the alleged environmental harm above the human condition. These companies wouldn’t be trying to build new plants if the demand wasn’t there. When your electric bill goes up or you are part of a rolling blackout due to excess demand, you can thank the Sierra Club.
By Judy Pasternak Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.
They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.
The campaign against new coal-powered plants has infuriated utilities, which say the environmentalists' tactics are an abuse of the regulatory and judicial systems. They are counterpunching with ads, lobbying and court briefs of their own, bringing the clash over coal to a pitch that rivals the environmental and legal fights over nuclear power decades ago. Read More
The Sierra Club is going to stop every coal plant by any means necessary because, they say, the plants are making too much plant food. Remember, that’s what carbon dioxide is, is plant food. And once again, Sierra Club puts its agenda and the alleged environmental harm above the human condition. These companies wouldn’t be trying to build new plants if the demand wasn’t there. When your electric bill goes up or you are part of a rolling blackout due to excess demand, you can thank the Sierra Club.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)