DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3514--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: July 29, 2015, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On Green Energy, Ethiopia Leaves U.S. in the Dust
Posted on Jul 28, 2015
By Juan Cole
SNIPPET:
[quote]President Obama’s state visit to Kenya and Ethiopia has
involved a good deal of scolding of those countries by Western
pundits. On some matters, the chiding should go in the other
direction. On the issues of green energy and climate change,
Ethiopia has announced initiatives that put the United States to
shame.
The U.S. commits an annual crime against the earth by emitting
5.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, whereas these African
countries live cleanly in this regard. They are intent on
growing economically in an environmentally friendly way. On the
most important environmental and economic issue of our day, the
U.S. is an unrepentant and even bullying fossil-fuel dinosaur,
whereas young Africa is awakening to the benefits of renewable
energy.[/quote]
[color=purple]
Full article:[/color]
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/on_green_energy_ethiopia_leaves_us_in_the_dust_20150728
#Post#: 3522--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: July 30, 2015, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Economics of Load Defection
[quote]Rising retail prices for grid electricity and declining
costs for solar PV and batteries mean that grid-connected
solar-plus-battery systems will be economic within the next
10–15 years for many customers in many parts of the country.
Utilities could see significant decline in energy sales that
would support needed grid investment.
Thus it's critical that utilities, regulators, and other
electricity system stakeholders urgently pursue reform on three
fronts—rate structures, utility business models, and regulatory
frameworks—to embrace solar, batteries, and other DERs as an
integral, optimized part of the future grid, rather than as a
threat to that grid. [/quote]
[img width=175
height=120]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180936.jpeg[/img]
HTML http://www.rmi.org/electricity_load_defection
#Post#: 3524--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: July 30, 2015, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Germany Breaks Renewable Energy Record
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif
[img width=80
height=70]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Emily J. Gertz, TakePart | July 30, 2015 10:39 am
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/30/germany-breaks-renewable-energy-record/
#Post#: 3552--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: August 4, 2015, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Price Is Right on Clean Energy
The Climate Reality Project | August 4, 2015 12:33 pm
Ever had one of those moments where you turn on the television
and stumble onto a show from decades back that you can’t believe
is even on any more? If you’re in the U.S., something like Wheel
of Fortune or The Price Is Right? (And this is one of those rare
instances of universal harmony where every nation has its own
version). But there it is, still making the rounds with the host
looking as indeterminately aged as ever and an audience dressed
for today. And you can’t help thinking, “Wait, people still
watch this?”
Here at Climate Reality, we’ve been having a similar thought
hearing senators and media pundits rehearse the tired old claim
that switching from fossil fuels to clean energy would be
economic suicide: “Wait, people still believe that?”
Because—and here’s the key point—the opposite is true. Look at
the list of countries making real commitments to clean energy
and you’ll see a list of strong economies that aren’t suffering
because they’ve embraced renewables like solar and wind power.
In many cases, they’re growing—and kind of like Pat Sajak, it’s
time to take the Clean Energy Would Kill the Economy show off
the air once and for all.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Changing the Channel in 2015
If this myth has been around for so long, why are we focusing on
it now? And why this one in particular?
In a word: Paris. Along with everyone else in the climate
community, The Climate Reality Project is working to build
support for a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions
at the UN talks in Paris later this year. If we’re
successful—and world leaders make the kind of emissions
reduction commitments that can keep warming within safe
limits—the upshot is that we’re going to have to scale down our
use of fossil fuels as a planet and scale up renewables in a
big, big way. [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img]
Naturally, the fossil fuel industry
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
sees an existential
threat
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif<br
/>here and has its spokespeople and government supporters making
the rounds to claim that any significant moves in this direction
would only kill jobs and destroy the economy.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
Just look at all
the hyperbolic invectives against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan
we’re hearing here in the U.S., as one example.
