More Dirty Little Secrets About Coal


In the United States, the burning of coal for electricity generates 130 million tons of solid waste every year.  Most of it is coal ash, and it contains concentrations of mercury, arsenic, lead and other toxic metals.

There are several hundred coal ash dumps across the nation, all of them unregulated.  Forty-four of these coal ash dumps have been deemed to be a high hazard by the Environmental Protection Agency, but officials aren’t allowed to talk about them. Homeland Security and the Army Corps of Engineers have decided in the interests of national security they can't make these sites known.

The United States coal ash situation is so bad that the Department of Homeland Security has told public officials that they can't publicly disclose the location of the dumps. The pollution is so toxic, so dangerous, that an enemy of the United States (or a storm or some other disrupting event) could easily cause them to spill out and lay waste to any area nearby.

The recent coal ash spill in Tennessee devastated the surrounding area, was 100 times worse than the Exxon-Valdez spill, and will cost a billion dollars to clean up.  That one's no longer a secret.


0 comments:

Cost of Wind — Kicks Coal’s Butt

Overall, wind costs have dropped significantly in recent years, and looking at its true costs indicates it is much cheaper.  There are a few different ways you can measure electricity cost. For example:
  1. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) — the utility way (the average cost over the lifespan of the project, initial investments plus operation and maintenance costs, not including externalities).
  2. “All In” — taking into account externalities — health/environmental costs (these are real costs that we pay that vary according to the energy source).
The figures you normally see are according to LCOE, which artificially makes the cost of coal cheaper than it should be. Without even taking externalities into account, wind is already beating coal.  Wind has gotten cheaper and cheaper while coal is getting more expensive (and that trend isn’t expected to change).


While LCOE is widely used to compare various sources of energy, even not including the fact that it doesn’t account for health or environmental costs, it has its weaknesses. For example, LCOE for wind projects are often based on a 20-year lifetimes for wind turbines.

The Department of Energy, found the price of electricity from new wind farm plants ranged from 4 to 9 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2009, which is competitive with other new power plants. However, if a 30- or 40-year lifespan were used for the projects, the costs would be much lower, as the huge majority of a wind project’s costs are from the initial investment (wind, the ‘fuel’, is free and there are minimal operating and maintenance costs).

If you take the full health costs and environmental costs of various energy sources into account, wind comes out looking even better. A recent study out of Harvard found that if one adds in the hidden costs of coal then its actual price in the U.S. is 9-27 cents higher per kilowatt hour. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public.

This makes the true, “all-in” cost of coal electricity somewhere between 17 cents and 35 cents per kWh. You pay 8 cents or so per kWh on your electricity bill and then quite a bit more than that in healthcare costs, health insurance premiums, and with your tax dollars. Wind? It’s sticking to its original 4 to 9 cents per kWh.

Wind has no fuel costs. That is an advantage today, but with peak coal coming in the not-too-distant future, this is likely to make wind increasingly cheaper than coal. (Of course, if we just cut our coal use now, we wouldn’t even have to run into peak coal, but it seems that we aren’t so foresighted.)  There are numerous reasons to shift more to wind power and numerous reasons why it would help create a more secure, brighter future.

http://cleantechnica.com/world-wind-power/5/

0 comments:

Wind Power Adds Jobs and Increases Wealth in Rural Communities

The first study to use detailed econometric methods to measure the economic development impacts of wind power installations in a 12-state region between 2000 and 2008 shows a positive net annual increase on county-level personal income and jobs. “For every megawatt of additional wind in County A, one would expect an $11,150 increase in income,” said Ryan Wiser, Staff Scientist and Deputy Group Leader in the Electricity Markets and Policy Group at LBL. Along with the increase in income, there was also an average 0.48 increase in net jobs, and Wiser added that the net job measure is meaningful only when most wind farms are bigger than 1 MW. “There is no doubt that local communities, especially rural communities, are impacted by these projects,” said Wiser. “We are not prepared to say whether [the numbers] are significant or insignificant, but some counties are being substantially positively impacted by wind development.”

The study, conducted by the USDA Economic Research Service, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, focused on 1,009 counties in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, North and South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota.

The $11,150-per-MW increase in total county-level personal income and the 0.48-per-MW net employment increase translate to an average 0.22% increase in personal income and 0.4% employment gains from 2000 to 2008.

Wiser said the numbers are “a bit misleadingly low, because we take into account only wind development in the past, and there has already been a lot of development since 2008.” Furthermore, he said, the study team did not count people switching into a wind sector job as a net positive gain in employment, only as an increase in income, if it included one. The study team chose to use personal income instead of labor income to account for things like royalties paid to a landowner for wind turbine installation, Wiser said.

