Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
May 9, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/08/conservative-thinktanks-obama-energy-plans
Right wing stepping up attacks on renewable energy
Conservative thinktanks step up attacks against Obama's clean energy strategy
Confidential memo seen by Guardian calls for climate change sceptics to turn American public against solar and wind power
The proposals suggest setting up 'dummy businesses' to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a 'counter-intelligence branch' to track the wind energy industry. Photograph: Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty
A network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama's energy agenda.
A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.
Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.
...
Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
It suggests setting ...
Confidential memo seen by Guardian calls for climate change sceptics to turn American public against solar and wind power
The proposals suggest setting up 'dummy businesses' to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a 'counter-intelligence branch' to track the wind energy industry. Photograph: Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty
A network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama's energy agenda.
A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.
Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.
...
Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
It suggests setting ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/08/conservative-thinktanks-obama-energy-plans
May 9, 2012
Still on your antirenewable crusade, eh?
Because of the merit order effect solar is reducing the overall costs of electricity sold on the auction market by 10% compared to what it would be without solar. That is coming directly out of the profits of the fossil fuel generators.
The daytime reduction is up to 40% but that is mitigated by fossil fuel generators increasing the price of what they charge for nighttime electricity.
This pressure to increase prices reduces the competitive position of fossil fuels. This makes the alternatives even more competitive and will serve to further reduce the market share for fossils - a process that eventually puts them out of business. Most of us think that is a very good thing and that it is a value worth paying for.
The increase in price to the homeowner attributable to this specific aspect of the policy demonstrates an inherent unfairness in the design of the program that favors industry (just what you'd expect from the pronuke/coal conservative govt), not that there is no consumer benefit from solar.
So if the merit order effect isn't what is responsible for the increase you are pointing to in the link, what is?
Simply put it is the success of solar.
They are installing almost 3X the amount of solar that was their goal when the program was established and these prices were set (which is what this OP is about). This necessitated increasing collections in order to pay for the volume of installed capacity. Note carefully that this equipment is in place and generating electricity.
***
Now, I have a question for you. The ratepayers of Georgia, South Carolina and Florida are all being or getting ready to have their electricity prices raised now to pay for nuclear power plants that, if they ever get built at all, will not begin producing electricity until years from now when they would almost certainly be able to buy solar that will produce their power for less than the price of electricity from the not-yet-built nuclear plants.
What are your thoughts on the plight of those unfortunate ratepayers? Polling shows that we are far more willing to pay extra for renewables than for nuclear. You are extremely disturbed by the dastardly imposition of renewable costs on the poor, unfortunate exploited German ratepayer yet apparently have no sympathy for the poor unfortunate exploited victims of the nuclear industry in the US. At least the Germans are getting the facilities and electricity they are paying for.
May 9, 2012
The article also has a good discussion of these charts that are used to illustrate the way solar impacts electricity pricing:
They add a couple of points that are worth noting. They quote a study saying the 25GW of solar in Germany is producing a 40% reduction in daytime pricing but only a 10% overall reduction in electricity costs. It is also resulting in an increase in nighttime electricity costs as fossil producers are forced to raise their prices to make up for lost daytime revenue. Obviously that is not enhancing the competitive position of fossil fuels in relation to new technologies.
As one writer put it, "solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators—it is in fact eating their entire cake."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/german-solar-juggernaut-continues-despite-tariff-cuts.ars
German solar juggernaut rolls on despite tariff cuts
German solar juggernaut rolls on despite tariff cuts
By James Holloway
...Germany's solar expansion continues apace. To achieve its aim of 52GW of installed PV capacity by 2020 it only needs to install 3GW per year—about half the rate at which it's currently trundling along. Clearly German solar expansion is looking beyond domestic suppliers to provide cheap, efficient equipment—in many cases to China and the US, where manufacturers have more nimbly adapted to efficiency-boosting and price-cutting advances.
It's likely that feed-in tariffs will be abolished outright long before 2020, and the consensus in the German solar industry appears to be that this will make very little difference to progress. As photovoltaic power fast approaches grid parity—i.e. a cost level with that of purchasing from the grid—the idea of financial incentives for solar installations appears increasingly redundant. If the cutting of feed-in tariffs is a strategy to undermine the march of photovoltaic solar power (as has been theorized), it doesn't seem to be working. Rather, the effect seems to be that, by making installers more cost-conscious, the least competitive manufacturers are weeded out. If the upshot of reducing feed-in tariffs is to keep the solar industry honest, how bad is that, really?
