DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3862--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: September 21, 2015, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/gpre750.png[/img][/center]
[center]100% Renewable Energy Possible by 2050, Says Greenpeace
Report[/center]
Tierney Smith, TckTckTck | September 21, 2015 9:08 am
100 percent renewable energy for all is achievable by 2050,
creating jobs and cutting fuel costs, according to Greenpeace’s
latest Energy [R]evolution report.
Researched in collaboration with the German Aerospace Centre
(DLR), the report finds that the clean energy
transition—including the electricity, transport and heating
sectors—will create 20 million jobs over the next 15 years,
and—unlike coal—will provide energy access to the one third of
people globally that currently have none.
Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution report author Sven Teske said:
[quote]“The solar and wind industries have come of age, and are
cost-competitive with coal. It’s the responsibility of the
fossil fuel industry to prepare for these changes in the labour
market and make provisions.
Governments need to manage the dismantling of the fossil fuel
industry which is moving rapidly into irrelevance.
Every dollar invested in new fossil fuel projects is high risk
capital which might end up as stranded
investment.”[/color][/quote]
Greenpeace and DLR found that the investment necessary to reach
a 100 per cent renewable goal will be a considerable US$1
trillion a year.
However, this will be more than covered by the US$1.07 trillion
in savings on fuel costs alone in the same period, not to
mention the vast co-benefits to human health and the avoided
costs from climate change-related extreme weather that come with
the renewable transition.
To date, Greenpeace’s clean energy transition projections have
proven to be the amongst the most accurate globally.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
This updated roadmap plots an ambitious path, but a necessary
one for the world to tread if we are to remain below the agreed
2C guardrail of average global warming.
Renewable potential has been consistently understated, but with
overwhelming public support, renewable records being broken all
the time in Germany and elsewhere, Tesla about to add storage to
the rapidly growing Australian solar market, and California
recently approving 50 percent by 2030 renewable target—to name
just a few developments—momentum is growing at such a pace
Greenpeace could be proven prescient once again.
Greenpeace International executive director, Kumi Naidoo said:
[quote]
“We must not let lobbying by vested interests in the fossil fuel
industry stand in the way of a switch to renewable energy, the
most effective and fairest way to deliver a clean and safe
energy future. I would urge all those who say ‘it can’t be done’
to read this report and recognize that it can be done, it must
be done, and it will be for the benefit of everyone if it is
done.”[/quote]
With the UN climate talks in Paris looming, fossil fuel
divestment gathering pace worldwide, and the renewable industry
booming, there is no fork in the road—there is only forward to a
clean energy future or backwards to a dirty fossil fuel past.
Countries from Sweden to Brazil, China to India are already
waking up to the opportunities of a clean energy future, and
with the right investment, Greenpeace says renewables will
triple to 64 percent of global electricity supply—almost two
thirds—by as early as 2030.
Such a transition would see CO2 emissions fall from the current
30 gigatonnes a year to 20 gigatonnes by 2030.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/21/100-renewables-2050-greenpeace/
#Post#: 3868--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: September 22, 2015, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
96 Cities That Are Quitting Fossil Fuels and Moving Toward 100%
Renewable Energy
Cole Mellino | September 22, 2015 9:46 am
SNIPPET:
While countries have dragged their feet for years on meaningful
climate action, many cities around the world have forged ahead
with sustainability efforts. In July, about 60 mayors pledged to
fight climate change at a two-day conference hosted by Pope
Francis.
Several cities have even made impressive strides to ditch fossil
fuels in favor of renewables. Two recent reports have confirmed
that 100 percent renewable energy is possible. Earlier this
summer, professors out of Stanford and U.C. Berkeley laid out a
plan for the U.S. to convert to 100 percent renewable energy in
less than 40 years, and Monday Greenpeace published its Energy
Revolution 2015 report, which proposes a pathway to a 100
percent sustainable energy supply by 2050.
A report issued last week by CDP, a a U.K.-based nonprofit, and
AECOM shows that “96 cities—one third of cities participating in
CDP—are already taking action to decarbonize their electricity
supply. And 86 percent of these cities say taking action on
climate change presents an economic opportunity.”