These kinds of claims make for great quotes and conspiracy
theories, but when you compare them to what’s already actually
happening in the world, they fall apart fast. So in the interest
of a little truth-telling, over the next couple weeks, we’re
highlighting some of the nations showing that clean energy
economies work—and work well—beginning with a few that have been
going clean and winning for a while.
Germany
You might have heard of it. You know, the world’s fourth-largest
economy by gross domestic product (GDP), industrial powerhouse
of Europe, world champions in soccer/football and home of major
companies like Volkswagen, Deutsche Bank and Siemens.
Germany began betting big on clean energy long before it was
cool, with the government taking its first significant steps to
start a nationwide transition from nuclear power and fossil
fuels to renewables back in the early 90s (there’s even a
typically long and nearly pronounceable German word for this
idea: “Energiewende” (or “energy transition”). The results have
been pretty spectacular. Among other highlights:
•Between 1990 and 2010, per capita greenhouse gas emissions
dropped 26 percent, even as per capita GDP grew 36 percent.
•In 2014, Germany generated more than 27 percent of its
electricity with renewables, making clean energy the nation’s
primary source of power and cementing its place at the top of
the list of solar-powered countries. That same year, it ranked
second in the world in most electricity from biopower and third
in installed wind power capacity. Not too shabby.
•Meanwhile, the nation set goals of reducing its greenhouse gas
emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent
by 2050.
•Germany is also working to reduce its primary energy
consumption by 20 percent below 2008 levels by 2020 and 50
percent by 2050.
It’s worth remembering that Germany has continued its
clean-energy initiatives in the middle of a global recession and
all while remaining one of the world’s greatest economic powers.
;D And it somehow beat Brazil 7-1 in Brazil, which suggests
there’s very little Germans can’t do when they put their
collective wills to it.
Denmark
Just across the border, Denmark has been taking a bit of
anything-you-can-do-Germany-we-can-do-better approach to clean
energy. While the nation isn’t quite the economic powerhouse of
its southern neighbor, it has one of the highest standards of
living in the world and has seen steady economic growth in the
twenty-first century. And it’s done so while also decreasing
both its energy use through ambitious conservation measures and
its carbon emissions.
No surprise: renewables are a big part of this story, especially
wind. The country set a new world record for wind power by
getting more than 39 percent of its power from wind in 2014.
Then on July 9 and 10 of this year, Denmark generated 140
percent of its energy needs with wind, sending the surplus power
to neighboring nations. Plus, just in case anyone ever wanted to
accuse the Danish of lacking ambition, the country aims to go
from low-carbon to no-carbon and become completely independent
of fossil fuels by 2050. No one on staff at Climate Reality knew
Danish for “wow,” but it’s clearly time we learned.
Costa Rica
For any detractors thinking clean energy can only work in
advanced economies in Europe, let’s head over to Costa Rica. The
nation has taken advantage of its abundant natural resources to
create real capacity in small-scale hydroelectric and geothermal
power, with the result it generated 100 percent of its
electricity with renewables for the first 113 days of this year.
Costa Rica is also developing—and attracting investment in—other
areas like solar, wind and biofuels and has committed to
becoming carbon-neutral by 2021.
So far, all this focus on renewables hasn’t exactly killed the
nation’s economy. Instead, Costa Rica has become an upper
middle-income country, experiencing steady economic growth over
the past 25 years and the World Bank expects its GDP to keep
growing around 4 percent annually for the next several years.
Pura vida, indeed.
California
Admittedly, California isn’t technically a nation—the whole
“California Republic” ethos notwithstanding—but this one state
has the seventh-largest economy in the world, ahead of countries
like Brazil, Canada and Italy. Which makes it a pretty good test
case for clean energy in the U.S.—and something of an
embarrassment for the anti-renewable crowd.