By James Holloway
...Germany's solar expansion continues apace. To achieve its aim of 52GW of installed PV capacity by 2020 it only needs to install 3GW per year—about half the rate at which it's currently trundling along. Clearly German solar expansion is looking beyond domestic suppliers to provide cheap, efficient equipment—in many cases to China and the US, where manufacturers have more nimbly adapted to efficiency-boosting and price-cutting advances.
It's likely that feed-in tariffs will be abolished outright long before 2020, and the consensus in the German solar industry appears to be that this will make very little difference to progress. As photovoltaic power fast approaches grid parity—i.e. a cost level with that of purchasing from the grid—the idea of financial incentives for solar installations appears increasingly redundant. If the cutting of feed-in tariffs is a strategy to undermine the march of photovoltaic solar power (as has been theorized), it doesn't seem to be working. Rather, the effect seems to be that, by making installers more cost-conscious, the least competitive manufacturers are weeded out. If the upshot of reducing feed-in tariffs is to keep the solar industry honest, how bad is that, really?
The article also has a good discussion of these charts that are used to illustrate the way solar impacts electricity pricing:
They add a couple of points that are worth noting. They quote a study saying the 25GW of solar in Germany is producing a 40% reduction in daytime pricing but only a 10% overall reduction in electricity costs. It is also resulting in an increase in nighttime electricity costs as fossil producers are forced to raise their prices to make up for lost daytime revenue. Obviously that is not enhancing the competitive position of fossil fuels in relation to new technologies.
As one writer put it, "solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators—it is in fact eating their entire cake."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/german-solar-juggernaut-continues-despite-tariff-cuts.ars
May 9, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479965/heartland-gate-day-5-green-coalitions-dump-institute-forbes-slams-wattsupwiththat/
Heartland-Gate Day 5: Green Coalitions Dump Institute, Forbes Slams Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat
Forbes slams Watts?
What's up with that?
Heartland-Gate Day 5: Green Coalitions Dump Institute, Forbes Slams Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat
It is the fifth day of the Heartland Institute’s online offensive comparing people who accept climate science with serial killers and mass murderers. The billboard is down, but the radical climate deniers of Heartland have explicitly refused to apologize for the ad. Worse, they’ve kept the more offensive hate speech on their website.
Unsurprisingly, corporate sponsors have started to flee, senior staff have left, partnerships have started to crumble, and all but the most extreme anti-science deniers have condemned Heartland. But as we’ll see, the origins of this smear go back many years for both Heartland and its long-time partner, Anthony Watts of the blog WattsUpWithThat.
First, Heartland has been quietly dropped from two significant coalitions with top environmental organizations, Climate Progress has learned. Under pressure from Forecast the Facts and Greenpeace, insurers who funded Heartland’s Washington DC vice president, Eli Lehrer, ceased their support and helped to convince Lehrer to leave the organization. With Lehrer’s departure, the Heartland Institute has been excised from the websites of two green coalitions:
It is the fifth day of the Heartland Institute’s online offensive comparing people who accept climate science with serial killers and mass murderers. The billboard is down, but the radical climate deniers of Heartland have explicitly refused to apologize for the ad. Worse, they’ve kept the more offensive hate speech on their website.
Unsurprisingly, corporate sponsors have started to flee, senior staff have left, partnerships have started to crumble, and all but the most extreme anti-science deniers have condemned Heartland. But as we’ll see, the origins of this smear go back many years for both Heartland and its long-time partner, Anthony Watts of the blog WattsUpWithThat.