Full article:
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/22/cities-renewable-energy/
#Post#: 3922--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: September 30, 2015, 10:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Brazil pledges to cut carbon emissions 37% by 2025
[/center]
[center]
Brazil becomes first major developing country to pledge an
absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions ahead of Paris
climate talks[/center]
Associated Press
Monday 28 September 2015 08.17 EDT Last modified on Monday 28
September 2015 11.14 EDT
Brazil on Sunday became the first major developing country to
pledge an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for an
envisioned global pact against climate change.
The world’s seventh biggest greenhouse gas polluter said it
would cut its emissions by 37% by 2025 from 2005 levels by
reducing deforestation and boosting the share of renewable
sources in its energy mix. It also indicated an “intended
reduction” of 43% by 2030.
[quote]“Our goals are just as ambitious, if not more so, than
those set by developed countries,” [/quote]President Dilma
Rousseff said as she announced the targets at the UN in New
York.
In talks on a new climate agreement, set to be adopted in Paris
in December, developed countries are expected to shoulder the
biggest responsibility for cutting emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases. For example, the US has pledged to
reduce its emissions by 26-28% between 2005 and 2025.
Major developing countries such as China and South Africa have
pledged to rein in their emissions as their economies expand,
rather than to slash them in absolute terms.
[b]Brazil, however, has already achieved significant emissions
cuts in the past decade primarily because of efforts to reduce
deforestation in the Amazon.[/b]
Environmental groups tracking climate policy applauded Brazil
for taking absolute reduction targets, but said they could have
been even more ambitious.
The targets would reduce Brazilian emissions from the current
level of 1.6bn tonnes a year to 1.5bn tonnes by 2025 and 1.3bn
tonnes by 2030, said Viviane Romeiro of the World Resources
Institute (WRI), an environmental thinktank.
“Ideally, we would have reached 1 gigaton by 2030. This pledge
won’t allow us to get to that number,” she said.
Rousseff said that by 2030, Brazil, which has large dams, aims
to get 66% of its electricity from hydropower and 23% from other
renewable sources including wind, solar and biomass.
That’s an increase from a joint announcement with the US in
June, when Brazil said it would double its non-hydropower
renewable sources to 20% by 2030.
She also said that Brazil would strive to end illegal
deforestation by 2030, a goal that Romeiro said it had
previously hoped to achieve by this year.
A crunch issue in UN climate talks is how to divide the
responsibility of fighting climate change between developed
countries who have historically released the highest emissions
and developing nations whose emissions are growing the fastest.
Environment minister Izabella Teixeira told the Associated Press
that Brazil’s targets were consistent with its historical
responsibility to deal with the problem.
[quote]“We are not increasing our emissions. We are cutting our
emissions,” [/quote]she said.
Without naming anyone, she added that many countries say they
want to fight global warming, “but when you check their numbers
you see they are increasing their emissions”.
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/28/brazil-pledges-to-cut-carbon-emissions-37-by-2025
#Post#: 3939--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 2, 2015, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How to Finance the Global Transition from Fossil Fuels to
Renewable Energy [img width=060
height=055]
HTML http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png[/img]
Ken Berlin | October 1, 2015 9:57 am
The question of how to finance a global transition from fossil
fuels to clean energy is perhaps the most critical and difficult
issue in the upcoming United Nations climate negotiations that
will take place in Paris, starting in late November. Three
contentious issues are on the table.
First, how should developed countries mobilize $100 billion a
year by 2020 for mitigating and adapting to the adverse effects
of climate change, largely through the Green Climate Fund (GCF)
agreed upon during the Cancun round of UN negotiations. Second,
what should be the balance between public and private sector
funding in reaching the $100 billion a year goal. Third, to what
extent should public funding be based on finance mechanisms
versus grants?
[img width=640
height=350]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/kenberlin750.jpg[/img]
All of these are important issues, but arguably, they are all
encompassed within a much larger question. Namely, how much
needs to be spent on renewable energy projects each year in
order to enable the rapid transition to a clean energy economy?
Spending on renewable energy projects in 2014 gives a good clue
to the answer. According to a study by the UN and Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, public and private investors spent approximately
$270 billion on renewable energy projects in 2014 (some
estimates are higher, like the estimate of the investor group
CERES of $310 billion). According to the study, this spending
only increased renewable energy’s share of global generation by
about 0.6 percent.
