Your Questions About Green Living

can someone summarize this arcticle?

K i am not trying to give an excuse but my dad just pasted away from pacriatic cancer and my teacher wants this summary in so if someone can summarize this article to the best of there abiiltiesi really appreciate it

Long known for its coal-burning power plants and oil refineries, New Jersey is about to take a major step toward clean energy with offshore wind turbines that would generate enough electricity to power half of the houses in North Jersey.

A pilot project to install dozens of turbines off the coast is scheduled to be approved next week and will act as a cornerstone in Governor Corzine’s push for renewable energy.

Five companies have submitted proposals for a $19 million Board of Public Utilities grant that state officials say will boost the project. Plans range from 74 towering wind turbines a few miles off the coast of Atlantic City to 225 smaller ones off Seaside Park.

The 350 megawatts generated in this first wave will not make a huge dent in the amount of coal, natural gas or nuclear energy used to generate the almost 20,000 megawatts needed in New Jersey. But advocates hope this wind farm will lead to more.

“We need a new way to generate power, and offshore wind is essential to our future energy demands,” said Jeanne Fox, the BPU president.

The decision, expected on Oct. 3, could make New Jersey the first state to have an offshore wind farm, although Delaware officials approved a plan this summer.

Land-based wind turbines have been providing electricity everywhere from Atlantic City to West Texas in recent years. But even though the wind is strongest at sea, offshore wind farms have never been built in the U.S., largely because of the enormous construction costs, environmental concerns, and community objections that a 250-foot turbine would mar picturesque seaside views.

That is changing after the success of offshore wind farms in Europe that have shown minimal environmental impact. Some are built far enough off the coast that they are barely seen.

1,000 megawatts

Corzine wants more than just a pilot program. The proposed state Energy Master Plan calls for 1,000 megawatts to be generated by offshore wind. That may be increased to 3,000 when the plan is adopted this fall.

Environmentalists have long supported wind power, but they do have concerns. Some believe the construction will disrupt life on the ocean floor. There is fear that the 100- to 150-foot blades will chop up birds.

Another concern is how much this will eventually affect a consumer’s electric bill.

Constructing offshore turbines is expensive. One applicant, Garden State Offshore Energy, said it would cost about $1.1 billion to build its planned 96 turbines 16 to 21 miles off the coast of Atlantic City. In the long run, however, it may be less expensive than fossil fuels since wind is free and there is no need for expensive air filtering equipment like those required at coal plants.

“Whether wind will be more costly than other forms, we don’t know,” said Stefanie Brand, director of the state Division of Rate Counsel, which advocates on behalf of consumers. “Constructing a new generation of power sources is expensive. We want them to be as economical as they can be.”

Electricity from the turbines will flow from underwater cables to power stations onshore, where it will enter the power grid. If the turbines are built off Atlantic City, much of the power generated will be drawn into South Jersey. But more turbines would mean wind energy would eventually make it to North Jersey. Onshore wind farms located in sparsely populated areas in the U.S. have had trouble getting their power into the grid; that is not a problem in densely populated New Jersey.

Regulators and the applicants believe the BPU’s $19 million grant will fast track the project with permits needed from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Minerals Management Service, which would lease portions of the ocean floor to builders.

“It’s very much a head start,” Fox said. “The permitting agencies should be more sensitive about moving this forward.”

Several plans are similar, but each applicant says they are the best for different reasons.

* Garden State Offshore Energy, a partnership of PSEG and Winergy Power LLC, said their technology allows them to build wind turbines farther offshore than their competitors. They also tout a plan to use wind turbines to store compressed air in tanks that could be used to generate electricity when there is no wind.

* Bluewater Wind, a Hoboken company, said its selection this summer to build Delaware’s first wind farm would allow it to develop in New Jersey at a lower cost.

* Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, a consortium of fishing companies in Cape May, said it would be the best steward of the oceans since its members know the Jersey coast better than anyone.

* Environmental Technologies of New York said its smaller vertical axis turbines will

79% of Obama’s stimulus money went overseas. Wasn’t this supposed to create American jobs? Dems?

Examples, you ask for….

*** “The largest grant made under the program so far, a $178 million payment on Dec. 29, went to Babcock & Brown, a bankrupt Australian company that built a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company.”

*** “American and Chinese companies announced a deal to build a $1.5 billion wind farm in Texas, using imported Chinese turbines. Company officials said they planned to collect $450 million in stimulus grants for the project. The deal would create dozens of jobs in the U.S. and thousands in China.”

…keep in mind…. We had to borrow much of this stimulus money FROM CHINA. Now were are using the money we borrowed to pay for THEIR goods?!

