Hyrdoelectric plants are a good thing
By Dick Little
Article Launched:10/09/2006 09:35:23 PM PDT by Paradise Post .
The environmental movement is after us again on several fronts. This time they claim they are attempting to save salmon runs in the north. First they want to take out four hydroelectric dams they claim are halting salmon from getting up the Klamath River to spawn.
A Portland-based utility company, Pacific Corporation, is seeking a new 50-year operating license for Iron Gate, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and J.C. Boyle dams. The dams reportedly produce about 150 megawatts of power, enough to serve about 70,000 households.
Taking 150 megawatts out of a growing market in California would only increase rates. Imagine how much rates would increase if the electrical power supply to 70,000 homes was gone and it had to be made up from the state's shrinking number of power grids.
Indian tribes, some salmon fishing groups and conservation groups are pushing Pacific to remove the dams claiming they are harming salmon runs. An Associated Press report said last year's salmon run was so poor it almost shut down commercial fishing operation.
The Coastal Conservancy has turned over a series of studies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) claiming removing the dams is "feasible" because "& only five percent of the 21 million cubic yards of sediment trapped behind the them would wash out, and could all be gone in one winter rainy season." (That's nice but what about the loss of electrical power, recreational activity and loss of jobs? None of that was addressed.)
Pacific offered to gather salmon coming upstream and truck them around the dams, and place them in lakes behind the structures. They claim any decision on the future of the hydroelectric dams, "will take years to develop before any removal strategy is undertaken."
An analyst for a group called "American Rivers" told federal officials the power company could lose nearly $29 million a year if fish ladders and other aids were ordered to be installed on the dams.
Steve Rothert said a group of studies submitted to federal authorities, "& isn't a comprehensive review. A full assessment of the environmental impacts of the dam-removal scenario & would likely take years of study by several federal and state agencies before any agreed-upon removal strategy could be developed."
The federal government has already ordered the company to install fish ladders at the dams, but Pacific is challenging the rules. An administrative law judge is expected to reply to the challenge in the near future.
The issue of salmon losses has been at the forefront of environmental challenges for hydroelectric dams for the past 24 years. Those in the movement have blamed hydroelectric dams for loss of salmon in the oceans while ignoring other areas of concern.
This movement includes the same groups that have been attempting to eliminate dams along the Columbia River that produce power for most of the Northwest.
Hydroelectric power is the cleanest and most efficient power we produce. It's 33 percent less expensive than gas-fired power operations which by the way, are being built in large numbers throughout California.
Thanks to the environmental movement and their opposition to hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants, we pay more for energy in California than almost any other state. I don't know about you, but I find it silly that my power bill would be a lot lower if we were allowed to build the dams necessary to produce it.
Experts say we do have a number of good dam sites available.
Many people who support the environmental movement are filthy rich. They can afford pay a high cost for their energy. Many of these people live along our coastline.
Prices are so high to build near the coast, the average Californian will never have an opportunity to live there. That's why they put up a lot of cash to halt oil drilling off the coast. They don't want to look out and see oil-drilling platforms.
The rich love environmental groups. The "save us from ourselves" people work hard for laws that control growth and shut down development. Since the rich own much of the housing along our coast they are literally manipulating the supply of housing and energy driving up the cost of both.
A free and open marketplace benefits everyone from the rich, to the working class, to the poor. Even environmentalists benefit when there's plenty of housing available and affordable energy to keep us comfortable.
Unfortunately, the movement overall has been less than honest on several fronts.
Almost all of the information they feed to us through the media is only half right and ignores data that does not fit their cause. That's "normal" for advocates, which is why we need a media that will investigate their claims and find other sources that may produce different answers.
For instance, their claims about the "depletion of the supply of salmon" can be traced to the increases in the orca, seal, and sea lion populations off the coast and the restoration of the bald eagle population.
Orcas, seals and sea lion populations were held down because fishermen could kill them if they tried to steal their catch.
Since the feds won't allow them to be killed anymore, their populations are growing rapidly. The restoration of the bald eagle has worked so well there's a movement to take them off the Endangered Species List. They also feast on spawning salmon.
There's a law of physics that must be applied to all environmental issues: "for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction."
Media people need to know this law cannot under any circumstances be repealed.
***
Dick Little is a Paradise resident who also contributes to a local Npr station.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Myths of looming disasters
Steyn's
'America Alone'
by Austin BayPosted Oct 18, 2006
If demography is destiny, then news of America's decline is (like Mark Twain's death) decidedly premature. Statisticians tell us Oct. 17 (at 7:46 a.m. EDT, according to the Census Bureau's estimate) was the day America's population reached, then surpassed, 300 million people. That's a three followed by eight zeroes. Unfortunately, Oct. 17 was Halloween with an extra "Boo" (B with two zeroes) for various "greens" and ecological radicals mired in Malthusian desperation and myths of looming disaster. For decades, the doomsayers have been predicting catastrophe wrought by the "population explosion" and diminishing resources. Author and columnist Mark Steyn notes in his new book, "America Alone" (Regnery Publishing), "The end of the world's nighness isn't something you'd want to set your watch by. " Steyn provides a collection of the dire predictions made by "Chicken Little's eminent successors." Steyn's list includes:
1968, in "The Population Bomb," distinguished scientist Paul Ehrlich declared, "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
1972, in "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
1976, Lowell Ponte published a huge bestseller called "The Cooling: Has the New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive?"
1977, Jimmy Carter confidently predicted that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
"None of these things occurred," Steyn writes. "Contrary to the doom-mongers' predictions, millions didn't starve." Steyn, however, isn't against gloomy prognostications, per se. In fact, "America Alone" is a doom book of a peculiar sort -- it's insistently witty and trenchantly written. Both are achievements, given the core subject matter: American demographic success and vitality (fecundity, folks) compared to the demographic decline of other democracies and modern, industrialized nations. Steyn is an arch "Euro-pessimist," who backs his pessimism with numbers. Europeans are reproducing below the "replacement rate" -- thus the average age of their populations is increasing sharply. If current trends continue, by 2050 one in three Germans and Italians will be over 65 years old. In the United States, only one in five will be so gray. As a result, the Europe of the European Union (Steyn disdainfully calls it "Eutopia") faces economic decline and risks systemic change. Steyn writes: "Tax revenues that support the ever growing numbers of the elderly and retired have to be paid by equally growing numbers of the young and working. The design flaw of the radically secularist Eutopia is that it depend on a religious-society birth rate." Japan faces the same "gray threat." Even China has a birthrate below the demographic replacement rate. Among the modern industrial nations, only the United States (and possibly India) has the knack for reproduction. The United States also grows through immigration that includes political and cultural integration. Europe's Muslims, however, are multiplying -- but they are not integrating culturally. Steyn argues that if European nations fail to culturally integrate Muslims, Europe faces profound political changes. "As fertility dries up," he writes, "so do societies. Demography is the most obvious symptom of civilizational exhaustion, and the clearest indicator of where we're headed." Islam cannot enjoy "political sovereignty" in Europe. Steyn adds: "Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke 'the Muslim world' would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to 'the Christian world.' When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty, too." America remains an exception among democracies, Steyn concludes. America's population climbs at a healthy rate, and America politically and culturally integrates immigrants. At least part of America remains an exception. "Demographic trends," Steyn observes, cheekily, "suggest that the blue state ought to apply for honorary membership in the EU; in the 2004 election, the Bush-voting states had fertility rates 12 percent higher than Kerry-voting states. Barring a sudden change in electoral fortunes, Democrats are going to be even more depressed at their 2010 and 2020 reapportionments."
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
'America Alone'
by Austin BayPosted Oct 18, 2006
If demography is destiny, then news of America's decline is (like Mark Twain's death) decidedly premature. Statisticians tell us Oct. 17 (at 7:46 a.m. EDT, according to the Census Bureau's estimate) was the day America's population reached, then surpassed, 300 million people. That's a three followed by eight zeroes. Unfortunately, Oct. 17 was Halloween with an extra "Boo" (B with two zeroes) for various "greens" and ecological radicals mired in Malthusian desperation and myths of looming disaster. For decades, the doomsayers have been predicting catastrophe wrought by the "population explosion" and diminishing resources. Author and columnist Mark Steyn notes in his new book, "America Alone" (Regnery Publishing), "The end of the world's nighness isn't something you'd want to set your watch by. " Steyn provides a collection of the dire predictions made by "Chicken Little's eminent successors." Steyn's list includes:
1968, in "The Population Bomb," distinguished scientist Paul Ehrlich declared, "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
1972, in "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
1976, Lowell Ponte published a huge bestseller called "The Cooling: Has the New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive?"
1977, Jimmy Carter confidently predicted that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
"None of these things occurred," Steyn writes. "Contrary to the doom-mongers' predictions, millions didn't starve." Steyn, however, isn't against gloomy prognostications, per se. In fact, "America Alone" is a doom book of a peculiar sort -- it's insistently witty and trenchantly written. Both are achievements, given the core subject matter: American demographic success and vitality (fecundity, folks) compared to the demographic decline of other democracies and modern, industrialized nations. Steyn is an arch "Euro-pessimist," who backs his pessimism with numbers. Europeans are reproducing below the "replacement rate" -- thus the average age of their populations is increasing sharply. If current trends continue, by 2050 one in three Germans and Italians will be over 65 years old. In the United States, only one in five will be so gray. As a result, the Europe of the European Union (Steyn disdainfully calls it "Eutopia") faces economic decline and risks systemic change. Steyn writes: "Tax revenues that support the ever growing numbers of the elderly and retired have to be paid by equally growing numbers of the young and working. The design flaw of the radically secularist Eutopia is that it depend on a religious-society birth rate." Japan faces the same "gray threat." Even China has a birthrate below the demographic replacement rate. Among the modern industrial nations, only the United States (and possibly India) has the knack for reproduction. The United States also grows through immigration that includes political and cultural integration. Europe's Muslims, however, are multiplying -- but they are not integrating culturally. Steyn argues that if European nations fail to culturally integrate Muslims, Europe faces profound political changes. "As fertility dries up," he writes, "so do societies. Demography is the most obvious symptom of civilizational exhaustion, and the clearest indicator of where we're headed." Islam cannot enjoy "political sovereignty" in Europe. Steyn adds: "Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke 'the Muslim world' would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to 'the Christian world.' When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty, too." America remains an exception among democracies, Steyn concludes. America's population climbs at a healthy rate, and America politically and culturally integrates immigrants. At least part of America remains an exception. "Demographic trends," Steyn observes, cheekily, "suggest that the blue state ought to apply for honorary membership in the EU; in the 2004 election, the Bush-voting states had fertility rates 12 percent higher than Kerry-voting states. Barring a sudden change in electoral fortunes, Democrats are going to be even more depressed at their 2010 and 2020 reapportionments."
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Coal regains regal status as energy prices rise
Oct 1, 2006
Albany Times Union
STEVE RAABE Denver Post
King Coal is back.
Years of punishing increases in natural gas prices have the nation's utilities preparing to shift away from expensive gas-fired generation in favor of more than 150 new coal-burning plants.
"There's no doubt that coal will be playing a much bigger role in power generation," said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association. "That bodes well not only for Colorado coal but for Western coal in general."
The move toward coal is an abrupt departure from the past 20 years when most new power plants built in the U.S. have been fueled by natural gas. Before the big price run-up over the past five years, natural gas was viewed as a cheap fuel, with the added benefit of burning cleanly.
But with natural gas prices jumping from $2 per 1,000 cubic feet in 2001 to as high as $15 last December, gas-fired power has led to record increases in consumer electric bills. On Friday, natural gas was trading at $5.62 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Based on long-term averages, power from natural gas costs three to five times more to generate than power from coal, according to industry analysts.
As a result, there are proposals for 153 new coal generators nationwide that would supply enough electricity for 93 million homes.
Xcel Energy and Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Colorado's two largest utilities, have proposed $7 billion in new plants, which represents 5 percent of the $136 billion in potential new projects tracked by the Department of Energy. Those utilities and their ratepayers make up some of the nation's biggest spenders for coal-plant development.
The five new plants in Colorado will run the gamut from conventional units to a leading edge facility with ultra-low emissions.
The development surge also could benefit Colorado's coal-extraction industry, the nation's seventh-largest, with production last year of 38 million tons.
Xcel has proposed building the nation's first power plant that converts coal to clean-burning gas and also captures carbon emissions -- viewed as an environmental breakthrough that will change coal's image from a belching polluter to an abundant, clean and relatively affordable resource.
The plant could cost from $500 million to $1 billion or more, with a possible construction start in 2009.
Westminster, Colo.-based Tri-State is launching an aggressive $5 billion campaign to build three conventional coal power plants -- two in western Kansas by 2013 and one in southeast Colorado by 2020 -- primarily to serve growing demand for electricity from Colorado customers.
The prospect of a nationwide surge in new coal-burning plants is alarming environmental advocates. The Department of Energy projects that new coal-fired generation will increase carbon dioxide emissions 52 percent by 2030. Many scientists believe that carbon emissions are a contributor to global warming.