This rate of spending is simply way too low if we are
successfully to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
below the 450 parts-per-million (PPM) level that many scientists
believe would keep temperature increases resulting from
greenhouse gas emissions below 2 degrees Celsius. CERES and the
International Energy Agency estimate that the rate of investment
in clean energy needs to be doubled by 2020 and quadrupled by
2030 to $ 1 trillion/year in order to achieve the 450 PPM goal.
Thus, no matter what else we do to address climate
change—whether it’s introducing a carbon tax, creating a
cap-and-trade system, or adding tax incentives—we cannot
transition to a clean energy economy without generating
extremely large investments in renewables.
Such large investments are possible. In 2012, the world made $4
trillion in infrastructure and capital spending investments and
this number is expected to increase to 9 trillion in 2025. So
the funds are there. Also, $1 trillion/year level of investment
in renewable energy would create massive numbers of jobs and
sustained economic growth. The crucial question is what is
needed to direct those funds into renewable energy investments.
The first key is that this money has to come from private
investors. Governments can help, but they simply cannot generate
this amount of funding on a yearly basis due to political
barriers and constituent expectations.
Second, there have to be attractive projects for the investments
to take place. The great news here is that renewable energy is
becoming increasingly cost competitive with fossil fuel energy.
If one plays out the trends, there is reason to believe that
renewable energy is already competitive in much of the world
and—with storage batteries included in the calculation – should
be cost competitive nearly worldwide before the end of this
decade.
Third, governments can play a vital role in encouraging these
investments. There are a series of tools that can help with
this: low-cost financing through green banks or the GCF, green
bonds, loan loss reserves, public pension fund investments and
risk insurance are just some examples.
Fourth, barriers to the deployment of renewable energy must be
removed. As of today there are myriad laws that make the
deployment of renewable energy difficult if not impossible.
Classic examples include limitations on the ability of owners of
rooftop solar to sell electricity back to the grid and laws that
prevent the leasing of rooftop solar energy systems.
Fifth, putting a price on the cost of carbon pollution will
speed up and solidify this transition since it will make
renewable energy more competitive. Such a price would be
fair—after all, the price of a product should include all of its
costs on society.
Sixth, some of the tension in UN climate negotiations will ease
as renewables become fully cost competitive (though funding for
adaptation will still be an issue). Many developing countries
argue that building renewable energy facilities is more
expensive than building fossil-fuel-based facilities and that
they are doing so only because of problems created by historical
carbon emissions by developed countries. But, this argument
loses immediacy if in fact renewables are fully cost competitive
and installing them either has no negative impact on economic
growth—or it spurs economic growth more than fossil fuel
investments.
Seventh, it is far easier to finance a project than it is to
support it with grants, in part because most funds lent are
repaid and can be lent out again. This doesn’t mean that grants
will remain unimportant. Where renewable energy is not
competitive, even with low-cost financing, grants can further
decrease the price of renewable energy because they do not have
to be repaid. And there are some projects where the users of the
energy generated cannot repay the cost of even fully competitive
renewables.
Asking the right questions about finance is critical. Doing so
provides clarity of purpose and focuses efforts on the key
issues that have to be addressed. With UN negotiations in Paris
approaching and issues with planet-wide implications on the
agenda, it’s time to start asking the right questions about
energy finance.
You can help ask world leaders the key questions. Join with
millions around the planet demanding a strong climate agreement
in Paris by adding your name to our Road to Paris petition.
You’ll help build support for a breakthrough agreement at a
critical moment and we’ll keep you updated on important policy
developments in climate finance and other areas.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/01/fossil-fuels-renewable-energy/
#Post#: 3954--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 4, 2015, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sweden to Become the World’s First Fossil Fuel-Free
Nation​
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
Lorraine Chow | September 25, 2015 11:20 am
[img width=75
height=50]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/img]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/25/%e2%80%8bsweden-fossil-fuel-free/
#Post#: 3973--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2015, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=edpell link=topic=5750.msg87729#msg87729
date=1444445355]
Is there any consensus on Doomstead on the cost of a RE energy
system? This is including storage and transmission and all the
overhead that make a system rather than a sometimes supplement.
[/quote]
For a grid tie system, a 10.5K system like the one below will
work well. Throw in the Tesla Powerwall and you are good to go.