So what’s making the Golden State the, um, gold standard on
clean energy when it comes to the U.S? The topline here is that
through a combination of ambitious efficiency measures,
aggressive targets and policies for emissions reduction and a
deep commitment to expanding renewables, the state’s been able
to do the remarkable and grow its economy without substantially
increasing emissions. And not just without increasing emissions,
but actually shrinking them by 25 percent per person from
1990—2012, all while growing per-capita GDP by 37 percent in the
same period and creating what one report has hailed as the
second-greenest economy in the world.
While pulling out all the factors contributing to this
achievement would take up a post of its own (if not a book), a
few in particular stand out:
•Governor Jerry Brown recently issued an executive order to
reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030, making it possibly the most ambitious
target in North America.
•California is home to the largest carbon market in North
America, with a cap and trade system linked with Quebec and soon
with Ontario.
•The state has developed both the policies and industry to
become the leading state for solar energy in the U.S. and
currently is home to the world’s three largest solar power
plants. Along the way it became the first U.S. state to top 10
GW of solar capacity—or enough to power nearly 2.6 million
homes—while its domestic solar industry employs nearly 55,000
workers across the solar value chain.
Looking at these figures, you have to try hard—really hard—not
to reach one conclusion: if the world’s seventh-largest economy
can make clean energy work, other nations and states can too.
Which gives us a lot of hope looking ahead to negotiations in
Paris. You might have heard the saying, “As California goes, so
goes the nation.” We sure like the sound of it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/04/price-is-right-clean-energy/
#Post#: 3557--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: August 5, 2015, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=430]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/windturbine.png[/img]
World’s Largest Solar Project and Floating Wind Turbine Signal
Global Shift to Renewable Energy
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
Lorraine Chow | August 5, 2015 1:48 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/05/world-largest-solar-wind-projects/
Comments
[quote]
agelbert
Thank you for this inspiring news. I would add that the coastal
wind turbines about 50 to 70 miles south of Fukushima,
constructed BEFORE the 2011 tsunami that caused the subsequent
meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, were unscathed
by the tsunami and were the ONLY power source for over a month.
Now that's what I call reliable energy! The propagandists for
dirty energy that frequent these boards should be reminded of
how UNRELIABLE the energy they defend is.
Paul Kangas
The meltdown in Fukushima, Japan caused Japan to shift towards
100% solar.
The meltdown in Chernobyl, Russia caused Germany to rush towards
solar & a solar payment policy.
Germany began paying $0.99 kwh for solar. Japan is paying $0.53
kwh for solar.
This is all good. However, we want decentralized solar, locally
made, from home roof tops, not giant corporate solar.
To ship the energy from these huge projects to homes, where it
is needed, you lose 40% of the energy in transmission. Big is
not better.
That is not "clean" energy.
If we build solar homes, each with 100 solar panels, the homes
get free energy at the point of use, no transmission costs, and
the working class homeowner makes $2,000. / month income from
the solar. Small is better. Decentralization. That is clean
energy.
This also creates jobs that cannot be off-shored.
Stop genuflecting every time some Daddy War Bucks builds a large
Pen*s.
These giant energy plants were built by Fukushima, and that
means General Electric and atomic energy money.
Stop and think.
reply to Paul Kangas by agelbert
I agree distributed is the best form of renewable energy. But
your cost figures for German Solar power per kwh are WAY OFF
(German wind is even cheaper!).
"Solar power is already cost-effective, Agora notes. “In the
sunny, desert country of Dubai, a long-term power purchase
contract was signed recently for 5 cents per kilowatt hour,
while in Germany large solar plants deliver power for less than
9 cents. By comparison, electricity from new coal and gas-fired
plants costs between 5 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour and from
nuclear plants as much as 11 cents.”
By 2025, the cost of producing power in central and southern
Europe will have declined to between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt
hour.