"There are enormous adverse environmental consequences," said John Nielsen, energy program director of Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates, an environmental research group.
Nielsen said utility companies and their customers also face financial risk from coal-burning plants if the federal government taxes carbon emissions.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation's first cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
But advocates from mining and power organizations say that utility owners and customers will benefit from increased reliance on abundant and relatively inexpensive coal.
Coal isn't immune to price increases. Coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin, the nation's most prolific producer, has moved in price during the past five years from a low of $3.60 a ton in 2001 to a high of $17.50 earlier this year when rail problems caused a short-term shortage. It since has dropped to about $8.
But analysts say the vast reserves of coal in the U.S. -- an estimated 250-year supply -- make it typically less volatile in price than oil or natural gas and a more dependable source of energy.
Renewable energy from wind and sun are expected to shoulder a bigger share of power needs in coming years, but their intermittent nature make them less dependable than coal plants that produce power 24 hours a day, coal boosters say.
"There's only so much you can do with renewables, conservation and efficiency," said Tri-State spokesman Jim Van Someren. "To keep up with the demand that's going on, we are in dire need of more (coal-fired) generation."
Tri-State has explored the ultra-clean coal gasification technology that Xcel proposes to use, but Tri-State opted not to use the process for its three proposed plants. "We considered that, but timing-wise, we need to get our (conventional coal) facilities up and running in a timely manner," Van Someren said. "Coal generation takes a beating from various entities, but all our facilities operate well within state and federal emissions regulations."
Nielsen said Tri-State's three plants will produce an estimated 15 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. He said the utility should give more consideration to renewable energy and conservation.
"You've got a company putting all of its eggs in one basket, and that's very risky," he said. "Coal is perhaps helping them mitigate their financial risks, but they are completely ignoring the environmental regulatory risks."
Oct 1, 2006
Albany Times Union
STEVE RAABE Denver Post
King Coal is back.
Years of punishing increases in natural gas prices have the nation's utilities preparing to shift away from expensive gas-fired generation in favor of more than 150 new coal-burning plants.
"There's no doubt that coal will be playing a much bigger role in power generation," said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association. "That bodes well not only for Colorado coal but for Western coal in general."
The move toward coal is an abrupt departure from the past 20 years when most new power plants built in the U.S. have been fueled by natural gas. Before the big price run-up over the past five years, natural gas was viewed as a cheap fuel, with the added benefit of burning cleanly.
But with natural gas prices jumping from $2 per 1,000 cubic feet in 2001 to as high as $15 last December, gas-fired power has led to record increases in consumer electric bills. On Friday, natural gas was trading at $5.62 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Based on long-term averages, power from natural gas costs three to five times more to generate than power from coal, according to industry analysts.
As a result, there are proposals for 153 new coal generators nationwide that would supply enough electricity for 93 million homes.
Xcel Energy and Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Colorado's two largest utilities, have proposed $7 billion in new plants, which represents 5 percent of the $136 billion in potential new projects tracked by the Department of Energy. Those utilities and their ratepayers make up some of the nation's biggest spenders for coal-plant development.
The five new plants in Colorado will run the gamut from conventional units to a leading edge facility with ultra-low emissions.
The development surge also could benefit Colorado's coal-extraction industry, the nation's seventh-largest, with production last year of 38 million tons.
Xcel has proposed building the nation's first power plant that converts coal to clean-burning gas and also captures carbon emissions -- viewed as an environmental breakthrough that will change coal's image from a belching polluter to an abundant, clean and relatively affordable resource.
The plant could cost from $500 million to $1 billion or more, with a possible construction start in 2009.
Westminster, Colo.-based Tri-State is launching an aggressive $5 billion campaign to build three conventional coal power plants -- two in western Kansas by 2013 and one in southeast Colorado by 2020 -- primarily to serve growing demand for electricity from Colorado customers.
The prospect of a nationwide surge in new coal-burning plants is alarming environmental advocates. The Department of Energy projects that new coal-fired generation will increase carbon dioxide emissions 52 percent by 2030. Many scientists believe that carbon emissions are a contributor to global warming.
"There are enormous adverse environmental consequences," said John Nielsen, energy program director of Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates, an environmental research group.
Nielsen said utility companies and their customers also face financial risk from coal-burning plants if the federal government taxes carbon emissions.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation's first cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
But advocates from mining and power organizations say that utility owners and customers will benefit from increased reliance on abundant and relatively inexpensive coal.
Coal isn't immune to price increases. Coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin, the nation's most prolific producer, has moved in price during the past five years from a low of $3.60 a ton in 2001 to a high of $17.50 earlier this year when rail problems caused a short-term shortage. It since has dropped to about $8.
But analysts say the vast reserves of coal in the U.S. -- an estimated 250-year supply -- make it typically less volatile in price than oil or natural gas and a more dependable source of energy.
Renewable energy from wind and sun are expected to shoulder a bigger share of power needs in coming years, but their intermittent nature make them less dependable than coal plants that produce power 24 hours a day, coal boosters say.
"There's only so much you can do with renewables, conservation and efficiency," said Tri-State spokesman Jim Van Someren. "To keep up with the demand that's going on, we are in dire need of more (coal-fired) generation."
Tri-State has explored the ultra-clean coal gasification technology that Xcel proposes to use, but Tri-State opted not to use the process for its three proposed plants. "We considered that, but timing-wise, we need to get our (conventional coal) facilities up and running in a timely manner," Van Someren said. "Coal generation takes a beating from various entities, but all our facilities operate well within state and federal emissions regulations."
Nielsen said Tri-State's three plants will produce an estimated 15 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. He said the utility should give more consideration to renewable energy and conservation.
"You've got a company putting all of its eggs in one basket, and that's very risky," he said. "Coal is perhaps helping them mitigate their financial risks, but they are completely ignoring the environmental regulatory risks."
Coal-to-liquid: Boucher plan could benefit Southwest Virginia
Bluefield Daily Telegraph
— U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., is the latest lawmaker to introduce welcomed legislation aimed at promoting the use of coal-to-liquids technology.Boucher and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., introduced federal legislation last week to promote the use of coal-to-liquids, a technology that enables the production of transportation fuels from coal — a process that could potentially reap rich benefits to the coal-producing counties of Southwest Virginia, as well as southern West Virginia.Boucher said coal liquefaction has been in use since World War II, and South Africa today uses the technology to produce approximately 40 percent of its transportation fuels. While in use in other parts of the world, the technology inexplicably hasn’t been widely deployed in the United States.By using domestic energy resources instead of imported petroleum to power cars and trucks in the United States, the legislation would allow officials to tap into one of our nation’s most abundant natural resources — coal.This is important because coal is a resource that is abundantly available across southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia.The legislation introduced by Shimkus and Boucher would enable the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with up to six coal liquefaction projects for the purpose of establishing price parameters, which will provide the projects with a federal price guarantee.Under the legislation, if the price of crude oil falls below an agreed upon price, or approximately $40 per barrel, the federal government would make a payment to the facility owner, thereby establishing a price floor for the facility’s product. However, if the price of crude oil were to rise above a certain ceiling, or upwards of today’s market price per barrel, the facility operator would be required to make payments to the federal government.“The escalation of gasoline prices has highlighted the need for our nation to obtain energy independence,” Boucher said last week. “By using one of our nation’s most abundant natural resources — coal — to produce transportation fuels, we can address fuel cost concerns, make our nation less reliant on imports from politically unstable regions of the world and simultaneously benefit our domestic coal industry.”We agree with Boucher, and we strongly support the coal-to-liquids technology legislation.This technology is not only another step forward in weaning our dependence on foreign oil and making our country more secure, but it also represents a potential boon to the coal-producing counties of Southwest Virginia and southern West Virginia.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
Bluefield Daily Telegraph
— U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., is the latest lawmaker to introduce welcomed legislation aimed at promoting the use of coal-to-liquids technology.Boucher and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., introduced federal legislation last week to promote the use of coal-to-liquids, a technology that enables the production of transportation fuels from coal — a process that could potentially reap rich benefits to the coal-producing counties of Southwest Virginia, as well as southern West Virginia.Boucher said coal liquefaction has been in use since World War II, and South Africa today uses the technology to produce approximately 40 percent of its transportation fuels. While in use in other parts of the world, the technology inexplicably hasn’t been widely deployed in the United States.By using domestic energy resources instead of imported petroleum to power cars and trucks in the United States, the legislation would allow officials to tap into one of our nation’s most abundant natural resources — coal.This is important because coal is a resource that is abundantly available across southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia.The legislation introduced by Shimkus and Boucher would enable the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with up to six coal liquefaction projects for the purpose of establishing price parameters, which will provide the projects with a federal price guarantee.Under the legislation, if the price of crude oil falls below an agreed upon price, or approximately $40 per barrel, the federal government would make a payment to the facility owner, thereby establishing a price floor for the facility’s product. However, if the price of crude oil were to rise above a certain ceiling, or upwards of today’s market price per barrel, the facility operator would be required to make payments to the federal government.“The escalation of gasoline prices has highlighted the need for our nation to obtain energy independence,” Boucher said last week. “By using one of our nation’s most abundant natural resources — coal — to produce transportation fuels, we can address fuel cost concerns, make our nation less reliant on imports from politically unstable regions of the world and simultaneously benefit our domestic coal industry.”We agree with Boucher, and we strongly support the coal-to-liquids technology legislation.This technology is not only another step forward in weaning our dependence on foreign oil and making our country more secure, but it also represents a potential boon to the coal-producing counties of Southwest Virginia and southern West Virginia.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
We are for the winners at trade associations and do not get involved in the election process, other than voting, but it does appear there could be a shift in the powers that be with the Democrat's taking over the House and maybe the Senate. Congressman Boucher has said he could become vice-chair of the House energy committee. This could be good news for the coal industry as we consider him a very good friend.
Democrats' Energy Focus Hints At Possible Senate Agenda For 2007
Oct 26, 2006
Inside EPA
Democratic Senate candidates’ increasing focus on energy as a major election issue in several races key to control of Congress after the midterm elections suggests that Democrats are likely to push an aggressive new energy agenda should they make gains or take back the upper chamber, several sources say.
As a result of Democrats’ increased focus on energy issues in the election, several observers say that the party is likely to seek new legislation in 2007 on issues including boosting tax credits for alternative fuel vehicle purchases, encouraging development of alternative energy sources, and pursuing bills addressing climate change.
However, other observers and some Republicans expect a “status quo” even if Democrats win leadership of both the House and the Senate. One Republican source says whichever party is in the majority after the midterms will have such a slim majority “nothing much will get done.”
Activists, congressional and industry sources, and other observers of this year’s close Senate races -- including the contests in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Virginia and Tennessee -- say they have noticed a dramatic increase in the focus on energy issues on the campaign trail compared to previous election cycles.
Several sources say recent high gasoline and natural gas prices, an increased focus on climate change, and a public desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil are all factors making energy a major issue in the elections.
Democrats are already putting pressure on the White House to focus on energy policy next year, calling for funding to “dramatically improve” energy policy in fiscal year 2008. In an Oct. 11 letter to President Bush, 24 Democratic senators wrote that “volatile and increasing energy prices” have caused job losses and increased the country’s trade deficit, while the war in Iraq and growing international competition for limited fossil fuel resources, as well as the threat of global warming, “are clear and present signs that our country must act now to increase our nation’s energy independence.”
The letter calls on the administration’s FY08 budget request to fund “significant” increases in promoting energy efficiency, biofuels, alternative fuels and vehicles, clean coal and carbon sequestration, and boost the production of clean and renewable energy through tax incentives and credits.
One alternative energy advocate says there has been a large increase in the number of Senate races where energy issues, particularly alternatives to oil, fuel economy and climate change have taken on greater significance. The source expects Democrats to push aggressively with legislation addressing these topics, but says much will depend on the outcome of the midterm elections and how many seats Democrats have.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group has also launched a campaign asking all congressional candidates to commit to supporting energy policies to help the United States: reduce dependence on foreign oil by a third in 2025; develop clean, renewable energy sources to supply at least one quarter of energy needs by 2025; save energy with high performance homes and appliances to use 10 percent less energy in 2025 than today; and triple research and development funding for energy-saving and renewable technologies.
In Missouri, Sen. James Talent (R) is locked in a tight race with state auditor Claire McCaskill, the Democratic challenger, and both have been talking up energy issues in recent weeks.
At a renewable energy conference in St. Louis earlier this month, Talent said there was a need for Congress to pass new legislation to promote the use of ethanol nationwide. According to press reports, Talent told the conference that increasing use of ethanol is “the path to energy independence.”
President Bush appeared alongside Talent at the conference to say that federal money should be spent on research and development into alternative energy sources, and also used to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy hybrid vehicles. Bush also said that ethanol should become “a primary source for the fuel people use, which will help us meet our national security and economic concerns and objectives.”