Such a study was not possible until now, Wiser said. “It requires enough wind development in the past to identify impacts that exist. If [USDA] had come to me 4 years ago, I would have said there’s not enough development to determine econometric impact.”

The study, “The Impact of Wind Development on County-Level Income and Employment: A Review of Methods and an Empirical Analysis,” can be purchased through the website of journal Energy Economics. The study is also summarized in a fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

By Marsha W. Johnston

0 comments:

The End of Culver?

A Culver group warns of near apocalyptic consequences should the proposed NextEra Wind Farm be approved.  Humans may suffer headaches, blurred vision, dizziness, depression, etc.  Farm animals may become sick, die, suffer birth defects, decreased dairy and egg production, etc.  Birds, bats, butterflies, fish, etc. may be killed or abandon the area.  Yes, even fish.  Wildlife habitat may be lost.  Lifeline helicopters and crop-dusters may not serve the area.  Wind turbines may catch fire and endanger firefighters and EMS crews.  And, the horrid wind turbines will pervert the community’s natural beauty and depress property values.

That was just a sampling and it’s frightening.  Could this be the end of Culver?  To answer this question I looked at an even more ominous threat that Culver has thus far withstood- BOATING.  Boating threatens people, animals, the environment and our aesthetic sensibilities.  The Coast Guard reported that in 2009 boating accidents resulted in 736 deaths and 3,358 injuries.  Rescuers put their lives on the line every day responding to these accidents.  The noise, turbulence and emissions of boats adversely affects the feeding, breeding and nesting of fish, birds and other aquatic life; and it affects water clarity and quality.  This results in increased algae and the introduction of metals, hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic pollutants.  And don’t forget that boats introduced zebra mussels.  As for aesthetics, does anything pervert the lake’s natural beauty more than the hundreds of piers, lift stations and boats that line our shores half the year and our roads the other half?  And the noise- it carries for miles while disturbing a peaceful weekend afternoon.  Perhaps the Culver group’s next crusade should be to ban all boats on Lake Maxinkuckee.  As silly as that sounds my point is that scare tactics can be used to instill fear and undermine anything.

Alfred Nyby

http://am1050.com/2011/the-end-of-culver/

0 comments:

Chicago's Mayor Puts Coal Power Plants On Warning

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has put Chicago's two coal power plants on warning: Either present a plan to clean up their pollution or risk being shut down by the city within the next two years.  Various politicians, community groups and others have been pushing for more than a year to shut down the Crawford and Fisk plants - owned and operated by Midwest Generation - because they say the plants come with serious health consequences.

Alderman Danny Solis and Dr. Ravi Shah are among those who have spoken out against the plants. According to Shah, the coal-fired power plants such as theirs are the largest generators of the greenhouse gases associated with respiratory problems.  Solis, was called out by his opponent by his initial reluctance to support the ordinance that would limit the plants' dangerous emissions of soot and carbon dioxide.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said that Emanuel has urged Midwest Generation to "clean up the two plants, either by installing the necessary infrastructure to dramatically reduce the pollution they emit or by converting to a clean fuel." If an agreement is not reached, the mayor will reportedly join the call for the plants' shutdown.  The mayor's call for the plants to clean up their act comes a week after the Chicago Clean Power Coalition demonstrated inside City Council chambers, urging Emanuel to "finish the work he has begun, and to not delay any further."

Both plants were built more than 100 years ago and generate emissions that would violate the federal Clean Air Act of 1977 - except that both were grandfathered in under that law.  Late last month, the plants were identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the city's biggest industrial sources of pollution. In 2010, the two plants reportedly pumped 4.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the EPA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/rahm-emanuel-tells-chicag_n_1294246.html?ir=Green

0 comments:

Myhrvold finds we need clean energy yesterday (and no natural gas) to avoid being cooked

Nathan Myhrvold — former Microsoft exec, kajillionaire, inventor, founder of Intellectual Ventures, and all-around polymath genius type — was quoted in the book SuperFreakonomics saying dismissive things about climate activists.  He took some heat for it at the time and the experience apparently convinced him that he needs to get a better handle on things climate and energy-related.  Myhrvold built a specialized set of models to capture the global temperature effects of transitions to low-carbon energy of varying speeds, using varying technologies.  Flash forward a few years: Myhrvold is out with a paper on his results, co-authored with respected climate scientist Ken Caldeira, published in Environmental Research Letters.  The results are … grim.

In their results, Myhrvold and Caldeira highlight a few poorly appreciated but crucial features of energy transitions. The first is that they take quite a while to have an appreciable effect on CO2 concentrations. The world’s oceans have considerable “thermal inertia” — it takes them a long time to absorb heat and a long time to release it. Even after CO2 concentrations start falling, it will take the oceans a while to stop releasing the excess heat they’ve already absorbed.