HTML http://www.energypost.eu/fraunhofer-solar-power-will-cost-2-ctskwh-2050/
[/quote]
#Post#: 3599--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: August 11, 2015, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Europe’s energy revolution marches on: one-third of power supply
now renewable
June 17, 2015 by Karel Beckman
Fully one-third of electricity produced in Europe last year came
from renewable energy, reports ENTSO-E (the European Network of
Transmission System Operators for Electricity). Four years ago
this was just 24%. The increased share of renewables has come at
the expense of fossil fuels. ;D “There is a revolution taking
place”, says Susanne Nies, Corporate Affairs Manager at ENTSO-E.
[center] [img width=75
height=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/img]<br
/>[/center]
HTML http://www.energypost.eu/europes-energy-revolution-marches-one-third-power-supply-now-comes-renewables/
#Post#: 3640--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: August 20, 2015, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Islands Become Trendsetters for Renewable Energy
by Colin McCormick - August 05, 2015
Colin McCormick is a Research Fellow looking at energy
technology innovation for WRI’s Charge project.
[img width=640
height=320]
HTML http://www.pv-magazine.com/fileadmin/PVI_website_pictures/Hawaii_solar_photovoltaic_panels_on_a_roof_Image_Hawaii_State_Separtment_of_Education.jpg[/img]
With its new target in place, Hawaii becomes the largest island
to aim for a full-renewables grid strategy.
Hawaii made waves earlier this year with the announcement that
it plans to transition its electric grid to 100 percent
renewables by 2045. This is the most aggressive target in the
United States, and it means that the state will serve as a
testbed for bringing large amounts of variable renewables onto
the grid. It should be watched closely by grid managers
everywhere.
It’s no coincidence that Hawaii leads the nation in its
renewable ambitions. As a group of islands, Hawaii faces unique
energy challenges, and it has worked closely with the U.S.
Department of Energy to analyze the potential of solar energy,
and examine the challenges of integrating a variety of
renewables into its energy mix.
From one perspective, an island seems like a hard place to use
variable renewable energy like wind and solar. Island grids are
usually isolated, so they can’t rely on power from the mainland
grid when there’s no sun or wind. (There are some exceptions,
like the Danish island of Samso.) Island grids generally have to
pay more attention to backup generation and energy storage than
mainland grids, raising the overall costs of renewables.
On the other hand, most islands rely on fuel imports to run
their grid. These shipments of diesel, oil or natural gas are
very expensive, and anything that can reduce or eliminate them
can mean big savings. It also means less reliance on imports,
increasing energy security. So shifting to fuel-free renewables
like solar and wind saves money on this side of the ledger.
How do these two factors balance out in practice? The answer is
clear in the growing number of island communities around the
world that are moving quickly to adopt renewables.
The Growth of Renewable Islands
Hybrid renewable energy technologies can provide stable power
for islands. For example, El Hierro, one of the Spanish Canary
Islands off the coast of Africa, operates a stand-alone electric
grid to serve its population of 11,000 and run power-hungry
desalination plants. Last summer, the island inaugurated a
hybrid wind-hydro power plant that combines wind energy when
it’s available with pumped hydroelectric storage that runs when
the wind drops. This has allowed it to almost completely stop
using expensive, shipped-in fuel oil. The plant has just
completed one year of successful operation.
Grid management and storage solutions are also being developed
and used on islands. Kodiak Island in Alaska has just shifted to
fully running its grid with wind and hydro power. To make this
work, the utility had to deal with the challenge of smoothly
transitioning between wind and hydro generation without the
power flickering. Managers handle this by using a
battery-storage system that can provide a brief (90 second)
amount of power to bridge the gap. With the full system in
operation, Kodiak is able to almost completely eliminate imports
of close to 3 million gallons of diesel per year.
Many other islands are expanding how much of their electricity
can feasibly come from renewables, as IRENA and the Carbon War
Room have both addressed. These islands range from extremely
small—such as the tiny Pacific nation of Tokelau, which moved to
entirely solar power several years ago—to relatively
large—Iceland relies almost entirely on hydropower and
geothermal power, although these are less variable than wind and
solar.