At the same time, McCaskill has been attacking Talent’s record, claiming the senator votes against renewable and clean energy. She cites his 2005 votes against a measure to require that renewable energy sources comprise at least 20 percent of the electricity sold by 2020 and an amendment to the 2005 Energy Policy Act that bars tax incentives for building wind power projects within 20 miles of “high scenic areas.”
McCaskill is also attacking Talent’s record on global warming, after the senator said in a June 22, 2005, speech on the Senate floor “[w]e are not even sure that a warmer Earth is a bad thing.”
Meanwhile, Montana Democratic candidate Jon Tester -- who is locked in a tight race with incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (R) -- told reporters earlier this month that his priorities if elected would be to focus on energy independence, health care and campaign finance reform.
Tester’s Web site touts the fact that he supported legislation in the Montana Senate to develop ethanol and wind power in the state, and sponsored a successful bill to create a state renewable energy standard. If elected, Tester would make a key issue “investing in bio-fuel technology and wind power development, creating a national renewable standard and promoting energy efficiency and conservation,” the Web site says.
Burns’ Web site addresses reducing dependence on Middle Eastern oil by improving relations with other major oil-producing countries including Russia, Mexico, and several African and South American countries.
Burns also promotes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and favors expanding the use of natural gas and clean coal technologies. In addition, Burns says, “We have the ability to use hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol fuels, biomass energy, and wind-generated electricity to great benefit.”
Election observers say energy has also emerged as a key factor in Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) reelection bid, as she touts a major energy plan in order to fight off a challenge from Republican opponent Mike McGavick, whose campaign could not be reached for comment.
And in Virginia, where Democrat James Webb is challenging incumbent Sen. George Allen (R) in an unexpectedly close race, a Webb spokeswoman says the candidate is linking national security to energy independence on the campaign trail, and says “that’s not something I’ve heard Allen talk about a lot.”
Webb opposes drilling in ANWR, supports a windfall tax on oil companies and “believes we should use the proceeds to develop and deploy renewable energy sources,” according to a Webb statement. The statement says that Allen “has consistently voted against alternative fuel sources” and voted to open up ANWR to drilling eight times.
Spokesmen for both Allen’s Senate office and Allen’s campaign office did not return calls.
Given the increased focus on energy issues by Democrats in the election, one renewable energy industry source expects Democrats to push for revisiting the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The source says Democrats would likely seek to end subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power that are in the law.
The source also expects Democrats to try to lift limits on incentives for purchasing alternative energy and alternative fuel vehicles, and also says a Democratic Congress may be “more sympathetic” to tightening fuel economy standards. However, the source adds that any push to revise fuel economy standards would be an uphill struggle given the lack of widespread support for such a move.
On some issues related to energy, the source believes that Democrats would be able to work with Republicans to pass legislation, such as bolstering ethanol production.
Ethanol is something that “has got bipartisan support” from many senators, and any legislative package of incentives to bolster its production and use would likely not face any significant challenges, the source adds.
One knowledgeable source expects the energy debate in 2007 not to produce many results, however, because it will deadlock when it “breaks down on bipartisan regional grounds,” for example with lawmakers from Texas and surrounding states advocating policies that benefit the oil industry and refiners, while lawmakers in the Northeast are likely to continue promoting measures that benefit the natural gas industry.
The source says that given there are a “lot of overlapping interests, it’s hard to see [Congress] get any new energy policy done” in the 110th Congress, regardless of which party is in the majority.
A utility industry source echoes that view and says there will be a “partisan logjam” over the next two years that will hinder any broad energy strategy that the Democrats try to push. The source says that although there may be new debates in Congress on climate change, fuel economy and other energy issues, little in the way of legislation on these topics will pass regardless of who is in control. -- Anthony Lacey
Democrats' Energy Focus Hints At Possible Senate Agenda For 2007
Oct 26, 2006
Inside EPA
Democratic Senate candidates’ increasing focus on energy as a major election issue in several races key to control of Congress after the midterm elections suggests that Democrats are likely to push an aggressive new energy agenda should they make gains or take back the upper chamber, several sources say.
As a result of Democrats’ increased focus on energy issues in the election, several observers say that the party is likely to seek new legislation in 2007 on issues including boosting tax credits for alternative fuel vehicle purchases, encouraging development of alternative energy sources, and pursuing bills addressing climate change.
However, other observers and some Republicans expect a “status quo” even if Democrats win leadership of both the House and the Senate. One Republican source says whichever party is in the majority after the midterms will have such a slim majority “nothing much will get done.”
Activists, congressional and industry sources, and other observers of this year’s close Senate races -- including the contests in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Virginia and Tennessee -- say they have noticed a dramatic increase in the focus on energy issues on the campaign trail compared to previous election cycles.
Several sources say recent high gasoline and natural gas prices, an increased focus on climate change, and a public desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil are all factors making energy a major issue in the elections.
Democrats are already putting pressure on the White House to focus on energy policy next year, calling for funding to “dramatically improve” energy policy in fiscal year 2008. In an Oct. 11 letter to President Bush, 24 Democratic senators wrote that “volatile and increasing energy prices” have caused job losses and increased the country’s trade deficit, while the war in Iraq and growing international competition for limited fossil fuel resources, as well as the threat of global warming, “are clear and present signs that our country must act now to increase our nation’s energy independence.”
The letter calls on the administration’s FY08 budget request to fund “significant” increases in promoting energy efficiency, biofuels, alternative fuels and vehicles, clean coal and carbon sequestration, and boost the production of clean and renewable energy through tax incentives and credits.
One alternative energy advocate says there has been a large increase in the number of Senate races where energy issues, particularly alternatives to oil, fuel economy and climate change have taken on greater significance. The source expects Democrats to push aggressively with legislation addressing these topics, but says much will depend on the outcome of the midterm elections and how many seats Democrats have.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group has also launched a campaign asking all congressional candidates to commit to supporting energy policies to help the United States: reduce dependence on foreign oil by a third in 2025; develop clean, renewable energy sources to supply at least one quarter of energy needs by 2025; save energy with high performance homes and appliances to use 10 percent less energy in 2025 than today; and triple research and development funding for energy-saving and renewable technologies.
In Missouri, Sen. James Talent (R) is locked in a tight race with state auditor Claire McCaskill, the Democratic challenger, and both have been talking up energy issues in recent weeks.
At a renewable energy conference in St. Louis earlier this month, Talent said there was a need for Congress to pass new legislation to promote the use of ethanol nationwide. According to press reports, Talent told the conference that increasing use of ethanol is “the path to energy independence.”
President Bush appeared alongside Talent at the conference to say that federal money should be spent on research and development into alternative energy sources, and also used to provide tax credits to encourage people to buy hybrid vehicles. Bush also said that ethanol should become “a primary source for the fuel people use, which will help us meet our national security and economic concerns and objectives.”
At the same time, McCaskill has been attacking Talent’s record, claiming the senator votes against renewable and clean energy. She cites his 2005 votes against a measure to require that renewable energy sources comprise at least 20 percent of the electricity sold by 2020 and an amendment to the 2005 Energy Policy Act that bars tax incentives for building wind power projects within 20 miles of “high scenic areas.”
McCaskill is also attacking Talent’s record on global warming, after the senator said in a June 22, 2005, speech on the Senate floor “[w]e are not even sure that a warmer Earth is a bad thing.”
Meanwhile, Montana Democratic candidate Jon Tester -- who is locked in a tight race with incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (R) -- told reporters earlier this month that his priorities if elected would be to focus on energy independence, health care and campaign finance reform.
Tester’s Web site touts the fact that he supported legislation in the Montana Senate to develop ethanol and wind power in the state, and sponsored a successful bill to create a state renewable energy standard. If elected, Tester would make a key issue “investing in bio-fuel technology and wind power development, creating a national renewable standard and promoting energy efficiency and conservation,” the Web site says.
Burns’ Web site addresses reducing dependence on Middle Eastern oil by improving relations with other major oil-producing countries including Russia, Mexico, and several African and South American countries.
Burns also promotes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and favors expanding the use of natural gas and clean coal technologies. In addition, Burns says, “We have the ability to use hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol fuels, biomass energy, and wind-generated electricity to great benefit.”
Election observers say energy has also emerged as a key factor in Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) reelection bid, as she touts a major energy plan in order to fight off a challenge from Republican opponent Mike McGavick, whose campaign could not be reached for comment.
And in Virginia, where Democrat James Webb is challenging incumbent Sen. George Allen (R) in an unexpectedly close race, a Webb spokeswoman says the candidate is linking national security to energy independence on the campaign trail, and says “that’s not something I’ve heard Allen talk about a lot.”
Webb opposes drilling in ANWR, supports a windfall tax on oil companies and “believes we should use the proceeds to develop and deploy renewable energy sources,” according to a Webb statement. The statement says that Allen “has consistently voted against alternative fuel sources” and voted to open up ANWR to drilling eight times.
Spokesmen for both Allen’s Senate office and Allen’s campaign office did not return calls.
Given the increased focus on energy issues by Democrats in the election, one renewable energy industry source expects Democrats to push for revisiting the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The source says Democrats would likely seek to end subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power that are in the law.
The source also expects Democrats to try to lift limits on incentives for purchasing alternative energy and alternative fuel vehicles, and also says a Democratic Congress may be “more sympathetic” to tightening fuel economy standards. However, the source adds that any push to revise fuel economy standards would be an uphill struggle given the lack of widespread support for such a move.
On some issues related to energy, the source believes that Democrats would be able to work with Republicans to pass legislation, such as bolstering ethanol production.
Ethanol is something that “has got bipartisan support” from many senators, and any legislative package of incentives to bolster its production and use would likely not face any significant challenges, the source adds.
One knowledgeable source expects the energy debate in 2007 not to produce many results, however, because it will deadlock when it “breaks down on bipartisan regional grounds,” for example with lawmakers from Texas and surrounding states advocating policies that benefit the oil industry and refiners, while lawmakers in the Northeast are likely to continue promoting measures that benefit the natural gas industry.
The source says that given there are a “lot of overlapping interests, it’s hard to see [Congress] get any new energy policy done” in the 110th Congress, regardless of which party is in the majority.
A utility industry source echoes that view and says there will be a “partisan logjam” over the next two years that will hinder any broad energy strategy that the Democrats try to push. The source says that although there may be new debates in Congress on climate change, fuel economy and other energy issues, little in the way of legislation on these topics will pass regardless of who is in control. -- Anthony Lacey
YOU LOAD FOUR TONS AND WHAT DO YOU GET?