So much CO2 accumulation is already “baked in” that temperature will continue to rise for a while even in the context of rapid emission reductions. We’ve already gotten drunk on fossil fuels; there’s no way to avoid the hangover.

The consequences of this time lag are twofold. First, substantially affecting global temperature in the first half of the century is all but impossible; even to secure temperature reductions in the second half of the century, a rapid transition to clean energy needs to begin immediately. Second, lower-carbon energy — like, say, natural gas — just won’t do it. If we transitioned to something with half of coal’s emissions, it would take more than a century to produce even a 25 percent decline in CO2 relative to the status quo baseline. By then we’d be cooked.

Myhrvold and Caldeira have shown in pretty stark terms that, if we’re not willing to substantially reduce population growth or economic growth, we’re going to need an absolutely gargantuan amount of zero-carbon energy, without delay. They conclude:  We’re going to need “immediate and precipitous anti-carbon initiatives.”

Here’s Caldeira discussing the paper:

 

http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-safety-requires-massive-clean-energy-transition-with-no-natural-gas-myhrvold-finds/

0 comments:

AriZona Sugar Free Pomegranate Green Tea Iced Tea Mix, 2.3-Ounce Tubs in Canister (Pack of 4)


Features
  • Pack of 4 (total 9 oz)
  • Sugar free
  • Made with Splenda
  • Makes 48 quarts of tea
  • More tea content than other iced tea mixes

List Price: $23.68
Get this month Special Offer: check this out!

Related Products

Product Description
AriZona has recently had success with its ready-to-drink pomegranate green tea as well as a pomegranate green tea energy drink. The benefits of green tea and antioxidants are being studied all the time. AriZona has now made available a pomegranate green tea in the form of a no calorie, no carbohydrate, and sugar free powder mix. This canister contains 6 tubs of fun, easy to mix powder. Each tub makes 2 quarts. Not only is it a great value and in terms of storage space and weight, its a lot easier to handle.


AriZona Sugar Free Peach Iced Tea Mix, 1.9-Ounce Tubs in Cannister ... Looking for a zero calorie product that actually tastes good? Heres a great sugar free product with a wonderful peach taste and smell. This new lighter tube ... AriZona Sugar Free Pomegranate Green Tea Iced Tea Mix, 2.3-Ounce ... AriZona has recently had success with its ready-to-drink pomegranate green tea as well as a pomegranate green tea energy drink. The benefits of green tea and ...

0 comments:

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Creatine

Despite the prevalence of creatine use as an ergogenic supplement, it is still a largely misunderstood molecule.  Let's clear up some of the myths and spell out exactly what creatine supplementation can and cannot do for you and to you.

The Role of Phosphocreatine in Energy Production
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP, 3 phosphates), that energy molecule you probably learned about in high school, is responsible for fueling ALL muscle contractions in the body.  Unfortunately, we do not hold enough ATP to power high intensity exercise for more than a few seconds of protracted work.  Rather than having a large storage site of this rather heavy molecule, it's much more efficient to simply make new ATP as needed.  Your body is doing so as you read this; you may store in the ballpark of 100-200g of ATP at any one time, (depending on body size, muscle fiber distribution, etc.) but can recycle upwards of your entire body weight's worth of ATP in one day.


As activity demands, the chemical bond between the second and third phosphate molecule is split to release energy.  This leaves us with adenosine diphosphate (ADP, 2 phosphates).  In order to create new ATP molecules from ADP, a third phosphate is needed.


That's where creatine comes in.

Phosphocreatine (PCr) is part of the phosphogen (ATP-PC) energy system. It's found naturally in red meat and fish, and is also produced normally in the liver and kidneys through a combination of essential and non-essential amino acids. As ATP is depleted, intramuscular phosphocreatine stores act as a phosphate reservoir from which the body pulls the third phosphate needed to synthesize adenosine triphosphate from adenosine diphosphate. Oral supplementation of creatine directly increases the intramuscular availability of phosphocreatine.




This occurs in real time.  The body is able to rapidly re-synthesize new ATP from ADP using creatine kinase to liberate the necessary phosphate.  Simply put, the larger the phosphocreatine pool, the more ATP can be made. In this regard, phosphocreatine acts as a rate limiting precursor to ATP production, which ultimately makes it a limiter on short duration, maximal intensity activity endurance.


Benefits of Creatine Supplementation
So, what can creatine supplementation offer the hard training population?

Consider that ATP stores last no longer than 10 seconds at most during very high intensity exercise.  Once that ATP is gone, you're forced to switch into the lactic acid/glycolytic energy system, which necessitates a sizeable decrease in force production. This is easily observable; perform any all-out exercise which requires 90-100% work output, and in less than 10 seconds you will begin to fatigue and power output will diminish.