First, Heartland has been quietly dropped from two significant coalitions with top environmental organizations, Climate Progress has learned. Under pressure from Forecast the Facts and Greenpeace, insurers who funded Heartland’s Washington DC vice president, Eli Lehrer, ceased their support and helped to convince Lehrer to leave the organization. With Lehrer’s departure, the Heartland Institute has been excised from the websites of two green coalitions:
The Smarter Safer Coalition...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479965/heartland-gate-day-5-green-coalitions-dump-institute-forbes-slams-wattsupwiththat/
May 8, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/nuclear-britain-edf-idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508
See also "Soaring Costs Threaten To Blow Nuclear Plans Apart (UK)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112714142
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1127
UK nuclear build requires taxpayer rescue but Govt backs fracking, nuclear power
UK nuclear build requires taxpayer rescue -Citi
LONDON | Tue May 8, 2012 12:31pm EDT
May 8 (Reuters) - Britain's aim to expand its fleet of nuclear plants by 2025 will take place only if the taxpayer absorbs the burden of spiralling construction costs, allowing private companies to invest in the sector, a senior analyst said.
Nuclear energy policy in Britain faces major setbacks following reports that the cost of replacing ageing reactors increased dramatically in the past year, making power produced from new plants not affordable without government help.
..."If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told Reuters.
Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore wind, he said...
LONDON | Tue May 8, 2012 12:31pm EDT
May 8 (Reuters) - Britain's aim to expand its fleet of nuclear plants by 2025 will take place only if the taxpayer absorbs the burden of spiralling construction costs, allowing private companies to invest in the sector, a senior analyst said.
Nuclear energy policy in Britain faces major setbacks following reports that the cost of replacing ageing reactors increased dramatically in the past year, making power produced from new plants not affordable without government help.
..."If the latest cost figures are true, new nuclear power plants in the UK are not commercially viable," Citi analyst Peter Atherton told Reuters.
Based on the new figures, nuclear would be the most expensive form of electricity generation, exceeding even offshore wind, he said...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/nuclear-britain-edf-idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508
See also "Soaring Costs Threaten To Blow Nuclear Plans Apart (UK)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112714142
UK environment agency backs fracking, nuclear power
LONDON | Tue May 8, 2012 6:25am EDT
May 8 (Reuters) - The chairman of the environment agency for England and Wales voiced support for shale gas extraction - which critics say can pollute ground water and cause earth tremors - and he backed government plans to expand nuclear power generation.
Shale gas is extracted using a technology called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, which involves pumping large amounts of water and chemicals underground.
The chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, said on Tuesday fracking could be done safely and that the technology could improve Britain's energy security and end the need to import gas from abroad.
The Environment Agency is largely government funded and is the main environmental regulator for England and Wales, including areas important for the shale gas and nuclear power sector, such as air and land pollution and waste regulation.
"Domestically available (shale) gas supply would be beneficial ..."
....
LONDON | Tue May 8, 2012 6:25am EDT
May 8 (Reuters) - The chairman of the environment agency for England and Wales voiced support for shale gas extraction - which critics say can pollute ground water and cause earth tremors - and he backed government plans to expand nuclear power generation.
Shale gas is extracted using a technology called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, which involves pumping large amounts of water and chemicals underground.
The chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, said on Tuesday fracking could be done safely and that the technology could improve Britain's energy security and end the need to import gas from abroad.
The Environment Agency is largely government funded and is the main environmental regulator for England and Wales, including areas important for the shale gas and nuclear power sector, such as air and land pollution and waste regulation.
"Domestically available (shale) gas supply would be beneficial ..."
....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1127
May 8, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/germany-to-install-record-solar-panels-this-year-dihk-says.html
And the next article is the right wing spin that is pushed by Merkel's procoal, pronuclear government. Note the author is famous for his "climate skepticism" (aka re-branded "climate denial"
.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/germany-to-install-record-solar-panels-this-year-dihk-says.html
Germany to Install Record Solar Panels This Year, DIHK Says
This is the reality:
Germany to Install Record Solar Panels This Year, DIHK Says
By Stefan Nicola - Mar 9, 2012 6:00 AM GMT-0500
Germany will probably install a record amount of solar panels this year even as the world’s biggest market for the industry plans to cut subsidies, according to the DIHK national industry and trade chambers.
The DIHK expects 8 gigawatts of installations this year, which would result in subsidy costs of 20 billion euros ($26 billion) in the next two decades, Martin Wansleben, managing director, said by e-mail today. Germany added 7.5 gigawatts last year, double the government’s target. More will be installed this year as module prices drop to levels ensuring favorable returns even with lower subsidies, he said....