| |
| Oct 27, 2006 | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |
| Dan Majors Anthracite mining is a dirty job done by small companies in Eastern Pennsylvania HEGINS, Pa. -- David A. Lucas comes home from work covered from head to toe with the black grime of his coal mine. The hand he extends to shake with you is clean because it spent the day in a glove. The cigarette jutting from his mouth is white because it's fresh. He welcomes you into his kitchen through the back door of the house, where he pours you a glass of locally brewed Yuengling beer -- ignoring whatever protest you might make -- and starts talking about the life of "bootleg mining." "I worked in the mines all my life, since I was 9 years old," he proudly tells you. "At 15, I quit school. I'm 55 years old." He has spent his years in nine or more mines, some of which he owned, hauling anthracite coal out of the hills of Eastern Pennsylvania, the only place in the United States where it exists. Because anthracite coal is more difficult to mine -- unlike bituminous coal, it has to be blasted from the earth -- major coal companies don't bother with it. The dozen or so anthracite mines in the Appalachians are small, family-owned operations. Locals, as well as state officials, call it "bootleg mining." "It's kind of like mining was a hundred years ago, except they got the air tools instead of the hammers and picks," said Paul Wagner, a deep mine specialist with the state Department of Environmental Protection. "Dynamite is common." Like all mining, it's dangerous. Monday morning, Dale Russell Reightler, 43, of Donaldson, was killed while mining anthracite in the Buck Mountain Slope Mine in Tremont, not far from Hegins in Schuylkill County. It was Pennsylvania's first mine fatality of the year. Yesterday, state and federal inspectors continued their investigation into what caused the explosion that killed Mr. Reightler. According to DEP spokesman Tom Rathbun, they interviewed the six miners who were in the mine at the time of the blast, then took the rest of the day off to attend the funeral for Mr. Reightler. The investigators expect to continue their underground inspection today and tomorrow, but Mr. Rathbun could not say when they might have a report ready or when owners R&D Coal Co. will be allowed to reopen the mine. Mr. Lucas knew Mr. Reightler since he was a boy and gave him his first job in the mines. They worked together off and on for years. Of course, that can be said of many of the men who live in these hills. "He was a good miner, a safe miner," Mr. Lucas says. He points out that this is the first fatality inside an anthracite mine since 1999. His wife, LaRae Lucas, wears a T-shirt that boasts "Coal Region Pride." The back of it, visible as she cooks supper on the stove, reads, "You know you're a coal cracker if ..." and goes on to list 10 humorous observations that the locals can laugh about, but a chuckle from someone else might be rude. Mrs. Lucas first heard the sketchy details about Monday's accident while listening to the police scanner in her kitchen. She immediately called her husband, who was working in his mine, the one he owns with his brother, Darryl. Together, they are D&D Anthracite Coal Co. "We're all families. We're all neighbors," Mr. Lucas says. "When we heard about it, everyone was wondering was it my husband, was it my son, was it my dad?" Mr. Lucas was injured in a 1973 mishap, but he's fine now, he tells you. His wife lost a nephew in a mine accident in 1996. Few people reflect on the men who have lost their lives in the coal mines more than Mr. Lucas. He has built a memorial to them under the big maple tree in his front yard, right along Main Street in Hegins. It started in 1994, when he bought a wooden statue of a coal miner at an arts-and-crafts show. He brought it home and put it next to his front porch, using a stump in the yard as a pedestal. In the months that followed, he built alongside the statue a replica of a mine entrance. The roof and walls are made of the distinctively shiny anthracite coal. Everything else is authentic mining equipment discarded long ago: 10 yards of rusted track, an old wooden coal cart filled to the top, boots, picks and shovels. There's also a vintage mine phone and a detonator box. A driver passing by his home might mistakenly think the deep, dark portal actually leads down into the earth. Yet as striking as the exhibit is, it's the names that give folks pause. The names of coal miners who have died -- some in mining accidents, some of black lung, others of natural causes -- listed on black boards hanging on the miniature mine. The boards also note mining accidents, such as the H.C. Frick Coke Co. mine explosion in Pittsburgh in 1891, which killed too many miners to name. People from all over the country have stopped to see the memorial, he says. And sometimes, when a miner passes away, one of the miner's family members will ask to have the man's name added to the memorial. But Mr. Lucas doesn't dwell entirely on the past. He frets about the future of anthracite mining. A fifth-generation coal miner, his son, David Jr., 34, worked in the mines for a handful of years but has gotten a job as a welder. It isn't that the work in the mines is too hard or too dangerous. The problem, Mr. Lucas says, is the government. The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, he said, seems to be trying to regulate "bootleg mining" right out of existence. "MSHA, as far as I'm concerned, they did everything under God's sun to put all these mines out of business and put stress on everybody," he growls. "They came in there and shut me down," he says of an encounter with an MSHA inspector two years ago. "They gave me more violations in one day than I had in 10 years." Mr. Lucas leaves the kitchen for a moment, then returns with a briefcase filled with legal documents that he slams onto the table. He opens it and pulls out a copy of a letter he wrote to MSHA after an inspector ordered his mine closed in December 2004. "Christmas time!" he shouts. "They took food from my family at Christmas time!" The MSHA inspector had faulted Mr. Lucas for a bad ventilation seal in his mine and asked him what steps he would take to correct the problem. Mr. Lucas responded with a list of six steps detailing a plan for ventilation and how it would be accomplished. But first and foremost, at the top of his list, he wrote: "No. 1 -- Common sense will be used." The MSHA inspector responded to Mr. Lucas' letter with a letter of his own. "Common sense," he said, "must either be specifically defined or, if injected as a rhetorical statement, deleted." Mr. Lucas throws his hands up in exasperation. "Common sense has kept me and the men who worked for me alive for all these years," he says. "We are being belittled because they don't have common sense or judgment of character." The black dust that covers his red flannel shirt and blue jeans adds luster to the colorful asides that he mutters under his breath. "You come to my coal mine to help me out, I'll shake your hand and bow to you," he says. "You come to pick on me, stay out of my territory." Mr. Rathbun said the mine inspectors have no intention of putting the anthracite miners out of business. "However, we expect mines to operate safely," he said yesterday. "We believe our anthracite mining laws are fair and reasonable." The matter involving Mr. Lucas was resolved, but it took him months of fighting the bureaucracy and making modifications to his mine. He says he lost two years of work over the course of three years and was fined more than $40,000. But he's back in his mine. He and his brother have been working it for five months straight now. In one day this week, they mined 4 tons of anthracite coal. It sounds like it ought to pay a lot of bills, but it doesn't. Mr. Lucas says he gets $45 a ton. "I can't afford to hire nobody," he says. "I'm on food stamps for the last eight or nine months. "I'm broke," he says. "I'm a working man, and I don't know which way to turn." | |
Mercury is in our teeth yet we fear it in the air?
Mercury is in our teeth yet we fear it in the air from new high tech power plants. Whats wrong with that picture. One of the biggest complaints about any new power plant is the levels of "mercury" introduced to the air and thus humans. Yet people are exposed to mercury directly from fillings in their mouth. Yet the anti work, anti America, anti anything and everything. Except for the minerals and mining products they use like cars made of steel made from coal. Even the 10 speed bikes they use to save gas has dozens of minerals used and hidden inside the manufacturing process. It drives these kooks crazy when you confront them with the fact they activly us hundreds of mined products each day, from electricty to hair shampoo.
The Tribune-Science and Technology
Are mercury tooth fillings safe?Lisa Richwine
The safety of widely used silver fillings made with mercury will get another look this week in light of persistent complaints that they may cause health problems.
Dozens of studies have found no evidence that the fillings are dangerous, except for rare cases of allergic reactions, U.S. health officials say.
The Food and Drug Administration will ask a panel of outside experts on Wednesday and Thursday if it agrees with that conclusion or sees reason to worry.
Mercury is known to be toxic to the brain and kidneys, but health officials say the mercury vapors emitted from fillings during brushing and chewing are too small to cause harm.
Also called dental amalgams, the silver fillings are about half mercury and half a combination of other metals. Makers include Dentsply and Danaher Corp. unit Kerr.
The FDA analysed research since 1997, when the U.S. Public Health Service issued a report saying data did not support claims that silver fillings caused serious health problems in humans.
A review of 34 studies produced nothing to contradict that finding, the FDA said in a draft report prepared for the advisory panel meeting.
“The weight of evidence ... does not support the hypothesis that exposure to mercury via dental amalgam restorations causes adverse biological outcomes,” the agency said.
Tens of millions of Americans get silver fillings each year, although dentists today often repair cavities with newer materials that are close to tooth colour.
The American Dental Association, on its website, said the silver fillings remain a valuable option because they are durable, easy to use and relatively inexpensive.
The FDA lists silver fillings with fish consumption and vaccines as the major sources of mercury exposure in the United States. Studies have found people with more silver fillings have higher levels of the substance in their blood and urine, but health officials say the amounts remain below what is hazardous.
Some consumers, however, believe using mercury in dentistry is unnecessary and dangerous given the consensus that other types of mercury exposure can be harmful.
Opponents of mercury fillings plan to file a petition today asking the FDA to immediately ban them for pregnant women. Some countries advise dentists not to use silver fillings in women who are expecting.
If the FDA does not act, “we are going to still continue to use it in pregnant women and children even though we know mercury causes brain damage.
It’s morally and legally unacceptable,” said Charles Brown, counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice. — Reuters
The Tribune-Science and Technology
Are mercury tooth fillings safe?Lisa Richwine
The safety of widely used silver fillings made with mercury will get another look this week in light of persistent complaints that they may cause health problems.
Dozens of studies have found no evidence that the fillings are dangerous, except for rare cases of allergic reactions, U.S. health officials say.
The Food and Drug Administration will ask a panel of outside experts on Wednesday and Thursday if it agrees with that conclusion or sees reason to worry.
Mercury is known to be toxic to the brain and kidneys, but health officials say the mercury vapors emitted from fillings during brushing and chewing are too small to cause harm.
Also called dental amalgams, the silver fillings are about half mercury and half a combination of other metals. Makers include Dentsply and Danaher Corp. unit Kerr.
The FDA analysed research since 1997, when the U.S. Public Health Service issued a report saying data did not support claims that silver fillings caused serious health problems in humans.
A review of 34 studies produced nothing to contradict that finding, the FDA said in a draft report prepared for the advisory panel meeting.
“The weight of evidence ... does not support the hypothesis that exposure to mercury via dental amalgam restorations causes adverse biological outcomes,” the agency said.
Tens of millions of Americans get silver fillings each year, although dentists today often repair cavities with newer materials that are close to tooth colour.
The American Dental Association, on its website, said the silver fillings remain a valuable option because they are durable, easy to use and relatively inexpensive.
The FDA lists silver fillings with fish consumption and vaccines as the major sources of mercury exposure in the United States. Studies have found people with more silver fillings have higher levels of the substance in their blood and urine, but health officials say the amounts remain below what is hazardous.
Some consumers, however, believe using mercury in dentistry is unnecessary and dangerous given the consensus that other types of mercury exposure can be harmful.
Opponents of mercury fillings plan to file a petition today asking the FDA to immediately ban them for pregnant women. Some countries advise dentists not to use silver fillings in women who are expecting.
If the FDA does not act, “we are going to still continue to use it in pregnant women and children even though we know mercury causes brain damage.
It’s morally and legally unacceptable,” said Charles Brown, counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice. — Reuters
Thursday, October 26, 2006
This is the same old story with a different tune. You cant bash coal and present un-truths if someone is there with facts about coal. Just like these peacenic's tho, act like experts and they know nothing really at all about the topic.
Industry Feels Left Out Of WJU Mining Panel
By SHELLEY HANSON
WHEELING — Chris Hamilton says the coal mining industry has high standards for land
reclamation, despite what some contend.
That is why he can’t understand how the coal industry was left out of a discussion at a local
university about mining and the environment.
Hamilton is senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association — a trade group that
represents numerous coal mining companies. He said Wednesday he disagrees with a recent
assessment of the state of coal mining and its impact on the environment in West Virginia.
A group discussion about coal mining was hosted Tuesday at Wheeling Jesuit University.
Much of the talk focused on the impact of mountaintop mining in southern West Virginia.
Panelists included Davitt McAteer, university vice president of sponsored programs and
author of an independent report about the cause of the Sago Mine disaster that killed 12 coal
miners in January; Cindy Rank, a member of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and
West Virginia headwaters waterkeeper; Chuck Keeney, a West Virginia historian and
professor at West Virginia University; and Harold Erdoes, Ohio political coordinator for the
United Mine Workers of America.
Hamilton said he was disappointed a representative of the West Virginia coal mining industry
was not included in the discussion. If there had been, he said, the panel would have been
more balanced.
McAteer said, however, although industry members were not formally invited to the
discussion, it was open to the public. McAteer noted industry members conduct panel
discussions without inviting environmentalists.
“We are anxious to have a balanced approach. We have plans to have an industry evening
with industry representatives to talk about mining, how it impacts the state and how the
industry participates in the process,” McAteer said, noting the industry panel is expected to
occur in January or February.
On Tuesday, some panelists said the impact of mountaintop mining on the environment and
people includes flooding and contamination of ground water.
Hamilton said, however, the impact of all types of coal mining is “temporary in nature.” Coal
mining at a particular site can last from five to 30 years, he noted. The current laws related to
coal mining and the environment in West Virginia are comprehensive and stringent.
“People come from all over the world to see how we do it here,” Hamilton said, referring to
coal mining companies. “We have a high level of professional standards.”
He noted surface mining, which is similar to mountaintop mining, is conducted in the Upper
Ohio Valley. Reclamation of the land is a priority, he said.
For example, the land on which the Ohio Valley Mall in St. Clairsville now sits once was the
site of surface mining.
“Both sides of the interstate— the whole area” was mined, Hamilton said. “Now it’s very
green. There are some evergreen farms and some pastureland.”
Hamilton said he may organize his own panel discussion in the Wheeling area and invite
those who participated in Wheeling Jesuit University’s forum.
Originally from Wheeling, Hamilton has been employed in the coal mining industry for 35
years. He once worked for Valley Camp Coal in Triadelphia and is a certified mine foreman.
The West Virginia Coal Association has been in existence since 1915. Companies pay dues
to be members of the association, he said.
Industry Feels Left Out Of WJU Mining Panel
By SHELLEY HANSON
WHEELING — Chris Hamilton says the coal mining industry has high standards for land
reclamation, despite what some contend.
That is why he can’t understand how the coal industry was left out of a discussion at a local
university about mining and the environment.
Hamilton is senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association — a trade group that
represents numerous coal mining companies. He said Wednesday he disagrees with a recent
assessment of the state of coal mining and its impact on the environment in West Virginia.
A group discussion about coal mining was hosted Tuesday at Wheeling Jesuit University.
Much of the talk focused on the impact of mountaintop mining in southern West Virginia.
Panelists included Davitt McAteer, university vice president of sponsored programs and
author of an independent report about the cause of the Sago Mine disaster that killed 12 coal
miners in January; Cindy Rank, a member of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and
West Virginia headwaters waterkeeper; Chuck Keeney, a West Virginia historian and
professor at West Virginia University; and Harold Erdoes, Ohio political coordinator for the
United Mine Workers of America.
Hamilton said he was disappointed a representative of the West Virginia coal mining industry
was not included in the discussion. If there had been, he said, the panel would have been
more balanced.
McAteer said, however, although industry members were not formally invited to the
discussion, it was open to the public. McAteer noted industry members conduct panel
discussions without inviting environmentalists.