10.5KW Complete Grid Tie System
Product Code: 10.5KW Complete Grid Tie System
Availability: In Stock
Weight: 4,000.00lb
Mounting Hardware: * 10.5KW - Unirac PV SolarMount (+$2,625.00)
$12,390.00
HTML http://sunelec.com/pv-systems/grid-tie-systems/10000-watt-grid-tie-system.html
HTML http://sunelec.com/pv-systems/grid-tie-systems/10000-watt-grid-tie-system.html
[quote][size=12pt]Tesla Powerwall
The calculator assumes a home with enough solar-panel surface
area to generate 7 kilowatt hours of surplus energy 365 days per
year. That's enough to fill the smaller of the two available
Powerwall battery packs, which sells for $3,000 before
installation. Tesla will also sell a 10-kWh pack for $3,500.
HTML http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098363_will-tesla-powerwall-home-battery-save-money-cost-calculator-helps-you-decide
HTML http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098363_will-tesla-powerwall-home-battery-save-money-cost-calculator-helps-you-decide[/size][/quote]
If you want to be able to handle a complete collapse scenario,
you might to want have a ground sourced geothermal heat pump
system for heating and cooling. This is because you can use that
year round low energy temperature access for organic gardening
extended growing season as well as keeping your family
comfortable. Remember, no matter how harsh the climate gets,
about 25 feet down (almost everywhere on the planet),
temperatures are pretty constant all year round.
What goes into pricing a geothermal system?
[quote]Geothermal Heat Pump Pricing
The short answer to how cost is calculated is as follows:
Indoor Portion + Underground Loop Field = Total System Cost
The inside portion is composed of the price of the geothermal
heat pump, its installation, and possible duct work
modification. This is done by an HVAC contractor properly
trained in geothermal.
The Underground Loop Field involves drilling (or sometimes
excavating) and materials. This is usually done by a well
driller. The loop field is approximately 50% of the total cost,
although many factors effect this generalization.
For your particular situation the following variables are
considered:
1. Size of the Home/Building
The first factor that we'll take a look at is the size of the
home or other building for which you'd like to install
geothermal. Look at it like this - a 2000 sq. ft. home isn't
going to require the same amount of heating and cooling as a
6000 sq. ft. church. The larger the area covered, the more
heating and cooling it is going to demand. That said, a major
variable of pricing is the insulation factor, which has a direct
effect on how much heating and cooling is needed. Do you live in
a well insulated home or a cardboard box?
2. Size of the Heat Pump
Based on the size of the home, insulation, and climate the
amount of heating and cooling needed is calculated, which in
turn enables a contractor to calculate the size of the heat pump
for the job. Needless to say, a larger heat pump is going to be
a little pricier than one that's smaller in comparison.
3. Size of the Loop Field
Next, the size of the loop field that's to be installed in the
ground comes into play. The size of the system (3-ton, 4-ton,
etc.) along with the climate in which your located will dictate
the amount of pipe that needs to be inserted into the earth. A
loop field contractor will usually charge a price per foot;
therefore, the larger the system, the more pipe that needs to go
into the ground, the more expensive the loop field becomes. The
loop field cost can vary by region because of the availability
of contractors, the ground conditions, and also the price of
fuel.
4. Usability of Current Ductwork
In most cases, this shouldn't be too large of a factor, as most
existing ductwork requires little to no adjustment to be
suitable for geothermal heating and cooling. That said, if you
don't have existing ductwork then you'll have the full expense
of installing it. However, it's important to consider that this
is a cost for which you are going to be responsible for
regardless of what type of heating and cooling you install.
Ductwork is simply a necessity of almost all HVAC systems - not
an exclusive monetary addition to your geothermal system
pricing.
These are some of the main players as far as the cost of your
geothermal heating and cooling system goes. There are more
minute components of pricing, of course, but we feel that these
four (and all that they encompass) are the most important for
consumers to grasp. Bottom line - Size of Home, Climate, & Labor
dictate total system price.