By Stefan Nicola - Mar 9, 2012 6:00 AM GMT-0500
Germany will probably install a record amount of solar panels this year even as the world’s biggest market for the industry plans to cut subsidies, according to the DIHK national industry and trade chambers.
The DIHK expects 8 gigawatts of installations this year, which would result in subsidy costs of 20 billion euros ($26 billion) in the next two decades, Martin Wansleben, managing director, said by e-mail today. Germany added 7.5 gigawatts last year, double the government’s target. More will be installed this year as module prices drop to levels ensuring favorable returns even with lower subsidies, he said....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/germany-to-install-record-solar-panels-this-year-dihk-says.html
And the next article is the right wing spin that is pushed by Merkel's procoal, pronuclear government. Note the author is famous for his "climate skepticism" (aka re-branded "climate denial"
.
Goodnight Sunshine
Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient.
By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, at 7:30 AM ET
Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”...
Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient.
By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012, at 7:30 AM ET
Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?
Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.
According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/germany-to-install-record-solar-panels-this-year-dihk-says.html
May 8, 2012
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/1199870/1/.html
In case you're wondering the thread header is a jab at those who, with breathless glee, rush to broadcast any news that they think creates the impression of a failure for electric drive.
See also what Edison thought about the way we should do energy. He said he would "bet" on the sun in the long term. He just hoped we'd figure it out before the fossil fuels ran out.
Thomas Edison holding one of the batteries used to power his early electric car, the Baker.
... Edison, godfather of electricity-intensive living, was also an unlikely green pioneer whose ideas about renewable power still resonate today. At the turn of the 20th century, when Edison was at the height of his career, the notion that buildings, which now account for more than a third of all energy consumed in the United States, would someday require large amounts of power was only just coming into focus. Where that power would come from — central generating stations or in-home plants; fossil fuels or renewable resources — was still very much up for debate.
A 1901 article about Edison in The Atlanta Constitution described how his unorthodox ideas about batteries could bring wattage to the countryside: “With a windmill coupled to a small electric generator,” a rural inhabitant “could bottle up enough current to give him light at night.” The earliest wind-powered house was fired up in Cleveland in 1888 by the inventor Charles Brush, but Edison aspired to take the technology to the masses. He made drawings of a windmill to power a cluster of four to six homes, and in 1911 he pitched manufacturers on building a prototype.
Edison’s batteries also fueled some cars and trucks, and he joined forces with Henry Ford to develop an electric automobile that would be as affordable and practical as the Model T. The Constitution article discussed plans to let people recharge their batteries at plug-in sites along trolley lines; the batteries could also be refreshed courtesy of the home windmill.
Talented not only at devising new technologies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-essay-t.html
More bad news about electric drive autos...
Toyota unveils 'first all-electric SUV'
Posted: 08 May 2012
LOS ANGELES: Toyota unveiled Monday what it says is the first all-electric sports utility vehicle (SUV) on the market, a version of its popular RAV4 with a top range of 100 miles and minimum six-hour charge time.
The car will be sold initially only in California with a base price of $49,800, and the Japanese car company hopes to sell a relatively modest 2,600 units over the next three years.
Toyota Motor Sales USA executive Bob Carter said the company believes the car will "attract sophisticated early technology adopters, much like the first-generation Prius," Toyota's pioneering hybrid car launched 15 years ago...
Posted: 08 May 2012
LOS ANGELES: Toyota unveiled Monday what it says is the first all-electric sports utility vehicle (SUV) on the market, a version of its popular RAV4 with a top range of 100 miles and minimum six-hour charge time.
The car will be sold initially only in California with a base price of $49,800, and the Japanese car company hopes to sell a relatively modest 2,600 units over the next three years.
Toyota Motor Sales USA executive Bob Carter said the company believes the car will "attract sophisticated early technology adopters, much like the first-generation Prius," Toyota's pioneering hybrid car launched 15 years ago...
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/1199870/1/.html
In case you're wondering the thread header is a jab at those who, with breathless glee, rush to broadcast any news that they think creates the impression of a failure for electric drive.
See also what Edison thought about the way we should do energy. He said he would "bet" on the sun in the long term. He just hoped we'd figure it out before the fossil fuels ran out.