“We are anxious to have a balanced approach. We have plans to have an industry evening
with industry representatives to talk about mining, how it impacts the state and how the
industry participates in the process,” McAteer said, noting the industry panel is expected to
occur in January or February.
On Tuesday, some panelists said the impact of mountaintop mining on the environment and
people includes flooding and contamination of ground water.
Hamilton said, however, the impact of all types of coal mining is “temporary in nature.” Coal
mining at a particular site can last from five to 30 years, he noted. The current laws related to
coal mining and the environment in West Virginia are comprehensive and stringent.
“People come from all over the world to see how we do it here,” Hamilton said, referring to
coal mining companies. “We have a high level of professional standards.”
He noted surface mining, which is similar to mountaintop mining, is conducted in the Upper
Ohio Valley. Reclamation of the land is a priority, he said.
For example, the land on which the Ohio Valley Mall in St. Clairsville now sits once was the
site of surface mining.
“Both sides of the interstate— the whole area” was mined, Hamilton said. “Now it’s very
green. There are some evergreen farms and some pastureland.”
Hamilton said he may organize his own panel discussion in the Wheeling area and invite
those who participated in Wheeling Jesuit University’s forum.
Originally from Wheeling, Hamilton has been employed in the coal mining industry for 35
years. He once worked for Valley Camp Coal in Triadelphia and is a certified mine foreman.
The West Virginia Coal Association has been in existence since 1915. Companies pay dues
to be members of the association, he said.
And now for something totally different;
-->
October 26, 2006
Moooore power
Methane from cow manure makes new energy
Eight-hundred dairy cows help power many farms and homes.
By Vincent Staupe
niversity researchers are studying a peculiar source of energy on a dairy farm about an hour north of the Twin Cities.
The energy is derived from methane gas produced by the manure of the 800-plus dairy cows that inhabit Haubenschild Farms located near Princeton.
Richard Huelskamp, a scientist with the University's bioproducts and biosystems engineering department, studies anaerobic digestion, a process that produces biogas from decomposing manure. The gas can be used to create energy.
"Basically, the philosophy of the farmer is 'if it's a waste, let's figure out what we can do with it to get something out of it,' " Huelskamp said.
Around 1999, Dennis Haubenschild, the owner of the farm, decided to do just that. He installed an internal combustion engine with a 135-kilowatt electrical generator that runs on the methane captured from the breakdown of manure.
"I believe that agriculture has got to be supplying 25 to 50 percent of our domestic energy," Haubenschild said. "We need to maintain sustainability."
Behind the cow barns at his farm are several linear concrete troughs, called digesters, which channel the manure slowly for 30 days, allowing it to decompose and eventually release gas. A flexible white cover bulges over the trough, revealing the amount of gas generated by the manure below, Huelskamp said.
Once the manure works its way through the digester, and the biogas is captured and stored, the less pungent waste is pushed to a nearby holding pond where it can eventually be used for agricultural purposes such as fertilizing fields, Huelskamp said.
The farm lacks the strong smell of what might be expected from a farm of more than 800 cows because the majority of the gas is extracted and sent through the generator.
"That gas is basically 60 percent methane and a little less than 40 percent carbon dioxide," Huelskamp said.
Though the generator has powered the farm compound and several homes nearby for about six years, there are some drawbacks, including the release of greenhouse gasses, associate professor Philip Goodrich said.
"It's a very noisy, high maintenance generator set," he said, "And it's not clean."
The University, along with sponsors like the Initiative for Renewable Energy and Environment, the previous legislative commission on Minnesota resources and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, produced a fuel cell system in 2005 that worked to extract the hydrogen from the biogas to create electricity without combustion.
While the fuel cell system is much quieter and cleaner than the combustion engine, it is much more expensive to operate, leading researchers to consider other ways of converting biogas, Goodrich said.
"We're looking at different ways to market the energy," Goodrich said.
Options include exportation of the hydrogen and methane. Haubenschild is currently exploring the use of methane to fuel vehicles.
Graduate student Ananth Sundareshwar, who worked on the project, said the importance of the research is looking at renewable energy sources that may not have been previously studied.
"Biomethane as a fuel hasn't been looked at in detail as
has ethanol," Sundareshwar said. "This is a new alternative, which is why it is important."
Whether the technology involves using manure to produce electricity, methane or hydrogen, the importance, Huelskamp said, is who is producing it.
"Are we going to get our energy from the Middle East or are we going to do it ourselves?" he said. "This is one guy who did."
© Copyright 2006 The Minnesota Daily
-->
October 26, 2006
Moooore power
Methane from cow manure makes new energy
Eight-hundred dairy cows help power many farms and homes.
By Vincent Staupe
niversity researchers are studying a peculiar source of energy on a dairy farm about an hour north of the Twin Cities.
The energy is derived from methane gas produced by the manure of the 800-plus dairy cows that inhabit Haubenschild Farms located near Princeton.
Richard Huelskamp, a scientist with the University's bioproducts and biosystems engineering department, studies anaerobic digestion, a process that produces biogas from decomposing manure. The gas can be used to create energy.
"Basically, the philosophy of the farmer is 'if it's a waste, let's figure out what we can do with it to get something out of it,' " Huelskamp said.
Around 1999, Dennis Haubenschild, the owner of the farm, decided to do just that. He installed an internal combustion engine with a 135-kilowatt electrical generator that runs on the methane captured from the breakdown of manure.
"I believe that agriculture has got to be supplying 25 to 50 percent of our domestic energy," Haubenschild said. "We need to maintain sustainability."
Behind the cow barns at his farm are several linear concrete troughs, called digesters, which channel the manure slowly for 30 days, allowing it to decompose and eventually release gas. A flexible white cover bulges over the trough, revealing the amount of gas generated by the manure below, Huelskamp said.
Once the manure works its way through the digester, and the biogas is captured and stored, the less pungent waste is pushed to a nearby holding pond where it can eventually be used for agricultural purposes such as fertilizing fields, Huelskamp said.
The farm lacks the strong smell of what might be expected from a farm of more than 800 cows because the majority of the gas is extracted and sent through the generator.
"That gas is basically 60 percent methane and a little less than 40 percent carbon dioxide," Huelskamp said.
Though the generator has powered the farm compound and several homes nearby for about six years, there are some drawbacks, including the release of greenhouse gasses, associate professor Philip Goodrich said.
"It's a very noisy, high maintenance generator set," he said, "And it's not clean."
The University, along with sponsors like the Initiative for Renewable Energy and Environment, the previous legislative commission on Minnesota resources and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, produced a fuel cell system in 2005 that worked to extract the hydrogen from the biogas to create electricity without combustion.
While the fuel cell system is much quieter and cleaner than the combustion engine, it is much more expensive to operate, leading researchers to consider other ways of converting biogas, Goodrich said.
"We're looking at different ways to market the energy," Goodrich said.
Options include exportation of the hydrogen and methane. Haubenschild is currently exploring the use of methane to fuel vehicles.
Graduate student Ananth Sundareshwar, who worked on the project, said the importance of the research is looking at renewable energy sources that may not have been previously studied.
"Biomethane as a fuel hasn't been looked at in detail as
has ethanol," Sundareshwar said. "This is a new alternative, which is why it is important."
Whether the technology involves using manure to produce electricity, methane or hydrogen, the importance, Huelskamp said, is who is producing it.
"Are we going to get our energy from the Middle East or are we going to do it ourselves?" he said. "This is one guy who did."
© Copyright 2006 The Minnesota Daily
Ultra-clean power plant to run on milk-processing waste
Author: RP news wires
Issue: /
FuelCell Energy Inc., a leading manufacturer of efficient electric power plants for commercial and industrial customers, on October 25 announced it will supply an ultra-clean power plant that will run on a renewable supply of fuel from dairy-processing waste, generating electricity to run a municipal wastewater treatment plant serving California's San Joaquin Valley region.
The winning proposal for FuelCell Energy's Direct FuelCell (DFC) power plant, submitted by distribution partner Alliance Power Inc., was selected by the city of Tulare, Calif., over reciprocating engine and micro-turbines in a competitive award process.
Wastewater treatment facilities are an ideal application for DFC power plants based on their ability to operate on anaerobic digester gas, which is classified as a renewable fuel and eligible for government incentive funding at installations around the world. Additionally, because DFC power plants generate electricity without combustion, they dramatically reduce harmful emissions of gas and particulates while generating reliable power right where it is needed.
The 750 kilowatt (kW) power plant, consisting of three DFC units, will be installed in spring 2007 to provide around-the-clock electricity for the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, surplus heat generated from its operation will be used in generating the gas to be used as fuel, thereby substantially boosting the facility's overall energy efficiency.
Tulare, the surrounding county and the San Joaquin Valley will reap significant environmental benefits by using sewage gas as a fuel for the power plant. The facility handles significant amounts of industrial milk processing waste from large food processor plants. As an added benefit, FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean DFC power plant does not require Tulare to purchase $600,000 of Emission Reduction Credits, which would be required if the city had employed traditional on-site power equipment such as reciprocating engines.
"Our selection of the DFC power plant was based on it being less costly than alternative products, while helping us reduce harmful emissions," said Lew Nelson, Tulare's director of Public Works.
"Not only do DFC power plants provide 24/7 electricity for wastewater treatment, they enable citizens of Tulare to breathe easier by turning a waste product into a source of environmentally friendly energy," said William Karambelas, vice president for business development, Western Region, for FuelCell Energy. "We count California among our strongest markets, with one of our key applications being wastewater treatment."
The Tulare project will be eligible to receive $3,375,000 in incentives from California's Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) currently administered by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to the Tulare project, FuelCell Energy currently has applications totaling $34,775,000 in incentives representing 8.95 megawatts (MW) of fuel cell projects approved for participation in the 2006 SGIP.
The Tulare installation is FuelCell Energy Inc.'s 12th wastewater treatment project worldwide.
Please reference this article as:RP news wires , "Ultra-clean power plant to run on milk-processing waste". Reliable Plant Magazine. /
Author: RP news wires
Issue: /
FuelCell Energy Inc., a leading manufacturer of efficient electric power plants for commercial and industrial customers, on October 25 announced it will supply an ultra-clean power plant that will run on a renewable supply of fuel from dairy-processing waste, generating electricity to run a municipal wastewater treatment plant serving California's San Joaquin Valley region.
The winning proposal for FuelCell Energy's Direct FuelCell (DFC) power plant, submitted by distribution partner Alliance Power Inc., was selected by the city of Tulare, Calif., over reciprocating engine and micro-turbines in a competitive award process.
Wastewater treatment facilities are an ideal application for DFC power plants based on their ability to operate on anaerobic digester gas, which is classified as a renewable fuel and eligible for government incentive funding at installations around the world. Additionally, because DFC power plants generate electricity without combustion, they dramatically reduce harmful emissions of gas and particulates while generating reliable power right where it is needed.
The 750 kilowatt (kW) power plant, consisting of three DFC units, will be installed in spring 2007 to provide around-the-clock electricity for the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, surplus heat generated from its operation will be used in generating the gas to be used as fuel, thereby substantially boosting the facility's overall energy efficiency.
Tulare, the surrounding county and the San Joaquin Valley will reap significant environmental benefits by using sewage gas as a fuel for the power plant. The facility handles significant amounts of industrial milk processing waste from large food processor plants. As an added benefit, FuelCell Energy's ultra-clean DFC power plant does not require Tulare to purchase $600,000 of Emission Reduction Credits, which would be required if the city had employed traditional on-site power equipment such as reciprocating engines.
"Our selection of the DFC power plant was based on it being less costly than alternative products, while helping us reduce harmful emissions," said Lew Nelson, Tulare's director of Public Works.
"Not only do DFC power plants provide 24/7 electricity for wastewater treatment, they enable citizens of Tulare to breathe easier by turning a waste product into a source of environmentally friendly energy," said William Karambelas, vice president for business development, Western Region, for FuelCell Energy. "We count California among our strongest markets, with one of our key applications being wastewater treatment."
The Tulare project will be eligible to receive $3,375,000 in incentives from California's Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) currently administered by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition to the Tulare project, FuelCell Energy currently has applications totaling $34,775,000 in incentives representing 8.95 megawatts (MW) of fuel cell projects approved for participation in the 2006 SGIP.
The Tulare installation is FuelCell Energy Inc.'s 12th wastewater treatment project worldwide.
Please reference this article as:RP news wires , "Ultra-clean power plant to run on milk-processing waste". Reliable Plant Magazine. /
They want the windmills so birds can be chopped up! See below; Lets see how this one turns out and watch it over the next days till election day. To bad its so close. Their hunger strike means more for me.
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com Section: Houston & Texas News
Oct. 25, 2006, 10:29PM
11 opponents of power plants begin hunger strikeAssociated Press
DENTON - Eleven environmental opponents of 16 coal-fired power plants proposed in Texas began a hunger strike Wednesday scheduled to last until Election Day on Nov. 7.
The fasting began nearly a year after Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order Oct. 27, 2005, to speed up the permitting process for the plants.