Learning from Hawaii
With its new target in place, Hawaii becomes the largest island
to aim for a full-renewables grid strategy. The lessons from
balancing variable renewable generation on smaller islands will
help the state as it works to handle the challenges of large
amounts of renewables. And while some of these lessons will
remain island-specific, many will be relevant to mainland grids.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/19/business/19SOLARsub1/19SOLARsub1-articleLarge.jpg[/img]
Ubiquitous solar panels on Rooftops in Hawaii
One particular example that many utilities around the world are
grappling with is the question of how much distributed renewable
energy can be safely installed on the grid. Hawaii has the
highest percentage of rooftop solar in the United States—[b]one
household in eight has it—which has raised some technical
concerns about grid stability. ;)[/b] In 2013, the local
utility (HECO) capped the allowed amount of rooftop solar,
freezing thousands of permit applications for new installations.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp<br
/> >:(
After research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) resolved those concerns, HECO doubled the cap and allowed
new installations to go ahead. [img width=80
height=70]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Now it is charting new territory, including learning how to work
with distributed solar companies to better use data from rooftop
solar installations to improve awareness of how these systems
are performing and their impact on grid stability.
As the Hawaiian grid continues to gather real-world experience
in incorporating large amounts of renewables, it will serve as
both a practical demonstration and a tremendously valuable
testbed for how other states could follow a similar path.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
HTML http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/islands-become-trendsetters-renewable-energy
#Post#: 3647--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: August 23, 2015, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
World’s Second Largest Source of Electricity Is Now Renewables
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230815181445.jpeg[/img]
The construction of a vast solar power plant in Germany. Photo
credit: Bilfinger SE / Flickr
It probably surprises nobody to learn that coal produces more of
the world’s electricity than any other fuel. But it may provide
food for thought to realize that the second most widely-used
fuels for power generation are now renewables.
Electricity generation from renewable sources has overtaken
natural gas to become the second largest source of electricity
worldwide, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced.
In Europe, the main renewables used to generate electricity are
wind and solar power. Since 1990, global solar photovoltaic
power has been increasing at an average growth rate of 44.6
percent a year and wind at 27.1 percent. [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-022.gif
The IEA reports that electricity production last year in the 34
members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) fell slightly to 10,712 TWh (terawatt
hours)—a decrease of 0.8 percent (86 TWh) compared with 2013. To
put that in context, 1 TWh is 1 billion kilowatt hours and each
KWh takes about 0.36 kilograms of coal to generate.
Partially Offset
This decline, the agency says, was driven by lower fossil fuel
and hydro production, which were only partially offset by
increases in non-hydro renewables. These grew by 8.5 percent and
nuclear energy by 0.9 percent.
In 2014, solar photovoltaic power overtook solid biofuels—used
in power plants that burn biomass—to become the second-largest
source of non-hydro renewable electricity in OECD countries of
Europe, with a share of 17.3 percent.
The IEA says overall growth in electricity generation continues
to be driven by non-OECD countries. Its latest statistics, which
show world electricity generation increasing by 2.9 percent
between 2012 and 2013, reveal two distinct trends.
Electricity generation is leveling off within the OECD, while it
is rising strongly in the rest of the world. In 2011, non-OECD
countries for the first time produced more electricity than
members of the OECD.
Other milestones were reached in 2013, when global non-hydro
renewable electricity exceeded[/I] oil-fired generation for the
first time and [i]renewable electricity overtook natural gas to
become the world’s second largest source of electricity,
producing 22 percent of the total. [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>
In the same year, electricity generated by coal reached its
highest level yet at 9,613 TWh, representing 41.1 percent of
global electricity production :P. The growth in coal generation
was driven by non-OECD countries. :(
Globally, more renewable energy is consumed in the residential,
commercial and public services sectors than elsewhere, but there
are two distinct patterns of use.