And isn’t this yet ANOTHER example of how Obama can make an idea sound brilliant…then allow the application of the process to be a complete debacle? ….meanwhile the American taxpayer continues to suffer.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable–energy-money-still-going-abroad/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/business/energy-environment/30wind.html?_r=2&sq=cielo&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=3&adxnnlx=1269442885-0hmRwBe38Zmqu9uIKpsiQA
LOL @ Sadcat: It’s no wonder you just don’t get it… ….sad indeed.
@ 1 eye dog: I’m hearing ya! I live in Cincinnati, so I know all too well what you’re talking about.

But the whole concept of giving our tax dollars to companies over seas to stimulate OUR economy is a fallacy. A complete misnomer. And it’s fooled the blind left once again.

WSW 2/19/09 HeLp AsAp HeLp AsAp?

CHICAGO — A landmark Energy Department project to bury carbon dioxide produced by humans has begun as workers sunk a huge drill bit into Illinois ground this week, signaling continued support for a climate change mitigation strategy that has fallen out of favor in many circles.

The start of drilling marks the launch a geological sequestration project that will deposit a million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the ground by 2012.

While that’s nothing compared to the several billion tons of CO2 that humans emit yearly, it’s the geology of the site that makes the development exciting. The CO2 will be piped into a geological formation that underlies parts of Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky that could eventually hold more than 100 billion tons of CO2.

“This is going to be a large-scale injection of 1 million metric tons, one of the largest injections to date in the U.S.” project manager Robert Finley said here at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting Sunday.

While the Department of Energy and private industry have been pushing to create cheaper renewable energy and investigating increased nuclear-power options to reduce carbon emissions, carbon capture and sequestration remains an attractive idea. It would allow regions of the country like the southeast, which don’t have Texas or California-level wind or solar resources, to continue burning coal without contributing to climate change.

To do that, many technological issues will need to be solved. Last year, the Bush administration canceled the DOE’s most expensive carbon capture and sequestration project, FutureGen, and some utility executives have questioned whether storing CO2 will actually make sense. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that as much as 30 percent of the energy created by a coal plant would have to be spent on just pulling the CO2 out of its flue gas.

But new materials for more selectively capturing CO2 from gas mixes continue to be created in labs like Omar Yaghi’s at UCLA and at Georgia Tech under Chris Jones. Those innovations could make the capture part of “carbon capture and sequestration” easier than it currently is. Add in a carbon tax of some form and fossil-fuel power plant operators would have the incentive to start capturing a lot of carbon dioxide. Then, they’ll just need somewhere to put it.

The DOE thinks the United States has more than enough underground closet space.

Mt_simon_slide “What we found in the U.S. with the research that we’ve done over the last 10 years is that there is a significant potential to store CO2 … in these very large reservoirs that are underground,” said John Litynski, who works in the fossil-fuel-centered National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Sequestration Division.

But most current sequestration projects use the carbon dioxide to squeeze more oil and gas out of depleted fields. Those fields probably won’t cut it for much larger amounts of CO2. For that, we’ll have to turn to huge reservoirs deeper underground. That’s why the Illinois demonstration project is so important. It will test a formation called the Mt. Simon sandstone, allowing scientists to track in near real-time what happens when they start putting large amounts of compressed carbon dioxide 6,500 feet below the surface.

“We have numbers for what we think the capacity is in the U.S., but the only way to prove that is to actually drill a well,” said Litynski.

Drilling a 6,500-foot well doesn’t come cheap — the Illinois Basin project has an $84 million price tag. It’s a collaboration between the DOE and industrial partners including Archer Daniels Midland, which is providing the land for the test site and will serve up CO2 from its ethanol fermenters. A group of scientists centered at the Illinois State Geological Survey known as the Midwest Geological Carbon Sequestration Consortium are leading the research.

They’ll collect enormous amounts of data about how the CO2 plume moves through the pores in the sandstone. The Mt. Simon formation is particularly attractive because of a series of fortuitous events that have placed three layers of impermeable rock — known as “cap rock” — between the sandstone and the surface. Finley thinks that makes the project a very good bet to succeed in keeping CO2 buried away for what amounts to forever in human timescales.

But the audience at the AAAS meeting who watched the researchers present their sequestration evidence weren’t wholly convinced. They gave the presenters a rougher time than one normally sees at this meeting, where most questions are softballs. One audience member noted that the Mt. Simon project was sequestering 10,000 times less CO2 than we’d have to put into the ground each year to offset human emissions.

It’s the expense and time needed to scale up the tech that leads renewable energy advocates to complain that money used to make coal cleaner should instead be spent scaling up wind power or installing

Do any economists disagree that California’s economy will benefit from a carbon cap and trade system?

In 2006, California passed AB 32 which among other effects will soon lead to the creation of a carbon cap and trade system within the state. Some Texas oil companies have funded a proposition on this year’s ballot to delay implementation of the cap and trade system until the state’s unemployment rate remains below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters – a level rarely met even in strong economic conditions.

118 Ph.D. economists who live or work in California or who have expertise related to California issues or climate and energy issues have signed a letter in support of AB 32, against Proposition 23.

“Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now. Acting now is more likely to limit further environmental degradation, lower the cost of mitigation, and spur innovation in renewable energy and conservation technologies. Furthermore, policies that reduce global warming pollution are likely to provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants.

For these reasons we urge continued support for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These policies can improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs,
and provide incentives for innovation.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/2010-CA-Economists-LTR.pdf

So I’m wondering, do you know of any economists who oppose California’s proposed carbon cap and trade system?
Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding the question, allow me to clarify. I’m not asking for your personal opinions, I’m asking if any economists disagree that a cap and trade system will be good for California’s economy.

Giving me your personal opinion, unless you’re an economist, does not answer the question.
Ottawa, almost every sentence in the quote I provided talks about ‘costs’ or something similar. I suggest you edit your response to actually attempt to answer the question.
jim, yes! Economists and climate scientists are all stupid! That’s got to be the answer – well done!
deano – please name one economist who has said cap and trade will cost thousands of jobs and thousands of dollars in higher energy bills. Hint – Glenn Beck is not an economist.

Has the Chamber of Commerce finally disproven the myth that free market advocates are shills for big business?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/New-Chamber-index-shows-conservatives-arent-corporate-pawns-42379362.html

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had the most conservative voting record in 2008 according to the American Conservative Union (ACU), and was a “taxpayer hero” according to the National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says his 2008 record was less pro-business than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.
Similarly, Texas libertarian GOPer Rep. Ron Paul—the most steadfast congressional opponent of regulation, taxation, and any sort of government intervention in business—scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard.
Liberal Democrats often accuse conservative Republicans of being pawns for Big Business, but the 2008 scorecard for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the largest lobbying organization in the country and the official Washington voice of business—provides convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, the policy agenda of big business can be very different from that of limited-government conservatives and libertarians.
Four Republican senators failed to earn the Chamber’s “Spirit of Enterprise Award” (earned for scoring 70% or above): DeMint, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jon Kyl of Arizona, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
These are among the most fiscally conservative, pro-limited government members of the upper chamber—which is precisely their error, in the eyes of the Chamber. The heroes of the small government cause are the goats of the big business cause.
DeMint, for instance, picked up the highest score last year from NTU, and Kyl and Inhofe were close behind—all three winning NTU’s “Taxpayer Friend” awards.
Similarly, DeMint picked up the only perfect Senate score from ACU, while Kyl and Inhofe tied for second with 96%.
With which votes did these GOP lawmakers earn Chamber scorn? Kyl, Inhofe, DeMint, and Sessions were four of the eight senators to vote Nay July 31 on the “College Opportunity and Affordability Act,” creating $34 million in new subsidies for colleges, probably driving up tuition at taxpayers’ expense rather than making college more affordable.
These four also voted against the Chamber’s position by opposing President George W. Bush’s February 2008 stimulus bill that sent checks to taxpayers. The “rebates” were one-time tax credits that excluded higher-income earners but included some people with no income tax liability.
Conservatives instead proposed long-term, broad-based tax cuts—for example, making permanent the 2001 tax cuts set to expire in 2011—as opposed to one-time stunts turning the IRS into a welfare agency.
And, of course, DeMint, Inhofe, and Sessions upset the Chamber by voting against the massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout—which has since grown into a Detroit bailout, and a tool which the Obama administration is using to tell banks and carmakers how to run their businesses.
The Great Wall Street Bailout will prove someday to be the crucial victory for government control over the economy, and for voting Nay on a rushed vote to pass this unprecedented measure, some conservative lawmakers were scorned by the business lobby.
Sessions, Inhofe, and Kyl also voted last April against a package of tax deductions for “renewable energy”—effectively corporate welfare for unprofitable technologies.
On the House side, it’s a similar picture. The Republican with the lowest Chamber score was Paul. Even Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who wants to regulate everything except Fannie Mae, scored 14 points higher than Paul on the Chamber’s scorecard.
Eleven House Republicans failed to win the Chamber’s award—a mixture of libertarian/conservative members like Paul and liberal members like then-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-MD.
All but Gilchrest in this group of “business unfriendly” Republicans earned a black mark from the Chamber for voting against the Wall Street bailout twice. And conservative Republicans Paul, Ted Poe of Texas, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Paul Broun of Georgia, and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin voted against the college aid bill, while seven of the 11 voted against Bush’s stimulus.
In June, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill drafted by the Chamber in coordination with advocates for the disabled that expanded the definition of “disability.” At the time, the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote, “the House bill is supported by some business lobbies (representing mostly larger corporations), it is small businesses that are likely to suffer disproportionately.”
Two other House votes that pit conservatives against the Chamber: An authorization bill for NASA, outspending the Bush administration’s funding request by 15%,, and a bill to beef up copyright enforcement and create a copyright czar.
Advocates of bigger government like to assail their opponents as pawns of big business. The Chamber’s shunning of DeMint and Paul will hopefully help put that lie to rest.