The hunger strike aims to make state leaders consider cleaner technologies such as wind power and other renewable energies, said Karen Hadden, 49, who organized the protest.
Hadden said Perry's order made Texans think there is an energy crisis that requires the quick development of new plants when none really exists.
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com Section: Houston & Texas News
Oct. 25, 2006, 10:29PM
11 opponents of power plants begin hunger strikeAssociated Press
DENTON - Eleven environmental opponents of 16 coal-fired power plants proposed in Texas began a hunger strike Wednesday scheduled to last until Election Day on Nov. 7.
The fasting began nearly a year after Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order Oct. 27, 2005, to speed up the permitting process for the plants.
The hunger strike aims to make state leaders consider cleaner technologies such as wind power and other renewable energies, said Karen Hadden, 49, who organized the protest.
Hadden said Perry's order made Texans think there is an energy crisis that requires the quick development of new plants when none really exists.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Is it just a bad case of stoopit?
Below is one of the most tainted articals I have ever read. To assume that these new technologies are not cleaner is the mark of either a short shighted reporter, a lefty reporter or someone stoopit. Just goes to show how far some members of the media will go to support the left and its anti energy make America weaker in order to support its environmental/socialist ideas. I saw it this way becasue the 2 have become intertwined of late as the true environmental movement has beed taken hostage by left extreamist who do it more harm than good. They attack America and hide behind the environment to do so. Its all the former USSR, Marxist have left to attack capitalism.
By the way down the Blog thread is some of the latest ways we are making coal a cleaner form of energy:
Mercurynews.comPosted on Sun, Oct. 15, 2006
U.S. coal plant boom poses big environmental, economic questions
STEVE QUINNAssociated PressDALLAS -
A building boom that would add scores of new coal-fired power plants to the nation's power grid is creating a new dilemma for politicians, environmentalists and utility companies across the United States.Should power companies be permitted to build new plants that pollute more but are reliable and less expensive? Or should regulators push utilities toward cleaner burning coal plants, even if it means they will cost more and are based on newer, yet still unproven, technology?How those questions are answered will have huge implications over the next few decades. It could determine how Americans light, heat and cool their homes and business, the rate of return on utility investments and the potential environmental impact of the new plants.Nowhere do these competing interests play out with such force as in Texas, where 16 new coal-fired plants are proposed - 11 of them by Dallas-based TXU Corp., the state's biggest power company.The scope of TXU's 5-year, $10 billion plan is considered bellwether and being closely watched by industry analysts, lawmakers, competitors and environmentalists across the U.S."TXU put its stake in the ground and said it will (build the plants) faster and cheaper than anyone else," said Daniele M. Seitz, analyst with investment firm Dahlman Rose. "So they have something to prove."The company is hardly alone, however.Some 154 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board in 42 states. Texas and Illinois are the only states where 10 or more plants are planned, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory.Energy analysts say factors driving coal's resurgence are soaring power demands, volatile natural gas prices and a favorable investment market.Coal now accounts for about 50 percent of the power generated in the U.S. By the year 2030, that share will increase to 57 percent, according to Energy Department forecasts.The U.S. has the world's largest coal reserves, enough to last for the next 200 to 250 years, analysts believe.Larry Makovich, managing director for consultant group Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the urgency to bring more power-generating plants online cannot be understated."A fundamental reality of the power business is there is no single fuel of choice, so if you are going to survive in the long run, you need to have a good mix of fuels and technologies," he said. "If we are going to keep supply and demand in balance, you're looking at a five-year lead time, so you have to get started building these plants now."The argument over how TXU should build power-generating plants plays out almost daily with critics and proponents weighing in on the potential merits and drawbacks of the company's plans.TXU says the proposed plants will meet the state's growing demand for power, give a sorely needed economic boost to nearby small towns and will reduce toxic emissions by replacing older, less efficient plants."The coal plant of today is so much cleaner; it makes so much less emissions than what most Americans and Texans can conjure," said Mike McCall, chief executive of TXU's wholesale division. "It can be a good viable resource without really harming the environment.McCall says Texas is growing at a rate requiring the company to bring two big power plants online each year just to stay even with demand.Critics, however, counter the company is driven by profits and is rushing to beat more stringent federal restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions in an era of escalating concerns over global warming. Texas already produces more carbon dioxide than any other state, a fact that worries big city mayors downwind of the proposed plants.The debate soon could end up in federal court. Dallas attorney Rick Addison recently announced plans to sue TXU, alleging potential violations of the federal Clean Air Act."It's remarkable and unnecessary the amount of pollutants they are going to put in the air," said Addison, a member of the Houston-based Locke Liddell and Sapp law firm. "The only way to get these issues resolved is at the highest level and reviewed under the appropriate law."The battle lines were drawn April 20, when TXU Chief Executive John Wilder announced the company's plans shortly after much of Texas underwent a rolling power blackout. Since then, each side has assembled a team of backers comprised of affected residents, lawmakers, and lawyers.In Colorado City, Texas, a town of 4,100 about 10 miles from where TXU wants to place one of the plants, civic leaders and lawmakers support the venture. They believe it will be an economic boon to the sleepy West Texas town, said Mayor Jim Baum.Baum said TXU's project will provide the town a lifeline. He said he trusts TXU will be responsible to the area's environment, saying city officials would even support a second unit if TXU wishes."We know they will not do anything to come in here and harm the environment," he said. "(TXU Senior Vice President) Richard Wistrand's mother and childhood friends still live there. Do you think he would do something to harm them?"But Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and Houston Mayor Bill White recently formed a coalition of 17 mayors opposing the TXU's 11 proposed plants and five others being considered by other Texas companies. The group has lined up law firms statewide bracing for a courtroom battle."Texas needs to be a leader on this issue and not where we are, which in my opinion is out of step and not aligned with people who are concerned about air pollution," Miller said.Miller recently spent a week visiting existing TXU plants, as well as a coal gasification plant in Tampa, Fla., that turns coal into gas and removes the pollutants before the fuel is burned.Coal gasification plants can cost up to 20 percent more to build than a conventional plant. But they also can be more efficient to operate and save utilities the hassle and expense of adding pollution-control devices.Already, American Electric Power, of Columbus, Ohio, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp, are reviewing plans to implement this technology.Mike Morris, chairman for American Electric Power, said the pressures on power companies to burn fuel in the cleanest way possible will only gain momentum in coming years."From our vantage point we think the technology for clean coal is there," he said. "It can be done, but there is a challenge."Projects such as these have Miller, some Texas lawmakers and environmentalists asking why TXU can't consider the gasification option, even for just a few of its 11 new plants.According to advocacy group Environmental Defense, TXU isn't doing enough to address carbon dioxide emissions.The group says that if TXU proceeds with its building plan, annual emissions would jump from a level of 55 million tons in 2004 to 133 million tons by 2011 -- an increase equivalent to putting an extra 10 million Cadillac Escalades on the road.For it's part, TXU says turning the coal into synthetic gas remains an unproven technology and not as reliable as burning pulverized coal -- the process the company's new plants would be designed to use.Several analysts agree."For purposes of generating electricity, a pulverized system is well-proven," said John Mead, who heads the Southern Illinois University Coal Research Center in Carbondale, Ill."Gasification has much more limited commercial experience," Mead said. "There are still some unknowns as to just what the operating costs would be and how reliable would such a system be."© 2006 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.mercurynews.com
posted by Exe Director
Below is one of the most tainted articals I have ever read. To assume that these new technologies are not cleaner is the mark of either a short shighted reporter, a lefty reporter or someone stoopit. Just goes to show how far some members of the media will go to support the left and its anti energy make America weaker in order to support its environmental/socialist ideas. I saw it this way becasue the 2 have become intertwined of late as the true environmental movement has beed taken hostage by left extreamist who do it more harm than good. They attack America and hide behind the environment to do so. Its all the former USSR, Marxist have left to attack capitalism.
By the way down the Blog thread is some of the latest ways we are making coal a cleaner form of energy:
Mercurynews.comPosted on Sun, Oct. 15, 2006
U.S. coal plant boom poses big environmental, economic questions
STEVE QUINNAssociated PressDALLAS -
A building boom that would add scores of new coal-fired power plants to the nation's power grid is creating a new dilemma for politicians, environmentalists and utility companies across the United States.Should power companies be permitted to build new plants that pollute more but are reliable and less expensive? Or should regulators push utilities toward cleaner burning coal plants, even if it means they will cost more and are based on newer, yet still unproven, technology?How those questions are answered will have huge implications over the next few decades. It could determine how Americans light, heat and cool their homes and business, the rate of return on utility investments and the potential environmental impact of the new plants.Nowhere do these competing interests play out with such force as in Texas, where 16 new coal-fired plants are proposed - 11 of them by Dallas-based TXU Corp., the state's biggest power company.The scope of TXU's 5-year, $10 billion plan is considered bellwether and being closely watched by industry analysts, lawmakers, competitors and environmentalists across the U.S."TXU put its stake in the ground and said it will (build the plants) faster and cheaper than anyone else," said Daniele M. Seitz, analyst with investment firm Dahlman Rose. "So they have something to prove."The company is hardly alone, however.Some 154 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board in 42 states. Texas and Illinois are the only states where 10 or more plants are planned, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory.Energy analysts say factors driving coal's resurgence are soaring power demands, volatile natural gas prices and a favorable investment market.Coal now accounts for about 50 percent of the power generated in the U.S. By the year 2030, that share will increase to 57 percent, according to Energy Department forecasts.The U.S. has the world's largest coal reserves, enough to last for the next 200 to 250 years, analysts believe.Larry Makovich, managing director for consultant group Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the urgency to bring more power-generating plants online cannot be understated."A fundamental reality of the power business is there is no single fuel of choice, so if you are going to survive in the long run, you need to have a good mix of fuels and technologies," he said. "If we are going to keep supply and demand in balance, you're looking at a five-year lead time, so you have to get started building these plants now."The argument over how TXU should build power-generating plants plays out almost daily with critics and proponents weighing in on the potential merits and drawbacks of the company's plans.TXU says the proposed plants will meet the state's growing demand for power, give a sorely needed economic boost to nearby small towns and will reduce toxic emissions by replacing older, less efficient plants."The coal plant of today is so much cleaner; it makes so much less emissions than what most Americans and Texans can conjure," said Mike McCall, chief executive of TXU's wholesale division. "It can be a good viable resource without really harming the environment.McCall says Texas is growing at a rate requiring the company to bring two big power plants online each year just to stay even with demand.Critics, however, counter the company is driven by profits and is rushing to beat more stringent federal restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions in an era of escalating concerns over global warming. Texas already produces more carbon dioxide than any other state, a fact that worries big city mayors downwind of the proposed plants.The debate soon could end up in federal court. Dallas attorney Rick Addison recently announced plans to sue TXU, alleging potential violations of the federal Clean Air Act."It's remarkable and unnecessary the amount of pollutants they are going to put in the air," said Addison, a member of the Houston-based Locke Liddell and Sapp law firm. "The only way to get these issues resolved is at the highest level and reviewed under the appropriate law."The battle lines were drawn April 20, when TXU Chief Executive John Wilder announced the company's plans shortly after much of Texas underwent a rolling power blackout. Since then, each side has assembled a team of backers comprised of affected residents, lawmakers, and lawyers.In Colorado City, Texas, a town of 4,100 about 10 miles from where TXU wants to place one of the plants, civic leaders and lawmakers support the venture. They believe it will be an economic boon to the sleepy West Texas town, said Mayor Jim Baum.Baum said TXU's project will provide the town a lifeline. He said he trusts TXU will be responsible to the area's environment, saying city officials would even support a second unit if TXU wishes."We know they will not do anything to come in here and harm the environment," he said. "(TXU Senior Vice President) Richard Wistrand's mother and childhood friends still live there. Do you think he would do something to harm them?"But Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and Houston Mayor Bill White recently formed a coalition of 17 mayors opposing the TXU's 11 proposed plants and five others being considered by other Texas companies. The group has lined up law firms statewide bracing for a courtroom battle."Texas needs to be a leader on this issue and not where we are, which in my opinion is out of step and not aligned with people who are concerned about air pollution," Miller said.Miller recently spent a week visiting existing TXU plants, as well as a coal gasification plant in Tampa, Fla., that turns coal into gas and removes the pollutants before the fuel is burned.Coal gasification plants can cost up to 20 percent more to build than a conventional plant. But they also can be more efficient to operate and save utilities the hassle and expense of adding pollution-control devices.Already, American Electric Power, of Columbus, Ohio, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp, are reviewing plans to implement this technology.Mike Morris, chairman for American Electric Power, said the pressures on power companies to burn fuel in the cleanest way possible will only gain momentum in coming years."From our vantage point we think the technology for clean coal is there," he said. "It can be done, but there is a challenge."Projects such as these have Miller, some Texas lawmakers and environmentalists asking why TXU can't consider the gasification option, even for just a few of its 11 new plants.According to advocacy group Environmental Defense, TXU isn't doing enough to address carbon dioxide emissions.The group says that if TXU proceeds with its building plan, annual emissions would jump from a level of 55 million tons in 2004 to 133 million tons by 2011 -- an increase equivalent to putting an extra 10 million Cadillac Escalades on the road.For it's part, TXU says turning the coal into synthetic gas remains an unproven technology and not as reliable as burning pulverized coal -- the process the company's new plants would be designed to use.Several analysts agree."For purposes of generating electricity, a pulverized system is well-proven," said John Mead, who heads the Southern Illinois University Coal Research Center in Carbondale, Ill."Gasification has much more limited commercial experience," Mead said. "There are still some unknowns as to just what the operating costs would be and how reliable would such a system be."© 2006 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.mercurynews.com
posted by Exe Director
Its out there. "Clean coal tech"! The ways we can use coal in a clean environmentally friendly manner are here and adding in numbers everyday. In America when we face a problem we view it as a challenge. GOD Bless America!