Thomas Edison holding one of the batteries used to power his early electric car, the Baker.
... Edison, godfather of electricity-intensive living, was also an unlikely green pioneer whose ideas about renewable power still resonate today. At the turn of the 20th century, when Edison was at the height of his career, the notion that buildings, which now account for more than a third of all energy consumed in the United States, would someday require large amounts of power was only just coming into focus. Where that power would come from — central generating stations or in-home plants; fossil fuels or renewable resources — was still very much up for debate.
A 1901 article about Edison in The Atlanta Constitution described how his unorthodox ideas about batteries could bring wattage to the countryside: “With a windmill coupled to a small electric generator,” a rural inhabitant “could bottle up enough current to give him light at night.” The earliest wind-powered house was fired up in Cleveland in 1888 by the inventor Charles Brush, but Edison aspired to take the technology to the masses. He made drawings of a windmill to power a cluster of four to six homes, and in 1911 he pitched manufacturers on building a prototype.
Edison’s batteries also fueled some cars and trucks, and he joined forces with Henry Ford to develop an electric automobile that would be as affordable and practical as the Model T. The Constitution article discussed plans to let people recharge their batteries at plug-in sites along trolley lines; the batteries could also be refreshed courtesy of the home windmill.
Talented not only at devising new technologies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/magazine/03wwln-essay-t.html
May 8, 2012
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120508p2a00m0na014000c.html
63% of Japanese citizens say 'no' to restarting of Oi nuclear reactors
63% of Japanese citizens say 'no' to restarting of Oi nuclear reactors: Mainichi poll
Sixty-three percent of Japanese people stand against reactivating two idled reactors at the Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture, and 74 percent say they "can endure" restricted use of electricity in the summer, a nationwide survey conducted by the Mainichi shows, suggesting that the general public is becoming increasingly in favor of breaking away from nuclear power generation.
The survey, conducted on May 5 and 6, shows only 31 percent of people agreeing to restart the No. 3 and 4 reactors that have been offline for regular inspections at the Oi nuclear power station. Seventy-four percent, or nearly three in four Japanese, polled say they "can endure" restrictions, if imposed, on the use of electricity during the summer due to no power supply from nuclear reactors in the country.
The survey also shows 77 percent of people say they "do not trust" new safety standards the government compiled in April in a bid to seek consent from local residents and governments on the reactivation of the idled reactors. Only 16 percent of people say they "trust" the new nuclear safety standards, underscoring the fact that public distrust in the government's procedures has led people to firmly stand against the reactivation of the nuclear reactors....
Sixty-three percent of Japanese people stand against reactivating two idled reactors at the Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture, and 74 percent say they "can endure" restricted use of electricity in the summer, a nationwide survey conducted by the Mainichi shows, suggesting that the general public is becoming increasingly in favor of breaking away from nuclear power generation.
The survey, conducted on May 5 and 6, shows only 31 percent of people agreeing to restart the No. 3 and 4 reactors that have been offline for regular inspections at the Oi nuclear power station. Seventy-four percent, or nearly three in four Japanese, polled say they "can endure" restrictions, if imposed, on the use of electricity during the summer due to no power supply from nuclear reactors in the country.
The survey also shows 77 percent of people say they "do not trust" new safety standards the government compiled in April in a bid to seek consent from local residents and governments on the reactivation of the idled reactors. Only 16 percent of people say they "trust" the new nuclear safety standards, underscoring the fact that public distrust in the government's procedures has led people to firmly stand against the reactivation of the nuclear reactors....
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120508p2a00m0na014000c.html
May 7, 2012
More at the link (including video of Pickens' interview):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/03/476039/t-boone-pickens-the-biggest-deterrent-to-an-energy-plan-in-america-is-koch-industries/
T. Boone Pickens: ‘The Biggest Deterrent To An Energy Plan In America Is Koch Industries’
T. Boone Pickens: ‘The Biggest Deterrent To An Energy Plan In America Is Koch Industries’
By Joe Romm on May 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Billionaire energy investor T. Boone Pickens has a bone to pick with the country’s leading pollutocrats.