HTML http://www.geothermalgenius.org/thinking-of-buying/average-cost-of-geothermal-heat-pump-installation.html
HTML http://www.geothermalgenius.org/thinking-of-buying/average-cost-of-geothermal-heat-pump-installation.html
[/quote]
And don't forget to have lots of spare parts to keep all the
above running. All that said, passive geothermal systems like
the one discussed above are EXTREMELY reliable and durable over
50 year PLUS time spans. Even with old heat pump technology,
their historical efficiency is unparalleled by anything else out
there for heating and cooling. The only issue is earthquakes, of
course. 8)
#Post#: 4009--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 16, 2015, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][font=times new roman]The Colorado[/font][/center]
[center] [font=times new roman]Statesman[/font]
[/center]
[center]Letter: Reject fossil fuel industry’s roadblocks to
solar energy[/center]
10/16/2015
[quote]Editor:
The sun can provide virtually limitless, pollution-free energy
to power our lives. Solar energy is also supported by people
with a wide range of political backgrounds. Incredibly, support
for the development of solar energy ranges from
environmentalists all the way to tea party activists. In an
increasingly competitive renewable energy market, and with
increasingly bipartisan support for solar, what’s getting in the
way of our clean energy future?
A recent report from Environment Colorado’s research and policy
center, entitled Blocking the Sun, helps shed some light on this
— pun very much intended. ;D
The report reveals major opposition to the development of solar
energy from utility interest groups and fossil fuel
industry-funded think tanks that are providing funding, model
legislation and political cover for anti-solar campaigns across
the United States and in Colorado.
Because of the overwhelming public support for solar, these
special interests are resorting to some seriously shady tactics
to stop the development of solar energy in its tracks.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
The Koch brothers, who have an enormous financial stake in the
fossil fuel industry through their company Koch Industries and
its many subsidiaries, have provided funding to the national
fight against solar by funneling tens of millions of dollars
through a network of opaque nonprofits like Americans for
Prosperity, which has a chapter in Colorado, and is a first-hand
participant in Colorado anti-solar campaigns. Through Americans
for Prosperity, and by funding anti-solar efforts by other
groups, including ALEC, the Koch brothers have funded or
participated in fights against solar in Colorado.
The Koch Brothers and their front groups like Americans for
Prosperity
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
have
resorted to shady tactics to undermine our solar power.
[center]
Now it’s personal.[/center]
[center] [img width=140
height=170]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-050315175442.gif[/img]<br
/>[/center]
This is a matter of political monopoly over the public interest
and environmental sustainability. Now it’s up to our leaders to
reject these attacks and support a clean energy future. [img
width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img][/quote]
Katie Otterbeck
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif
Solar power campaign organizer, Environment Colorado
Denver
HTML http://coloradostatesman.com/content/996254-letter-reject-fossil-fuel-industry%3Fs-roadblocks-solar-energy
#Post#: 4016--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 18, 2015, 12:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/ZVjpB4TB-So[/center]
[center]Elon Musk on the stupidity of fossil fuels dependence
[/center]
[center]
The above was three years ago. Now look at all the progress
Tesla has made![/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/u6IZRjP39do[/center]
#Post#: 4072--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: October 31, 2015, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
10/30/2015 02:53 PM
Which US Cities Lead on Renewable Energy Use?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif
SustainableBusiness.com News
Surprisingly, Dallas ranks #1 this year on renewable energy use
:o, followed by Houston :o :o, which was #1 last year, says
the EPA.
EPA's ranking rates government use of green power. Other
governments in the top five are District of Columbia, Montgomery
County, Maryland, and Austin, Texas.
Municipal buildings in Dallas now run on 100% wind and Houston
gets half its electricity from a mix of wind and solar.
When we look at the top 10 renewable energy users in the US,
these cities are still on the list: Intel, Microsoft, Kohl's,
Apple, Google, Mars, City of Dallas, Starbucks, US Department
of Energy, and City of Houston.
[center]
Austin, Texas Contracts for More Solar [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]
Once again, Austin will add a lot more solar, this time another
600 megawatts (MW) by the end of 2019. That's in addition to 118
MW approved this year and 150 MW last year, bringing it close to
its goal of 35% renewable energy by 2020.
This exceeds the entire amount of solar in the state - 300 MW
as of 2014, according to the Solar Energy Industries
Association. The reason Texas has so little solar is because of
a lack of incentives compared to other states, approving the
first utility-scale solar projects just last year because of low
prices.
Read our article, US Solar Production Underestimated - By
Half!
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26379<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
[center]But Texas Remains Top US Polluter
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183404.bmp[/center]
Texas leads the nation on wind energy, supplying 10.6% of its
electricity, but it still burns lots of coal, gas and oil,
maintaining its position as the biggest polluter among US states
for the 24th consecutive year, according the US Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
And pollution isn't going down. In 2013, Texas spewed more
carbon emissions than since 2004 - almost double that of
California. So did other states that are major fossil fuel
producers - especially from fracking, which boomed that year.