Now we got to get the word out and educate people as to where their electricty comes from and that coal is used to make half of all of Americas juice. ie.. electricity
Clean coal technology set to sweep into AES Somerset plant
By Tasha KatesLockport Union-Sun & Journal
LOCKPORT— By Tasha Kateskatest@gnnewspaper.comThe technology may sound like an oxymoron, but “clean coal” promises to be just that — a way to refine grimy, coal-fired plants. According to the Department of Energy’s Web site, the earliest kind of clean coal plants use pressurized fluidized bed technology. Scientists discovered a combustion process that could control pollutant emission without using scrubbers to clean the air.Fluidized bed technology uses a “bubbling bed” of coal burning at temperatures between 1,400 and 1,700 degrees. The mixing action inside the bed puts the flue gases in contact with a sulfur-absorbing chemical that captures the pollutants.The technology set to be used at the proposed AES plant is gasification, a cleaner way to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen and other products.Plants that use gasification expose coal to hot steam, air and oxygen while under high pressure and temperatures, the Department of Energy’s Web site said. The coal is broken into its basic chemical parts, which cause its carbon molecules to break into chemical reactions that produce carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other compounds.The clean-burning hydrogen can be used in fuel cells, turbines and as the “chemical building blocks” for commercial products. Unlike traditional coal plants, gasification creates low sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions. AES project manager Jon Reimann said the company is hoping to bid on a plant that would include selective catalytic reduction, which is used to improve air quality around the plant. The process adds a chemical reductant, such as ammonia, to the flue gas stream to mix with nitrogen oxides. The ultimate result is the creation of water and nitrogen.Nitrogen oxides are a group of highly reactive gases that form when fuel is burned at a high temperature, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Cars, utilities and industry all create the gas when burning their fuel. The EPA links nitrogen oxides with acid rain and global warming.Clean coal plants are expected to contain more emission-reducing technologies in coming years. The Department of Energy’s pet project, FutureGen, is a 275-megawatt coal-fired power plant expected to be the “world’s first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant.” The $1 billion research facility is expected to take 10 years to complete. Two Illinois and Texas sites are being considered for the plant.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
Mr Blankenship is a colorful fellow who likes head on politics and admires Virginia and the way we do things down here. You got to like that here in Virginia
NY Times
October 22, 2006
Wealthy Coal Executive Hopes to Turn Democratic West Virginia Republican
By IAN URBINA
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Don L. Blankenship is not the governor of West Virginia. But here in coal country some say he may as well be, considering the power he wields.
Mr. Blankenship, the chief executive of the state’s largest coal producer, Massey Energy, has promised to spend “whatever it takes” to help win a majority in the State Legislature for the long-beleaguered Republican Party in a state that is a Democratic and labor stronghold.
In a state where candidates who win typically spend less than $20,000, Mr. Blankenship has poured more than $6 million into political initiatives and local races over the past three years. Mr. Blankenship has spent at least $700,000 in his current effort to oust Democrats, and the state is awash with lawn signs, highway billboards, radio advertisements and field organizers paid for by him.
“Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office,” said United States Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes a majority of Massey’s coal mines. “He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”
Rather than bankroll his own political ambitions, as have businessmen like Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, Mr. Blankenship has exerted his financial clout in the mold of Warren Buffett and George Soros, choosing issues and candidates in line with his partisan philosophy.
Union leaders say Mr. Blankenship, 56, is the main reason that less than a quarter of the state’s coal miners are now organized, down from about 95 percent just three decades ago. And environmentalists describe him as the biggest force behind a highly destructive form of mining called mountaintop removal that involves using explosives to blow off the tops of mountains to reach coal seams.
Local Republicans admiringly say that Mr. Blankenship combines the strategic savvy of Karl Rove, the White House adviser, and the fund-raising skill of Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative financier. Mr. Blankenship personally oversees his media campaigns; he writes advertisements and designs polls, and speaks on talk radio more than the chairman of the state Republican Party.
“This has never been an easy state for Republicans,” said the party chairman, Doug McKinney, seated in his party’s headquarters, a dank cinder-block building in Charleston bought in 2002, half of it paid for with a $100,000 donation from Massey Energy. “But finally this state is at a tipping point, and Don is a big reason for that.”
In 2004, Mr. Blankenship financed a $3.5 million campaign that catapulted a little-known lawyer, Brent D. Benjamin, who barely won the Republican primary, onto the public stage as the first Republican to serve on the state’s Supreme Court.
In 2005, Mr. Blankenship spent $650,000 to deal Gov. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, the most significant defeat of his tenure by blocking a plan to use bonds to shore up the state’s under-financed employee pension plan.
George W. Bush won West Virginia in 2000, the first time since 1928 that voters backed a nonincumbent Republican for president. Mr. Bush won the state again in 2004, and in the past several years, a large number of Republicans have moved into the state’s eastern panhandle, mostly from Virginia.
In 2002, Republicans picked up 11 seats in the House of Delegates (but are still in the minority), and local political analysts say it is possible, though a long shot, that the Republicans will pick up the additional 18 House seats they need to control the Legislature in November. The Democrats retain a strong majority in the Senate.
“Don is really the linchpin of it all,” said Gary Abernathy, a consultant for the state Republican Party.
Mr. Blankenship, who declined to be interviewed for this article, told a gathering of Republicans last year in his famously blunt and monotone delivery that it “doesn’t take clairvoyance to know what we need to do” in West Virginia.
“If you go down to Virginia and copy the law book and write ‘West’ in front of it, you would clearly have a more prosperous economy, a better education system and you’d have a better state. It’s that simple,” he said, referring to Virginia, which is deeply Republican and has more pro-business laws than West Virginia.
The first step in that mission, said Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, has been to oppose unions fervently in the state. “From the first day he could, Don began busting unions,” Mr. Roberts said. “He was pretty effective at that, so now Don is trying to extend his reach across the state in politics.”
Raised just up the road from Matewan, the scene of an epic 1921 strike, Mr. Blankenship keeps a reminder of his anti-union beliefs in the back of his office. In 1985, Massey broke from the industry and insisted that miners at each site negotiate separately with the company. During the 11-month strike that resulted, someone shot through Mr. Blankenship’s office window. The old Zenith television whose screen was shattered by the bullet still sits not far from his desk.
After graduating with an accounting degree from Marshall University in Huntington, Mr. Blankenship worked at several companies before becoming a manager in 1982 at Massey, the fourth largest coal producer in the United States. Eight years later, he became the first non-Massey family member to serve as president of the company.
Mr. Blankenship, who received about $34 million in compensation last year (roughly four times the industry standard) runs the company from a double-wide trailer just across the state line in Belfry, Ky. In April, Mr. Blankenship’s personal housekeeper filed a lawsuit seeking unemployment benefits in which she accused him of responding with angry fits to infractions like getting the wrong McDonald’s order or stocking the freezer with the wrong ice cream. After the disasters at the Aracoma Alma Mine, which Massey owns, and the Sago Mine, in which a total of 14 miners were killed, Mr. Blankenship drew sharp criticism after he told The Herald-Mail of Hagerstown, Md., that such accidents were rare and statistically insignificant.
E. Morgan Massey, the company’s former chief executive and an admirer of Mr. Blankenship’s, said that while the criticism he faced as C.E.O. was that he was “too paternalistic,” Mr. Blankenship had been viewed differently.
“Let’s just say Don is the other way entirely,” Mr. Massey said. Mr. Blankenship has also been faulted for his company’s environmental record. Massey has had more toxic spills of coal waste than any other company in the state, and from January 2000 to December 2005, it received 4,268 citations from state regulators. The next closest company received fewer than 800. A Massey spokeswoman responded by pointing out that Massey is the largest coal producer in the state.
One of Mr. Blankenship’s biggest concerns, especially after Massey lost a $50 million jury verdict in August 2002 for having forced a smaller company out of business, has been “plaintiff-friendly courts” that he says have made West Virginia an expensive place to do business.
At the same time, Mr. Blankenship has not been shy about using the courts to deal with his adversaries. In the past several years he has sued the governor, the United Mine Workers union, the state Supreme Court, and The Charleston Gazette, the state’s largest newspaper.
Governor Manchin said he tried not to pay Mr. Blankenship any mind.
“I know Don writes a lot of checks,” Mr. Manchin said. “At this point, I’m just sticking with the issues and reminding voters of the successes we’ve had with help from the Legislature. I’m not paying attention to Don.”
The state Democratic Party, however, is taking the opposite approach. It is distributing bumper stickers saying, “Don, WV is not for sale,” and has set up a Web site listing controversial comments from Mr. Blankenship. The party has sent letters to Republican candidates pressing them to give back Mr. Blankenship’s contributions; so far, two candidates have done so.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature has also tried to rein in Mr. Blankenship’s influence.
Last year in response to Mr. Blankenship’s impact on the Supreme Court race in 2004, lawmakers passed a campaign-finance law capping at $1,000 how much an individual can give to so-called 527 groups like the one Mr. Blankenship used to influence that race.
However, individuals still can spend unlimited sums of their own money on campaign advertisements, and that is just what Mr. Blankenship has said he plans to do.
Back to Top Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
NY Times
October 22, 2006
Wealthy Coal Executive Hopes to Turn Democratic West Virginia Republican
By IAN URBINA
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Don L. Blankenship is not the governor of West Virginia. But here in coal country some say he may as well be, considering the power he wields.
Mr. Blankenship, the chief executive of the state’s largest coal producer, Massey Energy, has promised to spend “whatever it takes” to help win a majority in the State Legislature for the long-beleaguered Republican Party in a state that is a Democratic and labor stronghold.
In a state where candidates who win typically spend less than $20,000, Mr. Blankenship has poured more than $6 million into political initiatives and local races over the past three years. Mr. Blankenship has spent at least $700,000 in his current effort to oust Democrats, and the state is awash with lawn signs, highway billboards, radio advertisements and field organizers paid for by him.
“Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office,” said United States Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes a majority of Massey’s coal mines. “He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”
Rather than bankroll his own political ambitions, as have businessmen like Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, Mr. Blankenship has exerted his financial clout in the mold of Warren Buffett and George Soros, choosing issues and candidates in line with his partisan philosophy.
Union leaders say Mr. Blankenship, 56, is the main reason that less than a quarter of the state’s coal miners are now organized, down from about 95 percent just three decades ago. And environmentalists describe him as the biggest force behind a highly destructive form of mining called mountaintop removal that involves using explosives to blow off the tops of mountains to reach coal seams.
Local Republicans admiringly say that Mr. Blankenship combines the strategic savvy of Karl Rove, the White House adviser, and the fund-raising skill of Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative financier. Mr. Blankenship personally oversees his media campaigns; he writes advertisements and designs polls, and speaks on talk radio more than the chairman of the state Republican Party.
“This has never been an easy state for Republicans,” said the party chairman, Doug McKinney, seated in his party’s headquarters, a dank cinder-block building in Charleston bought in 2002, half of it paid for with a $100,000 donation from Massey Energy. “But finally this state is at a tipping point, and Don is a big reason for that.”
In 2004, Mr. Blankenship financed a $3.5 million campaign that catapulted a little-known lawyer, Brent D. Benjamin, who barely won the Republican primary, onto the public stage as the first Republican to serve on the state’s Supreme Court.
In 2005, Mr. Blankenship spent $650,000 to deal Gov. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, the most significant defeat of his tenure by blocking a plan to use bonds to shore up the state’s under-financed employee pension plan.
George W. Bush won West Virginia in 2000, the first time since 1928 that voters backed a nonincumbent Republican for president. Mr. Bush won the state again in 2004, and in the past several years, a large number of Republicans have moved into the state’s eastern panhandle, mostly from Virginia.
In 2002, Republicans picked up 11 seats in the House of Delegates (but are still in the minority), and local political analysts say it is possible, though a long shot, that the Republicans will pick up the additional 18 House seats they need to control the Legislature in November. The Democrats retain a strong majority in the Senate.
“Don is really the linchpin of it all,” said Gary Abernathy, a consultant for the state Republican Party.
Mr. Blankenship, who declined to be interviewed for this article, told a gathering of Republicans last year in his famously blunt and monotone delivery that it “doesn’t take clairvoyance to know what we need to do” in West Virginia.