In non-OECD countries, only 22.3 percent of renewables are used
for electricity and heat production and 60.7 percent in homes,
commercial and public sectors. In OECD countries, more than half
of the renewable primary energy supply (58.5 percent) is used
for electricity and heat.
Huge Challenge
The IEA’s data will encourage renewable energy’s supporters, but
they also show how much the world continues to rely on fossil
fuels for its electricity.
In 1971, coal produced about 2 TWh of global electrical power,
but that figure is now almost five times higher. Replacing that
much generation with clean fuels will be a huge challenge,
despite the very rapidly accelerating growth of renewables.
Fatih Birol, the IEA’s director, has said that, without clear
direction from the UN climate summit to be held in Paris in
December, “the world is set for warming well beyond the 2°C
goal,”—the internationally-agreed limit for global temperature
rise that is intended to prevent climate change reaching
dangerous levels.
The IEA World Energy Outlook 2014 said that, by 2040, the
world’s energy supply mix is likely to divide into four
almost-equal parts: oil, gas, coal and low-carbon sources.
This scenario, it said, “puts the world on a path consistent
with a long-term global average temperature increase of 3.6°C.”
[img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/19/renewables-second-largest-source/
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif<br
/>Save humanity! DEMAND DIVESTMENT FROM FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
POLLUTERS NOW!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
#Post#: 3698--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: September 2, 2015, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Shilling for Dollars[/center]
[center][img width=300
height=330]
HTML https://frackorporation.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/gilbert-ross.gif[/img][/center]
Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine
and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health
(ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a
given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert
source.
To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a
few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.
But is the front group or its representatives really an expert
and credible organization?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
Full article:
HTML https://frackorporation.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/shilling-for-dollars/
Agelbert NOTE: The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a
rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are
bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science
of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels
happy talk) and climate science along with several other
pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to
perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.
[center]Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and
Health[/center]
Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin
The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for
the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other
industries.
Personnel
ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In
1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was
“convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was
“sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and
restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid
system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy
individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross
from Medicaid for ten years.[4]
Funding
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has
been referred to as “independent” in the press. However,
according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by
Mother Jones:
“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco
companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and
Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to
give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest
individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]
“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron
($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb
Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer
Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness
giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000),
and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).
Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for
financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British
American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris
International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled
Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker
Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom
Trust.”[6]
ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch
foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]
Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:
Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand
smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]
Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global
warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer
models that have not been validated and are far from
perfect.”[9]
Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]
Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never
been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use
of pesticides in this country.”[11]
Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in
consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts,
are harmful to health.”[12]
Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in
conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]
Footnotes
[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health
website.
[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press
International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from
Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New
York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross
and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.”
March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones,
November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups
and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and
Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.
[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental
Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert
Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The
Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and
C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.
[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the
Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health
Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013.
[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the
Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health
Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones,
October 28, 2013.
[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American
Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also
Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council
on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.
[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.”
Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.
[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI
(Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.
[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The
Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.
[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9.
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San
Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.
[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American
Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.
[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American
Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.
Food For Thought, Hall of Shame
HTML http://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/
Agelbert NOTE: Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific
baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same
baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that
swallowed their mendacious propaganda):
Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay [img width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]
By Hank Campbell
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>| August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM
SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love
"real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):
Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If
people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there
are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.
We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a
lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern
terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the
left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it
is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more
efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.
SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:
Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in
the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume
but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline
has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram
(MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108
J/gallon.
SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics
LIES):
Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent
yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the
lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for
people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.
HTML http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403
[center]
[img width=400
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png[/img][/center]
Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was
not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of
it are made a year
HTML http://www.e100ethanolgroup.com/Can_We_Really_Do_This_.html,
it
certainly isn't one now.
But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison
labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of
the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to
gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that
Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded
the temperance movement to the tune of several million
dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific
objectivity of the author. ;)
The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the
high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an
informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel
bias).
The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is
that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process
determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized
conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy
density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating
water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a
fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F).