>:(
Calculated per capita, top carbon emitting states are (in this
order): Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska and
Louisiana.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-070.gif
And the lowest are (in this order): New York, Vermont and
California.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311015143044.jpeg[/img][/center]
[center]Climate Change State Emissions Through 2013
[/center]
Between 1990-2013, Washington DC has driven down emissions the
most - an impressive 36% - followed by Delaware, New York,
Massachusetts and Maryland with declines of 17-24%. Nebraska's
emissions grew the most at 28%, thanks to growth in ethanol
which consumes a lot of natural gas.
Across the country, "the general trend is emissions are down and
are stable," [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>says Perry Lindstrom, EIA analyst. US emissions are down aroun
d
11% from the 2005 peak, with emissions falling in 37 states and
rising in 13 between 1990-2013.
Here is EIA's analysis of state's emissions from 1990-2013:
Website: www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26455
#Post#: 4200--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: December 18, 2015, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
12/16/2015 05:15 PM
[center]$1 Trillion Spending Bill Passes With Major Poison
Pill[/center]
SustainableBusiness.com News
Congress approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill for fiscal 2016
today, and there's great news for renewable energy, GMO food and
wildlife ... in exchange for one, big poison pill.
The biggest news is that crucial solar and wind tax incentives
are renewed for five years in exchange for lifting the 40-year
ban on exporting US crude oil.
Can the difference between Democrats and Republicans be clearer?
The former pulled out all the stops for renewable energy, the
latter for oil.
Why only 5 years of renewal for renewable energy, but a
permanent lift for oil? And why are fossil subsidies still in
place permanently? While we're thrilled that renewables will get
more support, it seems like far from a fair trade.
Obama Budget 2016
Republicans (and their oil backers) claim the US oil industry
needs access to the world market at this time of low prices and
with Iran about to enter. Since they don't believe climate
change is real, that's a non-issue.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) [img
width=100]
HTML http://i1.wp.com/gas2.org/files/2013/05/stupid.png[/img]<br
/> told reporters that Democrats "asked for the sun and the moon
and the aurora borealis"
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/> in exchange for lifting the ban.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[img width=200
height=100]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
To those of us who want the sun, moon and Earth, lifting the ban
means oil companies will want to drill and explore everywhere
and fill our country with pipelines and oil trains ...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
increasing US
emissions and putting citizens at risk.
The ban was put in place in 1975 to protect Americans from the
OPEC oil embargo and future similar crises.
"This deal gives oil drillers an enormous policy win that does
our economy no good and threatens climate progress made in
Paris. A five-year renewable energy tax credit extension is cold
comfort to everyone who supports a forward-looking clean energy
economy and an end to constant oil favoritism in Congress," says
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D- AZ).
"It is corporate welfare for the most profitable industry in the
history of the world, the oil industry,"
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
moans Senator Ed
Markey (D-MA).
[quote]"By lifting the crude oil export ban, Congressional
Republicans are opting to export American jobs, escalate fossil
fuel development, rip up iconic American landscapes to extract
more oil, and increase climate disrupting carbon emissions,"
[img
width=80]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]<br
/> says Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club. [/quot
e]
Lifting the ban could lead to 7600 new wells - mostly fracking -
each year >:(, raising oil production by 3.3 million barrels a
day and increasing emissions on par with 135 new coal-fired
power plants, says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food &
Water Watch.
How Democrats and Republicans Faired
Generally, Democrats won relief from tough sequester spending
caps and removed over 100 riders ranging from blocking the Clean
Power Plan to undercutting Dodd-Frank financial regulations and
the health care law.
Republicans got a $33 billion boost for defense - a 6% increase,
bringing the Pentagon budget to $523 billion, in addition to
lifting the 40-year ban on oil exports.
Amazingly, Republicans also won:
•language that bars the IRS from issuing a rule in 2016 that
better defines nonprofits to prevent political and "dark money"
organizations from masquerading as non-profits.
•language that blocks the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) from requiring publicly traded companies to disclose
political spending.