“If you go down to Virginia and copy the law book and write ‘West’ in front of it, you would clearly have a more prosperous economy, a better education system and you’d have a better state. It’s that simple,” he said, referring to Virginia, which is deeply Republican and has more pro-business laws than West Virginia.
The first step in that mission, said Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, has been to oppose unions fervently in the state. “From the first day he could, Don began busting unions,” Mr. Roberts said. “He was pretty effective at that, so now Don is trying to extend his reach across the state in politics.”
Raised just up the road from Matewan, the scene of an epic 1921 strike, Mr. Blankenship keeps a reminder of his anti-union beliefs in the back of his office. In 1985, Massey broke from the industry and insisted that miners at each site negotiate separately with the company. During the 11-month strike that resulted, someone shot through Mr. Blankenship’s office window. The old Zenith television whose screen was shattered by the bullet still sits not far from his desk.
After graduating with an accounting degree from Marshall University in Huntington, Mr. Blankenship worked at several companies before becoming a manager in 1982 at Massey, the fourth largest coal producer in the United States. Eight years later, he became the first non-Massey family member to serve as president of the company.
Mr. Blankenship, who received about $34 million in compensation last year (roughly four times the industry standard) runs the company from a double-wide trailer just across the state line in Belfry, Ky. In April, Mr. Blankenship’s personal housekeeper filed a lawsuit seeking unemployment benefits in which she accused him of responding with angry fits to infractions like getting the wrong McDonald’s order or stocking the freezer with the wrong ice cream. After the disasters at the Aracoma Alma Mine, which Massey owns, and the Sago Mine, in which a total of 14 miners were killed, Mr. Blankenship drew sharp criticism after he told The Herald-Mail of Hagerstown, Md., that such accidents were rare and statistically insignificant.
E. Morgan Massey, the company’s former chief executive and an admirer of Mr. Blankenship’s, said that while the criticism he faced as C.E.O. was that he was “too paternalistic,” Mr. Blankenship had been viewed differently.
“Let’s just say Don is the other way entirely,” Mr. Massey said. Mr. Blankenship has also been faulted for his company’s environmental record. Massey has had more toxic spills of coal waste than any other company in the state, and from January 2000 to December 2005, it received 4,268 citations from state regulators. The next closest company received fewer than 800. A Massey spokeswoman responded by pointing out that Massey is the largest coal producer in the state.
One of Mr. Blankenship’s biggest concerns, especially after Massey lost a $50 million jury verdict in August 2002 for having forced a smaller company out of business, has been “plaintiff-friendly courts” that he says have made West Virginia an expensive place to do business.
At the same time, Mr. Blankenship has not been shy about using the courts to deal with his adversaries. In the past several years he has sued the governor, the United Mine Workers union, the state Supreme Court, and The Charleston Gazette, the state’s largest newspaper.
Governor Manchin said he tried not to pay Mr. Blankenship any mind.
“I know Don writes a lot of checks,” Mr. Manchin said. “At this point, I’m just sticking with the issues and reminding voters of the successes we’ve had with help from the Legislature. I’m not paying attention to Don.”
The state Democratic Party, however, is taking the opposite approach. It is distributing bumper stickers saying, “Don, WV is not for sale,” and has set up a Web site listing controversial comments from Mr. Blankenship. The party has sent letters to Republican candidates pressing them to give back Mr. Blankenship’s contributions; so far, two candidates have done so.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature has also tried to rein in Mr. Blankenship’s influence.
Last year in response to Mr. Blankenship’s impact on the Supreme Court race in 2004, lawmakers passed a campaign-finance law capping at $1,000 how much an individual can give to so-called 527 groups like the one Mr. Blankenship used to influence that race.
However, individuals still can spend unlimited sums of their own money on campaign advertisements, and that is just what Mr. Blankenship has said he plans to do.
Back to Top Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Kempthorne likely to seek Endangered Species Act changes
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/NEWS01/610150313/1002
Kempthorne likely to seek Endangered Species Act changesBy FAITH BREMNER Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Conservation groups expect Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to seek major changes next year to a federal law that protects plants and wildlife from extinction, picking up where he left off nine years ago when he was in the U.S. Senate.
In 1998 as a senator from Idaho, Kempthorne nearly pushed a bipartisan bill through Congress that would have updated the now 33-year-old Endangered Species Act. The measure would have given landowners an incentive to work with federal authorities to help endangered species. It also would have given landowners more say over plans to protect species habitat and would have required more scientific review before species could be listed.
The bill fell apart when it was blocked in the House. Shortly afterward, Kempthorne became the governor of Idaho.
Critics complain that the endangered species law is too punitive and does not do enough to encourage landowners to protect and restore vital habitat. About 90 percent of endangered species in the United States exist on private land. The act forbids federal agencies from taking actions that jeopardize endangered species and it prohibits the public from harming them without a federal permit. The act helped save bald eagles, wolves and grizzly bears from extinction.
Environmental groups now say they expect Kempthorne to again try to push his ideas through Congress and change department regulations. While his earlier proposal was considered moderate by many, environmental groups worry the new version would tilt more toward landowners and developers.
But if Democrats win control of the House in November, Kempthorne would have to act more cautiously, said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton.
"The election will matter hugely," Clark said. "There should be no illusions about what could happen, particularly since it's the last two years (of the Bush administration). A lot of mischief could occur in two years."
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he supports updating the act, but any legislative proposal for change would have to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats or it won't pass.
"I want to ensure that any further reform is a common-sense solution that protects both wildlife and private property rights at the same time," Baucus said.
Kempthorne has not said whether he plans to try to change the Endangered Species Act, department spokesman Hugh Vickery said.
Since taking over Interior's reins from Gale Norton in June, Kempthorne has been holding a series of public listening sessions around the country on cooperative conservation, along with the secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator and the head of the Council on Environmental Quality — the White House's environmental office.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Kempthorne said he looked forward to "again being at the table discussing ways to improve the act and make it more meaningful in helping the very species that we're trying to save."
But environmentalists are wary of Kempthorne's record, opposing federal programs to recover threatened grizzly bears and endangered wolves when he was Idaho governor, said Liz Godfrey, program director for the Endangered Species Coalition.
"Given his record, it's potentially dangerous to open up the Endangered Species Act," said Godfrey, whose group opposed Kempthorne's 1998 bill. "I don't think (the act) needs to be changed. It needs to be funded. It has been consistently under funded over the course of the years."
*******************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrightedmaterial herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profitresearch and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/NEWS01/610150313/1002
Kempthorne likely to seek Endangered Species Act changesBy FAITH BREMNER Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Conservation groups expect Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to seek major changes next year to a federal law that protects plants and wildlife from extinction, picking up where he left off nine years ago when he was in the U.S. Senate.
In 1998 as a senator from Idaho, Kempthorne nearly pushed a bipartisan bill through Congress that would have updated the now 33-year-old Endangered Species Act. The measure would have given landowners an incentive to work with federal authorities to help endangered species. It also would have given landowners more say over plans to protect species habitat and would have required more scientific review before species could be listed.
The bill fell apart when it was blocked in the House. Shortly afterward, Kempthorne became the governor of Idaho.
Critics complain that the endangered species law is too punitive and does not do enough to encourage landowners to protect and restore vital habitat. About 90 percent of endangered species in the United States exist on private land. The act forbids federal agencies from taking actions that jeopardize endangered species and it prohibits the public from harming them without a federal permit. The act helped save bald eagles, wolves and grizzly bears from extinction.
Environmental groups now say they expect Kempthorne to again try to push his ideas through Congress and change department regulations. While his earlier proposal was considered moderate by many, environmental groups worry the new version would tilt more toward landowners and developers.
But if Democrats win control of the House in November, Kempthorne would have to act more cautiously, said Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under President Bill Clinton.
"The election will matter hugely," Clark said. "There should be no illusions about what could happen, particularly since it's the last two years (of the Bush administration). A lot of mischief could occur in two years."
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he supports updating the act, but any legislative proposal for change would have to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats or it won't pass.
"I want to ensure that any further reform is a common-sense solution that protects both wildlife and private property rights at the same time," Baucus said.
Kempthorne has not said whether he plans to try to change the Endangered Species Act, department spokesman Hugh Vickery said.
Since taking over Interior's reins from Gale Norton in June, Kempthorne has been holding a series of public listening sessions around the country on cooperative conservation, along with the secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator and the head of the Council on Environmental Quality — the White House's environmental office.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Kempthorne said he looked forward to "again being at the table discussing ways to improve the act and make it more meaningful in helping the very species that we're trying to save."
But environmentalists are wary of Kempthorne's record, opposing federal programs to recover threatened grizzly bears and endangered wolves when he was Idaho governor, said Liz Godfrey, program director for the Endangered Species Coalition.
"Given his record, it's potentially dangerous to open up the Endangered Species Act," said Godfrey, whose group opposed Kempthorne's 1998 bill. "I don't think (the act) needs to be changed. It needs to be funded. It has been consistently under funded over the course of the years."
*******************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrightedmaterial herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profitresearch and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
BELOW IS THE STATES EFFORT TO HAVE A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR SWVA AND OUR WATER NEEDS. This is a good thing. It is encouraging that the gov has started to nuge localities toward thinking regionally.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Watershed Groups
FROM: Lou Ann Johnson
Regional Planner II
DATE: October 19, 2006
SUBJECT: Kick-Off Meeting for LENOWISCO Regional Water Supply Plan
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LENOWISCO is assisting its 19 member localities in complying with The Local and Regional Water
Supply Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-780). The regulation requires all counties, cities, and towns in
the Commonwealth of Virginia to submit a local water supply plan or to participate in a regional planning
unit in the submittal of a regional water supply plan to DEQ.
The Virginia General Assembly passed this regulation in 2003 in response to the 2002 drought, which
caused some eastern localities to experience a significant decrease in water supply. The regulation
requires localities to under go a comprehensive planning process to ensure there will be an adequate water
supply to serve the future needs of a locality. A water supply plan must include eight specific sections.
These sections include: (1) an evaluation of existing water sources; (2) an examination of existing water
use; (3) a detailed listing of existing environmental conditions that may affect a current water supply; (4)
a projected future water demand based on population growth, economic/commercial development, and
agricultural demands; (5) a determination of the adequacy of existing water sources to meet current and
projected demand; (6) an identification of alternative water sources; (7) the establishment of water
conservation measures; and (8) the preparation of a contingency plan for drought response.
LENOWISCO has received funding from DEQ for completion of sections 1 and 2. We have selected the
engineering team of Thompson & Litton with Lane Engineering to help us through this planning process.
Our “kick-off” meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24 at 1:30 PM in the Pioneer Center Room 304.
Ms. Tammy D. Stephenson, DEQ’s SWVA Water Supply Planner, will explain the regulation and detail
the information that will be required from each locality. In addition, we will discuss the proposed
completion schedule.
Your group may have information that we will need during this planning process; therefore I encourage
you to attend on the 24th and/or pass this invitation along to others in your group that may assist us. Please
let me know how many will be attending by Monday, October 23 so that we can plan accordingly. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 276-431-2206 or ljohnson@lenowisco.org.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Watershed Groups
FROM: Lou Ann Johnson
Regional Planner II
DATE: October 19, 2006
SUBJECT: Kick-Off Meeting for LENOWISCO Regional Water Supply Plan
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LENOWISCO is assisting its 19 member localities in complying with The Local and Regional Water
Supply Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-780). The regulation requires all counties, cities, and towns in
the Commonwealth of Virginia to submit a local water supply plan or to participate in a regional planning
unit in the submittal of a regional water supply plan to DEQ.
The Virginia General Assembly passed this regulation in 2003 in response to the 2002 drought, which
caused some eastern localities to experience a significant decrease in water supply. The regulation
requires localities to under go a comprehensive planning process to ensure there will be an adequate water
supply to serve the future needs of a locality. A water supply plan must include eight specific sections.
These sections include: (1) an evaluation of existing water sources; (2) an examination of existing water
use; (3) a detailed listing of existing environmental conditions that may affect a current water supply; (4)
a projected future water demand based on population growth, economic/commercial development, and
agricultural demands; (5) a determination of the adequacy of existing water sources to meet current and
projected demand; (6) an identification of alternative water sources; (7) the establishment of water
conservation measures; and (8) the preparation of a contingency plan for drought response.
LENOWISCO has received funding from DEQ for completion of sections 1 and 2. We have selected the
engineering team of Thompson & Litton with Lane Engineering to help us through this planning process.
Our “kick-off” meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24 at 1:30 PM in the Pioneer Center Room 304.
Ms. Tammy D. Stephenson, DEQ’s SWVA Water Supply Planner, will explain the regulation and detail
the information that will be required from each locality. In addition, we will discuss the proposed
completion schedule.
Your group may have information that we will need during this planning process; therefore I encourage
you to attend on the 24th and/or pass this invitation along to others in your group that may assist us. Please
let me know how many will be attending by Monday, October 23 so that we can plan accordingly. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 276-431-2206 or ljohnson@lenowisco.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)