The more phosphocreatine available, the more ATP can be re-synthesized, the longer you stay within the ATP-PCr energy system, the longer you can sustain a maximal work output. This is particularly valuable for movements such as 1-3RM lifts, 100m sprints, a wrestling scramble, that breakaway sprint from your 10 yard line to the other team's end zone, or any other movement requiring all-out explosiveness or maximal work output.

What's more, having a larger creatine pool speeds re-synthesis time between intense activity, thus improving recovery. Picture a boxer being able to more rapidly recover between all-out 10 punch flurries, a soccer player recovering faster from consecutive sprints, a lifter with less recovery time between sets, or any other sport that involves stop-go bursts of intense activity.

Sounds great, right? Well, let's put it into perspective. Creatine is not going to shave seconds off your 100 yard anymore than it will put 50 lbs onto your squat. It may let you throw one last punch in a combo or get that extra rep you might otherwise miss, but it isn't a miracle supplement. Creatine supplementation offers a reasonable performance increase for anaerobic activity, but it certainly isn't make or break. It also offers no direct benefit on activities utilizing aerobic or lactic acid/glycolytic systems (anything past 10 seconds of max output). Note that this doesn't include short term bursts of maximal work interspersed within less intense activities. For example, a boxer utilizing primarily the lactic acid/glycolytic and aerobic systems would still benefit from creatine when called on to do an all out storm of punches.

Lastly, creatine also readily absorbs water. This may or may not be a benefit, depending on the individual. It has the aesthetic perk of making muscles appear bigger and fuller (they aren't stronger, only filled with a bit more intramuscular water), which would obviously be desirable for a bodybuilder. However, it can also make other tissues appear bloated, depending on how efficiently a person can uptake creatine into muscle cells, which varies. For a weight class restricted athlete, water retention could be problematic. If this is you, I would advise experimenting in the off season with how much benefit creatine supplementation gives performance-wise versus how much weight is gained, or utilizing creatine to train hard, then cycling off a few weeks before your season starts.

Those are the concrete facts.

Creatine also has a litany of "probably does", "could possibly", and "might even" secondary effects.

Studies by Santos et al, 2004, and Cooke and Barnes, 1997, suggest that creatine may improve post exercise recovery and speed recovery time. This is likely from reducing cellular inflammation and damage that comes with the territory of intense activity.

A study by Wyss and Schulze, 2002, have indicated that it may be beneficial in treating certain neurodegenerative brain disorders such as Parkinson's, and may even offer short term memory and problem solving benefits to normal populations.

Studies by Cribb et al, 2007, Burke et al, 1996, and quite a few others have suggested that creatine supplementation improves muscular hypertrophy. Compared to the placebo group, the treatment group showed higher levels of IGF-1 and lean body mass increase. It is unclear whether or not the creatine itself caused these effects, or if creatine's anaerobic performance boost allowed for more intense training, thus leading to increased hypertrophy. Interestingly, these effects were more pronounced amongst vegetarians.

...and so on. There's a lot more unsubstantiated claims on the benefits of creatine supplementation. As in the above cases, there's some compelling science and suggestion being made, but a dearth of a strong body of research still renders these supposed benefits as conjecture.

Contraindications and side effects
Despite conclusive evidence on the safety of creatine, there's still a lingering belief that it will turn your kidneys into jelly or suck the water out of your body faster sprinting in the Sahara.

By and large, creatine supplementation is quite safe. It has practically no known significant, lasting side effects and only minor side effects.

Creatine supplementation doesn't require additional water intake per se; if you aren't adequately hydrated and throw in creatine, then the effects of dehydration will be exacerbated due to the water grabbing nature of the molecule. An athlete who consumes enough water (a topic which will be covered in the future) should experience no symptoms of dehydration.

In the same vein, overdosing creatine can cause a large amount of water to be absorbed in the intestinal tract. This can cause gas, cramping, and discomfort. These side effects are easily prevented or mitigated by avoiding a load-up and following a normal dosing schedule and drinking enough water.

Caffeine and creatine can be taken together, but there is an increased risk of compounding any issues of dehydration due to the diuretic nature of caffeine. If creatine and caffeine are taken together, even more focus must be placed on adequate hydration.

Outside of the realm of predictable effects, there will always be a rare few who have odd reactions. This is true of any supplement or medication, and is unspecific to creatine.

NSAID's may compound any stress excess creatine can place on your kidneys. I wouldn't go chasing 5 Ibuprofen with 20g of creatine, but again this is not likely to be a concern if normal dosage of both the NSAID and creatine are used.