Pickens said in an interview Wednesday with Yahoo’s Daily Ticker that Koch Industries, the company owned by Charles and David Koch, is the major stumbling block to a coherent U.S. energy policy:
Back in October, a German state minister explained that the country could decarbonize with renewables because “We Don’t Have the … Koch Brothers.” He was referring to the Kochs’ lobbying for dirty fuels and against clean energy, and its spending on climate science disinformation, which exceeds that of ExxonMobil. As Business Insider explains:
.....
By Joe Romm on May 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Billionaire energy investor T. Boone Pickens has a bone to pick with the country’s leading pollutocrats.
Pickens said in an interview Wednesday with Yahoo’s Daily Ticker that Koch Industries, the company owned by Charles and David Koch, is the major stumbling block to a coherent U.S. energy policy:
“The biggest deterrent to an energy plan in America is Koch Industries,” the BP Capital founder tells Yahoo’s Aaron Task. “They do not want an energy plan for America because they have the cheapest natural gas price they’ve ever had, and they’re in the fertilizer business and they’re in the chemical business. So their margins are huge. And they do not want you to have an energy plan, because if you had a plan, then natural gas prices would come up.”
Back in October, a German state minister explained that the country could decarbonize with renewables because “We Don’t Have the … Koch Brothers.” He was referring to the Kochs’ lobbying for dirty fuels and against clean energy, and its spending on climate science disinformation, which exceeds that of ExxonMobil. As Business Insider explains:
The second-largest private company in the United States, Koch Industries has spent at least $5 million in lobbying in each of the past four years, and given at least $1,000,000 in seven of the last eight election cycles, according to data from OpenSecrets.
In 2008, the company spent nearly $18 million on lobbying for oil and gas interests alone, according to Open Secrets. They’ve already spent $2.3 million on oil and gas lobbying in 2012.
.....
More at the link (including video of Pickens' interview):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/03/476039/t-boone-pickens-the-biggest-deterrent-to-an-energy-plan-in-america-is-koch-industries/
May 7, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478508/four-big-oil-companies-are-members-of-alec-task-forces/
Link to list at Common Cause: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765
Also from Climate Progress blog:
Membership list of ALEC published (4 of 5 major oil companies included)
Four Big Oil Companies Are Members Of ALEC Task Forces
By Rebecca Leber on May 7, 2012 at 9:37 am
The American Legislative Exchange Council’s anti-environment agenda is fueled by none other than Big Oil companies, which sit on ALEC’s “task forces.”
The watchdog group Common Cause published ALEC’s full member list, revealing four of the five major oil companies behind the group’s anti-environment legislation. These four oil companies — Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil — are also the four most profitable, taking a combined $30.6 billion profits in just three months this year.
Koch Industries, ubiquitous in funding right-wing causes, is also one of ALEC’s corporate members, while ConocoPhillips has its own history of funding the group.
ALEC’s agenda includes crafting legislation that kills carbon pricing and renewable energy targets, turns over public lands, and prevents fracking disclosure laws, among other harmful laws....
By Rebecca Leber on May 7, 2012 at 9:37 am
The American Legislative Exchange Council’s anti-environment agenda is fueled by none other than Big Oil companies, which sit on ALEC’s “task forces.”
The watchdog group Common Cause published ALEC’s full member list, revealing four of the five major oil companies behind the group’s anti-environment legislation. These four oil companies — Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil — are also the four most profitable, taking a combined $30.6 billion profits in just three months this year.
Koch Industries, ubiquitous in funding right-wing causes, is also one of ALEC’s corporate members, while ConocoPhillips has its own history of funding the group.
ALEC’s agenda includes crafting legislation that kills carbon pricing and renewable energy targets, turns over public lands, and prevents fracking disclosure laws, among other harmful laws....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478508/four-big-oil-companies-are-members-of-alec-task-forces/
Link to list at Common Cause: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8078765
Also from Climate Progress blog:
Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, XL Group Announce Withdrawal from ‘Radical’ Heartland Institute
By Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm
To add your voice to the petition calling on corporations to end support for the Heartland Institute, click here.
http://act.engagementlab.org/sign/climate_killers/
By Climate Guest Blogger on May 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm
To add your voice to the petition calling on corporations to end support for the Heartland Institute, click here.
http://act.engagementlab.org/sign/climate_killers/
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