Renewable Energy Tax Credits
Both the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind (and geothermal,
biomass) and the Investment Tax Credits (ITC) for solar and
off-shore wind are renewed for five years. Yes!! [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img]
For the first two years - which includes 2015, because it
expired last year - the wind PTC is 100%. Each year after that,
it declines by 20% until 2020 when it expires again.
For the first three years, the solar ITC maintains the 30%
write-off for homeowners and businesses to install solar,
declining to 26% in 2020 and 22% in 2021.
Both the PTC and ITC can be claimed when construction commences
rather than when a project begins generating energy.
"While this deal does not provide parity with the permanent
federal tax code benefits the fossil fuel industry enjoys, the
five-year extension provides greater certainty to the clean
energy industry, and helps avoid the boom-bust cycle of the
year-to-year uncertainty of expiring credits," says Todd Wolf of
the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Without renewal, both the solar and wind industries would
significantly slow down, exactly when we need to keep them
growing faster. Obama's budget extended the incentives
permanently.
Read our article, Expiring Tax Credits Spur Doubling of US Solar
Impacts on Environmental Side:
•Prevents even steeper funding cuts for the Environmental
Protection Agency - already cut to the bone - and increases
funding for the Department of Interior;
EPA's funding levels remain flat with the lowest staffing levels
since 1989. Republicans wanted another $718 million cuts for the
agency they most despise.
•Removes the DARK Act, which prohibits states from requiring GMO
labels on food;
•Requires labels on the GMO salmon that was just approved!
•Retains important food safety measures, such as full funding to
implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, increased funding
for meat and poultry inspection, a ban on purchasing chicken
processed in China for school lunches, and limits on beef
imports that may have been exposed to foot and mouth disease!
•Forbids horse slaughter plants in the US
•Strong funding levels to enforce the Animal Welfare Act and
Horse Protection Act, for wildlife traffickingefforts, and for
development of alternatives to animal testing at the National
Institutes of Health.
•Requires tougher animal welfare standards at federal
agricultural research facilities and strongly criticizes the
USDA for allowing farm animal abuse.
•Removes a rider that blocks the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
from cracking down on ivory sales in the US to stop poaching of
elephants.
•Thwarted poison riders include: repeal of public health
standards for air and water; blocking implementation of the
Clean Power Plan; deregulating fracking on public lands; more
logging in National
Forests.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-052.gif<br
/> Unfortunately, one poison rider that did get through blocks F
WS
from listing the greater sage grouse as Endangered, because of
Republican concern that it could impede potential fossil fuel
development. [img
width=160]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img][img<br
/>width=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]
•After letting the Land and Water Conservation Fund expire for
the first time in 50 years, it is renewed for three years in
this bill. The main source of funds to acquire and maintain
parkland in the US - it allocates $900 million in royalties from
oil and gas drilling on public land - Republicans see it as a
way for government to take control of more land.
Instead of being permanently re-instated at full funding, it is
renewed for just three years at $450 million.
•Doesn't block President Obama's pledge to the Green Climate
Fund, a critical part of the Paris Climate Agreement.
•A 7% cut for the UN Population Fund, which conservatives call a
"coercive birth limitation policy." They wanted the fund
eliminated.
Wolves!! ;D
The big news for wildlife is that Wolves in Wyoming, Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin will remain protected from the zealots
out to exterminate them.
If you remember, environmental groups won back that protection
in court, but it would have been removed again through this
spending bill. A rider - just for them - would have again
stripped their protection under the Endangered Species Act.
"We thank members of the House and Senate who stood strong for
protection of wolves and recognize that a spending bill is no
place to make life-and-death policy decisions for our nation's
wildlife," says Drew Caputo, Earthjustice Vice-President of
Litigation for Oceans, Lands and Wildlife, the attorneys for the
cases.
It was a "fierce battle," says Wayne Pacelle, Executive Director
the American Humane Society, which also won in court. Senators
Ron Johnson (R-WI) and John Barasso (R-WY) and Reps Reid Ribble
(R-WI) and John Kline (R-MN) also introduced free-standing bills
to de-listing wolves, but we fought it off, potentially
forestalling the slaughter of 1000 wolves in 2016.
Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and 23 other
Senators strongly opposed the anti-Endangered Species Act
riders, as did Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and 91 House members.
Compare with last year's $1 trillion spending bill: Details on
Cromnibus: What's In It For Us?
and the previous year, How Cleantech, Environment Fared In $1
Trillion Spending Bill.
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26502
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page