The take home point is that if you do it right, creatine supplementation is safe. If It has no inherent kidney damaging properties. Because creatine is filtered through and puts extra stress on the kidneys, those with nephrological problems should probably consult a doctor before use. Don't be the guy who thinks "one scoop creatine good, 10 scoops better!" and there's a 99% chance you'll have no problems.

For some, a major concern will be the likelihood that creatine supplementation down regulates natural creatine production over a period of months to years. While this has never been conclusively proven, it's probably true. Practically anything produced in the body will be down regulated if it is supplied exogenously. If I started injected myself with insulin, testosterone, antioxidants, or anything else naturally produced in the body, you'd better believe that my own natural production would drop off in response. Your body hates being wasteful and won't expend resources to make something it's getting more than enough of. This is, again, nonspecific to creatine.

The real question is, does supplementation have any lasting effects on natural production? No one really knows. I highly doubt supplementation would or could have any permanent effect on natural creatine production, or any other naturally occurring substance for that matter. You might experience a brief lag time if supplementation stops, following by a quick return to normal synthesis.

Lastly, about ~10% of creatine users will be non-responders, meaning that for whatever reason, they will see no benefit. This is likely due to uptake inefficiency, meaning that not much of the creatine you take actually arrives intramuscularly. If this describes you, fancier forms of creatine with better absorption may be worth a shot.

Types of Creatine

Creatine Monohydrate
This is the basic stuff. Luckily, it's effective, cheap, and generally works just fine. The only real drawback is that it's gritty and not all that soluble, meaning you have to constantly mix or choke down what tastes very much like a big gulp of sand. It can also cause intestinal discomfort, bloating, and so on. Apart from that, There's not a whole lot of reason to stray too far from monohydrate.

Micronized Creatine
Basically the same as monohydrate, just ground to a much finer particle. This increases surface area, supposedly reducing any intestinal side effects. Really, the main reason to buy this over monohydrate is that it mixes easier and tends to be easier to drink. If the taste and texture of monohydrate bothers you, consider spending a little extra on this form.

Creatine Ethyl Esther (CEE)
Touted as being much more bio-available, this form is supposed to elicit far better absorption. It's also supposed to negate any intestinal issues as well as "creatine bloat", which may be helpful for weight class restricted athletes. Lastly, it's claimed to work on monohydrate non-responders. I've never tried it, but it's said to have a truly awful taste in powder form, though capsules are available. CEE is quite a bit more expensive than monohydrate.

Pre Workout Supplement
Usually creatine mixed with caffeine, arginine, beta-alanine, and whatever other proprietary mix used for the intention of causing a whole slew of, if you believe the adds, beneficial effects. Jack3d, NO Xplode, Superpump Max, Nuclear T-Rex Ripped Anabolercised Xtreme Musclez Xploder (just kidding) and other ridiculously name products all fall under this category. Discussion of of these is beyond the scope of this article; just know that most of them contain creatine, sometimes in undisclosed amounts. Extra supplementation may or may not be redundant.

All the Rest
Either prohibitively expensive, unstudied, proven ineffective, or all of the above. Don't waste your time or money.

Creatine type is largely a matter of opinion and taste. If you respond well to monohydrate, I'd stick with that. If you can't stand the texture, turn out to be a non-responder, or get significant bloating/cramping/gas, you might want to give micronized or CEE a shot.

How to Supplement With Creatine
Avoid a loading phase, plain and simple. There's no reason to do it. An excess of ~5g for most people at a time will simply be excreted through the urine, and increases the likelihood of nasty gastrointestinal side effects.

Start with 2-5g of creatine a day. For reference, one teaspoon is about ~5g. You'll probably want to mix it with some kind of juice or sugary drink, probably with your post workout carbs. Studies have suggested that uptake is enhanced with an insulin spike, but more importantly the stuff is usually pretty gritty and I personally can't stomach it with water, milk or shakes. If you can, then there's no problem. Avoid taking it with orange juice or other acidic juices as the acid has been shown to degrade creatine.

Don't pre-mix a creatine solution. It degrades fairly quickly in liquid and should be drank as soon as it's mixed.

Since creatine has to be built up and stored in the system, when you take it isn't very important. Just get in 2-5g a day and within two or three weeks you'll be saturated and enjoying the benefits. To maintain, you really only need to take ~2-3g, but most continue to take 5g because it's easy to just toss a teaspoon in. Either way is fine as a little excess will likely just be excreted.

You can either stay on it indefinitely, or cycle if you have concerns of down regulation of natural production. There's no real evidence that creatine supplementation down regulates natural production, but there's also no evidence that suggests that it doesn't either. This is a personal call. That being said, I would be rather surprised if a normal body wasn't easily capable of resuming normal creatine synthesis once supplementation has ceased, with a lag time of probably no more than a few days in which natural liver and kidney synthesis is depressed.