If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that
heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion
process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker
than ethanol. ;D
But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need
to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus
ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher
octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a
lower energy density. ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better
mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression
internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was
invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was
outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way,
leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal
combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do
you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then
you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized"
cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.
When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the
octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are
making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the
waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the
high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is
unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and
profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself
why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll
give you three guesses - the first two don't count. ;)
Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded
gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol
is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly
and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline
DOES) which can severely damage an engine.
More thermodynamically important, however, the consistent
chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by
the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.
In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because,
unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from
incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase
friction and decrease engine life.
Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block,
or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand
AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings
implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has
done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers
and manufacturers (more on that below).
IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations are based on
EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that
gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol
will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.
But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more
useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with
automobiles.
But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most
people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly
and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal
combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be
about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys
involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine
stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said
internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for
running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed
specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel
industry would not like that at all.
[color=green]A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even
more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because
less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and
occupants.[/color]
The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they
continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with
mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel"
and "corrosion".
I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry
self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out
there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for
claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure
ethanol).
Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding
when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not
objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the
fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not
interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel
profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind
everything they write.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively
recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor
Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere. [img
width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png[/img][img<br
/>width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[center] Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels
HTML http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/2014/07/renewables-have-higher-eroei-than.html<br
/>[/center]
[center] [img width=80
height=70]
HTML http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/yayayoy/yayayoy1106/yayayoy110600019/9735563-smiling-sun-showing-thumb-up.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
#Post#: 3798--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: September 16, 2015, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]US Green Building Industry Employs 2.3 Million
People[/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
Did you ever think there would be 2.3 million people employed in
green building in the US?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
That's how many are employed this year, according to the 2015
Green Building Economic Impact Study, conducted by Booz Allen
Hamilton for the US Green Building Council. As have previous
studies, it shows that green construction is rapidly outpacing
conventional building and will continue to rise.
By 2018, green building will support more than 3.3 million US
jobs - about a third of the construction industry - and directly
contribute $304 billion to GDP, along with critical savings in
energy, water and construction debris that is recycled, rather
than trashed.
States are also benefiting from LEED building projects,
estimated to reach $8.4 billion by 2018. Texas alone has close
to 1.3 million jobs in green building.
Read our article, US Still Leads On Green Building: Top 10
Countries.
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26392
[center]
Global Real Estate Industry Embraces Sustainability [/center]
Last year, the global real estate industry cut greenhouse gas
emissions 3%, increased on-site renewable energy 50% and
improved environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance
19%, says Netherlands-based GRESB, which evaluates the
sustainability performance of real estate portfolios.
The global property industry is at the heart of critical global
issues that include resource constraints, climate change, and
urbanization. There is strong evidence that more sustainably
designed and operated buildings can provide solutions to these
challenging issues, while also creating value for real estate
investors and shareholders," they say.
Its latest study concludes the industry is increasingly
integrating ESG considerations in corporate policies, strategy,
and practices, such as energy and water efficiency programs.
Report Highlights:
•More property companies and REITs issue Sustainability Reports:
707 companies and funds, representing $2.3 trillion and 61,000
assets;
•Better environmental performance: in addition to reducing
emissions 3%, energy consumption is down 2.87% and water use is
down 1.65%.
•On-site renewable energy generation has reached 445
gigawatt-hours (GWh), up from 296 GWh in 2014.
North American REITs and private equity funds trailed the global
market slightly, with an average sustainability score of 44
compared to 46 globally. 88% of US funds have sustainability
policies and a growing number - but still too small - include
specific provisions that address climate risk (36%) and
resilience (26%). 86% of North American property companies and
funds implemented water efficiency systems over the past four
years.
Download the 2015 Green Building Economic Impact Study:
Website:
HTML http://go.usgbc.org/2015-economic-impact-report.html
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26414
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page