Lastly, you may not benefit from creatine supplementation if you eat a lot of game animals, red meat, or fish regularly.

References
Santos, R. V. et al. (2004) The effect of creatine supplementation upon inflammatory and muscle soreness markers after a 30km race. Life Sciences, Volume 75(16), pages 1917-1924

Cooke, W., Barnes. W. (1997). The influence of recovery duration on high-intensity exercise performance after oral creatine supplementation. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 22, 454-467.

Wyss M, Schulze A. Health implications of creatine: can oral creatine supplementation protect against neurological and atherosclerotic disease? Neuroscience. 2002;112(2):243-60.

Cribb, P.J., Williams, A.D., Strathis, C.G., Carey, M.F. & Hayes, A. (2007). Effects of wheyisolate, creatine, and resistance training on muscle hypertrophy. Medicine & Science inSports & Exercise,
39 (2), 298-30.

Burke, L.M., Pyne, D.B. and Telford, R.D. (1996) Effect of oral creatine supplementation on single-effort
sprint performance in elite swimmers. International Journal of Sports Nutrition 6, 222-233.






0 comments:

Renewables Now Cheaper than Coal in Michigan

New renewable energy--wind, biomass, landfill gas, digesters, hydro--now costs less than a new coal plant.  Don't believe it?  That is the finding of the Michigan Public Service Commission that quietly released on February 15th its statutorily required report to the Michigan legislature.  See the details at:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf.

Looking at the actual prices bid to build new renewable energy plants, the Michigan regulators found:

1. new wind plants from 2008-2011 on average cost 8.76 cents per kilowatt-hour;
2. new biomass cost 9.89 cents per kilowatt-hour;
3. new landfill gas cost 9.81 cents per kilowatt-hour;
4. new digester power cost 12.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The average renewable energy cost was 9.19 cents per kilowatt-hour for the entire 3 year period and would be even lower if only 2012 prices were included.  By comparison, the cost of new coal-fired plant for a life cycle of 40 years is 13.3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

And where are renewable energy prices headed?  The Michigan PSC states "...that the average levelized costs of the [renewable energy] contract continue to decline" and that "contract prices have been much lower than expected."  Indeed, the renewable energy prices are lower in 2012 than in  2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008.  Consequently, the prices expressed in the report overstate the price of renewable energy in 2012.

Gas is certainly remaking the energy marketplace, but it is not alone in doing so.  Renewable energy and its sharp price drop is an equally profound change, making both gas and renewable energy the dominant fuel sources for the next 20 years.

http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/02/new-coal-plants-now-more-expensive-than.html

0 comments:

Yogi Raspberry Passion Perfect Energy, 1.12-Ounce Packages (Pack of 6)


Features
  • Naturally invigorating herbs that energize the body and focus the mind, without jittery side effects.
  • Naturally energizes without the jitters
  • Just boil water and add one tea bag and let steep for 4-5 minutes
  • All Natural Ingredients with no artifical perservatives

List Price: $23.94
Get this month Special Offer: check this out!

Related Products

Product Description
Looking for the "perfect" energy boost? Discover Yogi Perfect Energy, a unique blend of tea with naturally invigorating herbs that energize the body and focus the mind, without jittery side effects. A complex and delicious blend of Green Tea and Assam Black Tea invigorate the body, while natural amino acid L-Theanine promotes calm, mental focus. Ayurvedic herbs Organic Gotu Kola Leaf and Ashwagandha act to balance and energize naturally. Raspberry, Passion Fruit and a hint of sage combine for a delicious and intriguing tea that is sure to energize the body while calming and focusing the mind with every cup.


Megashares - Drag. Drop. Yup. The first site to provide FREE file ... How Does Megashares Work? Select the file or files you wish to upload. Choose the options best suited for your upload (password protect, description, email notification) Amazon.com: Herbal - Tea: Grocery & Gourmet Food Online shopping for Herbal Tea from a great selection of Grocery & Gourmet Food; Beverages & more at everyday low prices. Deniz Bozkurt Facebook Deniz Bozkurt is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Deniz Bozkurt and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more ... Lori Fleming Facebook Lori Fleming is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Lori Fleming and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more ... Affiliate Links Support WordPress.com Start a WordPress blog or create a free website in minutes. Choose from over 200 free, customizable themes. Free support from awesome humans. Recipes 4 Survival Cook More, Spend Less, Feel Better. Thrive with recipes for survival. Vittles and Bits Did everyone enjoy their St. Patrick's Day? Last year, Mr. Vittles and I took the train into New York City for a party, and even though we left NJ early in the ... Thirsty Dudes :: Flavor :: Ginger Beer With a name like 'Royalty', I was expecting this to be a fancy ginger beer. Okay, maybe not THAT fancy since I got it for $1.30 at Spice Bazaar, but still.

0 comments:

BumbleBar Gluten Free Organic Energy Original with Cashew, 1.4-Ounce Bars (Pack of 12)


Features
  • Pack of twelve, 1.4-Ounce (total of 16.8-Ounces)
  • Sumptuously sweet cashews burst with flavor
  • Strong antioxidant that fights free radicals; Rich in fiber
  • Helps to lower cholesterol and regulate blood sugar levels
  • BumbleBar was picked the best bar by Better Nutrition magazine; Made mostly from flax and sesame seeds, so they're naturally high in omega-3 fats; vegan and organic, they also come in junior sizes for kids

List Price: $23.76
Get this month Special Offer: check this out!

Related Products

Product Description
BumbleBar Organic Energy Original with Cashew is sumptuously sweet cashews burst with flavor, taking center stage in this fan favorite. Decadent yet good for you, all in the same bite.


Get Content Here 105010 108479 134 1 0. 9016 23159 53.84 18 1. 388337 391530 0. 260665 261569 0. 209453 214688 0. 97732 108601 0. 102714 114761 0. 113912 127180 0. 113434 126623 0. 9 ... KIND Nuts & Spices Bars (Pack of 12) - Amazon.com: Online Shopping ... For the best selection anywhere shop Amazon Grocery for all of your pantry needs. Use Subscribe and Save to save an additional 5% on your regular groceries with free ... Recipes from Veria.com - Natural Wellness, Healing, Holistic ... Veria Living is the leading media company devoted to showcasing wellness programming and related content in the United States and beyond. Spearheaded by its forward ... KIND PLUS Gluten Free Bars (Pack of 12) - KIND PLUS, Peanut Butter ... Ingredients Mixed nuts (peanuts, almonds, walnuts, macadamias, cashews, brazil nuts), dark chocolate (sugar, palm kernel oil, cocoa powder, soy lecithin, milk powder ... Smart Celiac All Smart Celiac tags will help you easily spot products that do not contain gluten from wheat, barley, rye, or oats. brands_uniq.dump - Google Code 10th Tee Bar 12 12 Mini Gold ... Azna Gluten Free Aztec Azteca ... Cliff Organic Energy Bar Cliff Shot Cliff Shot Blok Cliff's Cliffs Clifty Farm Clinical Nutrients ... Gluten Free Recommendations Products Reviews Gluten, Dairy, Peanut, Allergen Free & Vegan Products & Company Reviews & Recommendations by Carol Kicinski to make Recipes for those on a G Free Diet & Lifestyle. Vegetarians in Paradise/Vegetarian/Vegan/ Natural Food Companies ... Vegetarian/Vegan Los Angeles magazine featuring vegetarian basics, vegetarian recipes, vegetarian restaurants, vegetarian diet, vegetarian food companies

0 comments:

Threats to Wildlife: Rhetoric vs. Reality


Wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures and is far less harmful to birds than the fossil fuels it displaces. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Incidental losses of individual birds at wind farms will always be an extremely small fraction of bird deaths caused by human activities:
  • Wind is the only source of energy that does not present population-level risks to birds, according to a study of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind power.
  • Wind turbines are estimated to cause less than three out of every 100,000 human-related bird deaths in the U.S., and will never cause more than a very small fraction no matter how extensively wind power is used in the future, the National Academy of Sciences found.
  • Wind power causes far fewer losses of birds (approximately 108,000 a year) than buildings (550 million), power lines (130 million), cars (80 million), poisoning by pesticides (67 million), domestic cats (at least 10 million), and radio and cell towers (4.5 million).
  • Non-renewable energy sources "pose higher risks to wildlife" than renewable sources. Coal - which wind directly replaces - "is by far the largest contributor" to wildlife risks.
Despite the rhetoric, NextEra coordinates with the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the Department of Natural Resources to design wind farms for minimal impacts to wildlife. 

Any people truly concerned with threats to wildlife should be looking at the billions of fish and other aquatic wildlife that are killed each year by water-intake systems on power plants.  Some areas face devastating economic repercussions as fisheries are threatened and recreational uses are diminished.

According to the Sierra Club, nationwide coal power plants suck more than 200 billion gallons of water a day from America’s waterways.  Forty-nine percent of all of the water use in America is from the power industry, that’s more water than all of our irrigation and public water supplies combined.  Each year, U.S. wind installations will save the nation over 20 billion gallons of water that would otherwise be withdrawn for steam or cooling in conventional power plants.

0 comments:

Find Wind Farms and Wind Turbine Manufacturers

Find current wind farm projects, wind turbine parts manufacturers, as well as congressional voting information on this map.

0 comments:

Energy Trends to Watch in 2012

As fossil fuel prices continue to rise resulting in escalating home heating and cooling costs for most local residents, the cost of fuel will hold steady for wind power: zero. In 2012 utilities will continue to embrace the price-locking benefit of wind power by signing long-term power contracts for the affordable energy source. That’s because unlike the volatile prices of fossil fuels, wind power’s fuel cost is fixed: zero. The fuel cost was zero last year, and it’s guaranteed to stay at zero in 2012 as well. And wind power chalks up big zeros in other key areas: zero water use, zero air emissions, and zero water pollution.

0 comments:

Cleaning Up Our Act: Wind Power Offsets Power Plant Emissions


The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. EIA is the nation's premier source of energy information and, by law, its data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the U.S. Government.

The EIA publishes state specific information about electric generation, cost of electricity, and power plant emissions.[1] When it comes to emissions of pollutants like Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide, Indiana ranks 4th (that’s 4th most polluting). The EIA reports the emissions of 7.2 pounds of Sulfur Dioxide and 2.1 pounds of Nitrogen Oxide for every MWh of electricity produced by power plants in Indiana.

The proposed Marshall / Fulton County wind farm would generate approximately 306,600 MWh of electricity annually, while generating no waste and emitting zero pollution. That translates to an annual offset of approximately 2,207,520 pounds of Sulfur Dioxide and 643,860 pounds of Nitrogen Oxide. Not to mention the elimination of other greenhouse gases and other pollutants such as mercury.

Are you wondering if that’s a good thing? Short-term exposures to SO2 are linked to an array of adverse respiratory effects, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics. Emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 generally also lead to the formation of other SOx. Control measures that reduce SO2 can generally be expected to reduce people’s exposures to all gaseous SOx. SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles, which pose significant public health threats. These particles penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital admissions and premature death.[2]

[1] http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/indiana.html
[2] http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html

0 comments:

Aesthetics and Other Issues

Opposition has arisen to the proposed wind farm because people think it will change their view shed. A wind farm can be a significant change. However, while some people express concern over this  change, others see wind farms as elegant and beautiful, a sign of progress, or symbols of a better, less polluted future. The visual effect of a wind farm is a subjective issue, but most of the other criticisms made about wind energy are exaggerated or untrue, and simply reflect attempts by a particular group to discredit the technology, worry our local community, and turn other residents against the proposed project. In comparison to wind turbines, there are smokestacks at coal plants in Indiana that tower well over 1,000 feet in the air.

Some have speculated that the wind energy produced will not be used locally. In reality, electrons flow to the path of least resistance, which means the power produced will feed local homes, schools, and businesses. Electricity is a regional commodity, companies like NextEra look for transmission infrastructure to increase the value of the commodity. Our area does have good access to a broad transmission market, but that doesn't mean it is less likely for the local utilities to purchase the electricity.

Marshall County’s zoning ordinance requires a 1,000 foot setback between a home and a wind turbine. NextEra’s own setback limit is no less than 1,400 feet. Shadow flicker is predictable and is based on the sun’s angle, turbine location, and the distance to an observer; it can be mitigated. Shadow flicker from moving wind blades typically lasts just a few minutes near sunrise and sunset and can be addressed through proper siting of turbines and through use of proven mitigation techniques such as screening plantings. NextEra limits shadow flicker to no more than 30 hours per year cumulatively (if more than one turbine has the potential to cast a shadow on a home). An expert panel for the National Academy of Sciences found shadow flicker to be “harmless to humans.”

Today's large wind turbines make less noise than the background noise you hear in your own home. According to the American Wind Energy Association, an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room. Marshall County's wind energy ordinance has a sound requirement in place that prevents a developer from siting wind turbines in a location that would produce sound over 55 dba offsite. 55 dba is less than a vehicle driving down the road. Sound attenuates with distance. A voice may "carry 1.5 miles" but that doesn't mean it can be heard.


Independent studies conducted around the world have consistently found that wind farms have no direct impact on physical health. Neither the American Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, nor any leading medical journals or institutions recognize "wind turbine syndrome". In fact, as an energy source that emits no air or water pollution emissions and creates no hazardous waste, wind energy is essential to reducing public health impacts from the energy sector.

Still not convinced? Search online for other local wind farms; get in your car and drive. Pick a random farmhouse in the area and politely ask the owner how they feel about the wind turbines. We believe you’ll find the vast majority of landowners are very thankful to have them. In fact, when asking if they have any regrets, don’t be surprised if you hear “Yes, I regret not having more of them!”
Sound Level Chart

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
“The potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines,” Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, May 2010 

0 comments: