Coverage of manmade global warming theory & energy policy in the [Wilmington] News Journal:  2011

12/31/11, B4, Planting the seeds for a greener world; Interfaith Power & Light focuses on conservation, Gary Soulsman – Including pictures, this story takes up more than 50% of a page.  One picture is a white hair man wearing glasses, standing to the right and in front of a poster for the Unitarian Universalists of Southern Delaware.  “John Sykes, organizer of the local chapter of Interfaith Power & Light, at the Unitarian Universalists of Southern Delaware building in Lewes.” Second picture is of a church building with the entire roof covered with solar panels.  “Energy reduction workshop for houses of worship” announcement is below the picture, providing details concerning the planned event: Jan. 21, Limestone Presbyterian Church, Wilmington (the church pictured?), donation of $10 per congregation is requested, registration deadline is Jan. 13, etc.  TEXT: John Sykes was disappointed that plans for the Bluewater project “have been scrapped for now.”  He perceives a moral responsibility to use renewable energy in place of fossil fuel energy as transcending politics [yeah, right!] because “we are our brothers’ keepers.”  And he is pleased to be planning the kickoff event for Delaware Interfaith Power & Light, the 39th affiliate of a national non-profit that promotes conservation, energy efficiency and renewable sources among religious groups to [ostensibly] combat climate change.  The “national non-profit” may be the Pennsylvania-based Interfaith Coalition on Energy, founded in early 1980s & now headed by Andrew Rudin. http://interfaithenergy.com/index.htm In any case, Rudin will offer tips at the Jan. 21 workshop on how congregations can save money in tight economic times.  Rev. Bruce Gillette of Limestone Presbyterian Church describes the event as “a win-win for everyone, whether you believe in climate change or not.”  And truly, why shouldn’t churches try to save money on their energy bills?  [But if the “savings” are based on subsidies paid by other power customers or taxpayers, the subsidies should be eliminated.]  On top of self-interest, the article ends with assurances that climate change is indeed a big threat.  Activist Chad Tolman’s views are prominently cited, including his fears about Delaware’s vulnerability to sea level rise.  Thus, Tolman reportedly “says the state averages only 60 feet above sea level and with a one meter rise in the ocean three percent of Delaware homes will be inhabitable.” [Does this mean 97% of Delaware homes would be uninhabitable, which seems rather high, or was the statement garbled?  See also our comments on a previous story: "Evangelicals are seen as key in climate debate: Panel touts nexus between spirituality and environmentalism," Gary Soulsman, 3/3/10.]

12/30/11/ A1/A2, Fisker issues Karma recalls; battery fire hazard affects 239 vehicles, Jonathan Starkey – 239 of the $102K Karma sedans were recalled after Fisker found issues with battery packs – “misaligned hose clamps that could cause coolant leaks, and potentially a dangerous electrical short circuit.”  Fewer than 50 “actual customer cars” [i.e., sold cars] were involved, and “customers have seen no issues on the road, according to Fisker and its battery supplier, Waltham, Mass.-based A123 Systems.” GM has had a somewhat similar experience with the batteries (different manufacturer) for the Volt, which came under investigation after a series of battery fires following crash tests. [This is a minor issue compared to the basic problem of government subsidies for expensive, relatively unreliable electric vehicles.  However, image can be important in trying to sell a product – so it’s front-page news.]

12/29/11, A5, Light bulb changes to begin on Sunday, Wendy Koch (USA Today) – “The nation’s light bulbs begin facing new efficiency and labeling standards starting Jan. 1, but don’t expect old-fashioned [also safe, cheap and convenient] incandescents to suddenly disappear from stores.” [A] Transition is phased in, with 100-watt bulbs disappearing in 2012, 75 watts in 2013, 60 & 40 watts in 2014. [B] The “bipartisan” law that President Bush [foolishly] signed in 2007 says bulbs can’t be made or imported, but allows stores to sell out their stocks.  In CA, which did things a year ahead [natch], it took several months for the 100-watt bulbs to exit stores.  [C] Major manufacturers intend to abide by the ban even though Congress passed a one-year spending bill earlier this month that bars the Department of Energy from spending to enforce it through the end of September 2012.  One source explains such compliance by saying “people are looking for more energy-efficient options.” [More likely, manufacturers don’t want a built-in source of conflict with government regulators, when they can switch over to making more expensive CFL bulbs with a guaranteed mass market.]  It is noted, however, that 1/3 of Americans in an October survey of 303 adults say they prefer traditional bulbs, and 1/8 say they will stockpile Edison’s 100-watt bulbs. [There is no valid reason for the government to mandate the use of more expensive bulbs; let people decide what they want.]

12/28/11, A1/A2, Bluewater terminates Delmarva contract; effort to find buyer runs out of time, Aaron Nathans – After numerous reports that the contract would be terminated, NRG finally terminated it – even though “numerous prospective buyers” reportedly “made inquiry in the days since Dec. 12” and “Bluewater President Peter Mandelstam traveled to Europe in search of a buyer as the days ticked down.”  What’s the problem? DNREC Secretary Collin O’Mara said no one wanted to put any money at risk with critical federal subsidies for wind power uncertain in a bitterly divided Congress.  And “if global market conditions improve [whatever that means],” promised Governor Jack Markell, “we stand ready to sit down with industry representatives to discuss ways to make the promise of offshore wind in Delaware a reality.”

12/28/11, A1/A2, Meet Camden’s new power couple: Rooftop turbines put house among the greenest, Doug Denison – Front page pictures: (1) Man and woman, wearing sunglasses, standing outside a house with what look like two wagon wheels on the roof.  “Mark and Tami Wygant are hoping to sell their surplus electricity to Delmarva Power.  They also can earn credits that can be sold on the open market.”  (2) Close-up shot of the devices on the roof, here looking like four sided contraptions versus wagon wheels.  “The vertical-axis wind turbines will function in winds of just 8 mph.”  “If Mark Wygant won the lottery, he’d buy a quiet plot of land, maybe six or seven acres, build a modest home for his wife and three children, and cover the rest of the property with windmills and solar panels.”  But for now, the family “will have to be content with the two 5-kilowatt wind turbines mounted on the roof of their Camden house.”  Their hope is to wind up offsetting their entire electric bill, or maybe more, since “not only is the utility company required to purchase Wygant’s excess electricity for the same price they charge him for power; he also earns a credit for each 1,000 kilowatts of power he produces [that] can be sold on the open market, mainly to power companies that need to comply with rules requiring that a certain percentage of their output come from renewable sources.”  And to offset the cost of installation, DNREC’s green energy program is awarding the Wygants a $10,000 grant from the state’s Green Energy Fund – money that comes from a fee tacked onto Delawareans’ monthly electric bills.”  Oh, and “the family also gets a federal tax credit equal to 30 percent of the project’s installation costs.”  Note that these turbines will function in winds of just 8 mph, although they would “require a steady 22 mph to power the whole house.”  The story goes on about how a 2009 law nullified the power of homeowner associations to enforce deed restrictions against unsightly wind turbines or solar panels, and how Wygant located these particular turbines, imported the parts from China, and was able to put them together.  Not a job for the average handyman.  He hopes to “embark on his own green energy business with his father-in-law.” [What we get out of this is that the subsidies for renewable power should be eliminated ASAP.  They support the creation of a class of people who are invested in renewable power whether it is economic or not.]

12/28/11, A5/A6, Tax credit on electric vehicle chargers is expiring – for now; with new cars hitting market, advocates bemoan timing, Chris Woodyard (Gannett) – A 30% tax credit [up to $1,000 for homeowners, $30,000 for businesses] for installing home and commercial charging equipment will expire at yearend, even as proponents press Congress to keep it.  However, “the $7,500 tax credit for buying new electric vehicles remains in place.” Per a GM spokesman, about 40% of Volt buyers recharge from their home 110-volt sockets rather than a special 220-volt charger (which approximately halves the time it takes to “juice up,” to say 4 hours). 

12/26/11, A12, Tar sands, fracking won’t end oil dependency, Steve Senderoff (Wilmington) – Writer questions how increasing domestic oil production (“drill baby, drill” development of Canadian tar sands or fracking every gas-bearing share deposit in America) will make this country less dependent on imported oil and gas.  He says oil and gas companies will sell the “stuff” to whomever will pay the most for it, presumably China et al.  “You’d have to pass a law making it illegal to sell American oil and gas outside America.  But that would be socialism.” [Are transportation costs somehow irrelevant?  Plus fact that enhanced US production will result in lower average global energy prices?]

12/26/11, B1/B2, Time ticking on offshore wind farm; deadline nears for NRG to find Bluewater buyer, Aaron Nathans – Lest it be forgotten, NRG Energy has “until Tuesday [tomorrow] to find a buyer for Bluewater,” or the company will terminate its 25-year contract to sell offshore wind power to Delmarva in order to avoid putting another $4M (as a security deposit) into the project.”  It had been reported earlier that the magic date was Dec. 23, but last week a NRG representative clarified that it was actually Dec. 27.  Folding of the project will have various effects, e.g., no plant to build steel towers for the project, no turbine assembly facility.  Alan Levin, DEDO director, spoke of “a lot of missed opportunities,” from jobs to technological advances and energy independence.  What a shame, but “if they [the federal government] wanted to have made this happen, they could made this happen.”  

12/24/11, B1, EPA OKs limit to emissions from certain power plants – This item reprises EPA regulations intended to force numerous coal and oil fired power plants to drastically cut emissions or shut down.  “EPA tells nation’s dirty power plants to clean up,” AP, 12/22/11.  It then cites Senator Tom Carper’s support on the reported grounds that “these emissions, which include mercury and arsenic, are a public health threat that can affect child brain development and cause cancer.” [Again, what about the consequences for the US economy? And the health benefits claimed are considerably overstated. “Lisa Jackson’s power play,” Wall Street Journal editorial, 12/22/11.  Thus, according to the WSJ, “the total benefits of mercury reduction amount to all of $6 million.  That’s total present value, not benefits per year.” Also, and this is our thought, just wait until the CFC light bulbs with mercury in them start hitting the landfills of the US in large quantities.  That is when mercury will become a real problem.]

12/23/11, A8, Government approves new nuclear reactor design – “Federal regulators have approved a nuclear reactions designed by Westinghouse Electric Co. that could power the first nuclear plants built from scratch in a generation.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission unanimously approved the AP1000 reactor Thursday.  The certification, effective immediately, will be valid for 15 years.” [Full text of the report, all of 3 sentences, suggests a lack of interest in the future of nuclear energy.  The Wall Street Journal carried a more meaningful report.  Note that Westinghouse Electric – once a US firm – is now a division of Toshiba Corp.  It seems that the NRC approved an early version of the reactor in 2006, “but design improvements added another five years to the review process.”  Also, in the wake of Fukushima, interest in the AP1000 reactor has picked up as “nearly a dozen projects that had contemplated using designs developed by competing firms, such as [GE and Areva] have been delayed or canceled.”  In comparison to existing US reactors, the AP1000 uses “passive systems for cooling” and has fewer moving parts. Still no word on the waste disposal issue, nor indication that proposed nuclear power plants can get off the ground without massive federal loan guarantees, etc.] 

12/22/11, A1/A13, $1B refinery addition proposed; PBF’s multiyear project would add jobs, reduce sulfur emissions from plant’s fuels, Jeff Montgomery – Picture of array of refinery stacks: PBF Energy proposed a $1 billion, multiyear project at its Delaware City refinery that would add jobs and increase the plants output of ultra-low-sulfur fuels.”  Also, the project would potentially allow use of heavier crude oils.  The prime goal is diesel fuel meeting the federal maximum of 15 parts per million of sulfur, which went into effect at the end of 2010 [and has contributed to sharply higher prices for diesel fuel vs. gasoline, pushing up trucking costs throughout the economy].  PBF Chairman Thomas O’Malley said new units would increase long-term viability of both the Delaware City and Paulsboro, NJ (would send some of its partially refined oil to Delaware City for further processing) refineries, which are the only Delaware River refinery operations not either closed or facing closure soon [principally due to EPA environmental regulations].  PBF will require DE permits to proceed with the project, including a waiver of Delaware Coastal Zoning Act restrictions.  Preliminary comments by state officials were positive, but PBF emphasized they might reassess the project if the necessary permits were not issued promptly without burdensome add-on requirements.  

12/22/11, A2, EPA tells nation’s dirty power plants to clean up, AP – This truncated article lauds the EPA for issuing “long-overdue national standards” to “rein in the largest remaining source of uncontrolled toxic pollution in the US – the emission from the nation’s coal- and oil-fired power plants, which have been allowed to run for decades without addressing their full environmental and public health costs.”  Although acknowledging that some power plants will be forced to close, especially in the Mid-West and the Coal Belt, it is stated that “the majority of facilities will continue to run, and find ways to reduce pollution.” [No comment on the effect on power prices, possibility of brownouts, etc.  Compare this version of the article from the Washington Times, which lays out the full story. http://bit.ly/vZomWc “Power plant operators will have to choose between installing pollution control equipment, switching to cleaner-burning natural gas or shutting down their plants. None of those choices comes cheap; the EPA estimates the rule will cost $9.6 billion annually, making it one of the most expensive the agency has ever issued.”  And in an editorial titled “Lisa Jackson’s Power Play,” the Wall Street Journal labels the EPA figure “a gross, deliberate underestimate.”]

12/21/11, A10/A11, Input sought on offshore power line; US official touts wind potential, Aaron Nathans – Maybe a buyer for the Bluewater project will step up before Dec. 23, and even if they don’t NRG would like to obtain a federal permit for the project in hopes that it will be a valuable asset down the line.  The $5B “backbone” line for electricity transmission from offshore wind power projects is also still viewed with optimism, and the Interior Dept. has just announced a 60-day period for public comment on it.  Thrust of this article is to report optimistic comments from true believers in offshore wind power, who see the Bluewater debacle as just a temporary setback.  Thus Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is quoted that.  “It’s going to happen.  The question is how soon it will happen.”  However, Salazar deferred to a subordinate as to whether NRG would be allowed to obtain a permit for a project they have no plans to proceed with – and the latter hedged on grounds that the question was “speculative” and he “would not be totally surprised if someone else doesn’t come in and pick up that project, either quickly or sometime in the near future.” [The real question is the availability of sufficient federal subsidies to make offshore wind power projects viable; without such subsidies, they are dead in the water.]

12/21/11, A10, Fisker raises its latest funding goal to $300M, Jonathan Starkey – Hybrid carmaker has already raised over $700M in private-equity funding on top of more than $550M in government loans.  Private investors include Kleiner Perkins (Silicon Valley venture capital firm) and A123 Systems (MA-based battery maker).  Fisker is currently selling the luxury (now priced at $102K) Karma hybrid sports sedan, and will start making “a less expensive Nina line” at the Boxwood Plant in 2013. [A financial disaster waiting to happen?  As we have said before, Fisker is a risker.]

12/15/11, A10, NRC commissioners say “bullying” hurts their work – NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko’s recent statements were reported in detail. NRC chief: Nuclear industry has become complacent; special inspections, plant shutdowns are increasing, Matthew Daly (AP), 12/7/11.  A letter of the other four commissioners to the White House, complaining of Jaczko’s “bullying and intimidation,” deserved more attention than this cursory report provided.  See http://bit.ly/rRBT9v.]

12/15/11, A10, Pa. Turnpike to get electric car charging stations – PA Dept. of Environmental Protection announces $1M grant to Car Charging Group LLC to install charging stations at 17 turnpike service plazas. [We would imagine these facilities will be very busy soon, or not.]

12/14/11, A1//A2, Bluewater: What went wrong?  Economic, political strife conspire to knock the wind out of offshore project, Aaron Nathans – In answer to the “what happened” question: (A) Uncertainty, “namely federal inaction to renew the wind energy subsidies, but also wider economic instability that has altered the political landscape while deflating the expected growth in demand for energy in Delaware and the nation;”  (B) Bluewater accepted a price for wind energy in the Delmarva contract that was “much lower than prices other offshore wind firms have won from other utilities along the Atlantic Coast;” (C) Since taking over the House in the 2010 elections, Republicans “have blocked numerous environmental initiatives, including government subsidies for alternative energy;” (D) Fracking boom drove down natural gas prices, making offshore wind power even less competitive than before; (E) Delmarva demanded the size of the project be cut “to protect Delmarva ratepayers” [imagine that!], which “didn’t do much to protect Bluewater’s shareholders” [oh, dear]; and (F) A robust market for renewable energy credits has not materialized, due in part to a weak economy.  Several advocates of renewable energy are quoted that they will try again.  But Rep. Greg Lavelle (R-Sharpley) said, “the Legislature gave the project more crutches than perhaps it deserved.”

12/13/11, A1/A5, Wind project in jeopardy as NRG drops contract, Aaron Nathans = Headshot: “Peter Mandelstam, president of Bluewater Wind, said he hopes a buyer for the offshore wind division will step forward by Dec. 23.”  A bigger photo on A5 shows Mandelstam gesturing with both hands as he took questions during a June meeting.  Dec. 23 is the date by which NRG must inform Delmarva if they want to end the contract without paying more money for a project “that captured the public’s imagination five years ago as a utility-scale, carbon-free source of energy, 13 miles off the Delaware coast.”  But parent company NRG has reportedly “failed to secure federal loan guarantees.”  Later in the article, it is said “those guarantees were largely defunded as part of the continuing resolution that kept the federal government open this spring.” [Fine by us!]

12/12/11, A7, Climate deal lacks key component; at conference, world’s biggest polluters unwilling to cut emissions enough, Arthur Max and Carl Ritter (AP) – Basically a repeat of the 12/11/11 story on how the Durban meeting wound up.  The only notable addition is a bunch of griping from climate alarmists about how much more, much faster was needed.  Thus, according to Alden Meyer of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, “we did very little here to affect the emissions curve, which is accelerating, and the impacts of climate change which are climbing day by day.”  Reportedly, “some say the diplomatic effort to solve the climate issue has already failed, and that the answer lies in the development of green technologies outside the UN process.” [Meanwhile, evidence for the manmade global warming theory is gradually disintegrating.]

12/11, C1/C4, Smart meters may cost you $39M; utility cites lost value of old meters, other issues, Aaron Nathans – Photo: “Delmarva Power’s Sean Momot installs a smart meter.”  In a Dec. 1 filing with the PSC, Delmarva reported that it plans to seek an estimated $39M to cover the move to “smart” meters, spread out over 15 years.  And rather than attributing the cost to the new meters, which were essentially foisted on customers that had not asked for them, the utility attributed the bulk ($26.5M) of that figure to the premature disposal of the old meters.  Only a portion of the $72M installation cost was deemed to be offset by cost savings, primarily the elimination of meter readers.  Delaware Electric Co-Op, on the other hand, said its operational savings from the new meters offset the entire cost of installing them.  Reactions from government officials varied: (A) Rep. John Kowalko, chairman of the House Energy Committee, accused Delmarva of “audacity” and criticized it for not emphasizing to the public that it would seek repayment for the old meters.  However, Bridget Shelton of Delmarva claimed the company did inform the PSC in 2007 that it would seek “full depreciation of existing meters.” (B) State Public Advocate Michael Sheehy said, “this is the way the regulatory compact works.” 

In theory, ratepayers may still come out ahead as a result of planned programs “to help ratepayers save money on the supply side of their bills.”  Program one: Allow customers to pay a lower rate for their electricity at different times of the day [and presumably a higher rate at other times of the day.] Program two: Air-conditioning cycling program to decrease the stress on the electrical grid during periods of peak demand. [Critics say the goal here is enforced reduction of electricity consumption to avoid power outages as needed capacity is not built, with Delmarva covering more and more of its costs from the service delivery component of electric bills.]

12/11/11, C1/C3, Price shivers seen over heating oil, propane costs; natural gas users expect to avoid higher winter bills, Aaron Nathans – According to one analyst, heating oil and propane are expected to cost 8% and 5%, respectively, more than last winter.  That’s on a national level, and local differentials may vary.  Meanwhile, thanks to the shale gas boom, natural gas prices should be lower.  So turn down your thermostats and hope for a warm winter.

 12/11/11, A11, Climate conference approves deal; framework is in place for future actions, Arthur Max (AP) – An agreement “to start negotiations on a new accord” was ultimately reached, according to this report.  But it may not be quite as innocuous as this sounds, because the deal “also set up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries.” [Guess who would pay these tens of billions.]  And “other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.”  The US is said to have been a “reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that likely would find much opposition in the US Congress.” [The last point is right on!  [Check out this critique by Lord Christopher Monckton – based on draft documents that may have been watered down a bit but are probably basically intact. http://bit.ly/sahiPz]

12/10/11, A3, UN conference struggling to reach deal on climate, AP – In the homestretch, negotiators at Durban were reportedly “looking ahead to a second and final night of meetings expected to last until dawn today.”  The goal is to “map out the pathway toward limiting global emissions of greenhouse for the rest of this decade – and how to continue beyond 2020.”  And according to “the European Union” after a marathon negotiation session, “support was growing for its plan to negotiate a new accord for a post-2020 world.” More than 120 “climate-vulnerable countries” signed the EU statement, but “the US, China and India, all for slightly different reasons, refused.”

12/10/11, A6/A7, EPA report on Wyo. Water doesn’t end fracking debate; early report on pollution gets mixed response, Mead Gruver (AP) – Big Photo: Farmer in foreground, building, fence and a tank behind him. “John Fenton, a farmer who lives near Pavillion in central Wyoming, stands in 2009 near a tank used in natural gas extraction, in background.” Following a two-year study, the EPA released a draft finding (which will be subject to public comment and peer review) that it may have detected groundwater pollution resulting from fracking operation, which contaminated drinking water.  Local residents have reportedly long said their drinking water stinks and is giving them health problems; health officials recommend they stop drinking the water and ventilate their bathrooms while showering; so there is a problem of some kind.   And the fracking operations in question were relatively close to water wells, whereas elsewhere gas drilling is typically much deeper than the reservoirs tapped for wells.  But given the nationwide fight that is brewing over fracking, the EPA announcement prompted immediate responses – it was hailed by environmentalists (e.g., Jan Jarrett of the environmental group PennFuture) and attacked as unproven and premature by the oil & gas industry and its allies (including Senator James Inhofe, R-OK).  [This is the first shot in a long war.  We do not believe for one minute that the EPA will be supportive of fracking operations, and draconian regulations and endless permitting delays could stop this energy boom in its tracks.]    

12/10/11, A7, Feds discuss offshore wind plan – An intergovernmental task force headed by the federal Bureau of Energy Management met to discuss waters off the Maine coast as the site for a “pilot-scale floating wind farm.”  Application was filed by Norway-based Statoil, which is also considering a site of the coast of Scotland.  If the application was approved, the goal would be to have the facility running by the summer of 2016.  [Isn’t it time to close down the Department of Energy?  They certainly have failed in their initial goal of achieving US energy independence.]

12/9/11, A1/A15, ’11 weather was extreme, expensive; 12 US disasters each cost at least $1B in damages, Molly Murray – Picture: Emergency responders in foreground of storm-damaged building: “A tornado [low level one per previous reports] spawned by Hurricane Irene in August damaged this home near Lewes.” “If the weather [in 2011] seemed out of whack, get used to it, say scientists with the National Resources Defense Council.”  A recitation of weather disasters follows, including 12 events in 2011 that each caused at least $1 billion in damages adding to total losses of $52 billion.  “That’s three more than the previous record in 2008 and more than the nation experienced in all of the 1980s, even after adjusting for inflation.”  [The latter claim is not credible; for whatever reason, the records were obviously not being maintained in the same way.] Also, the number of presidential disaster declarations [an inherently political decision] hit “an all-time high this year at 98. The previous high was 81 in 2010.”  No wonder Delaware is gearing up its 10-year-old state climate action plan focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara says state officials also “need to look more at planning and designing infrastructure so it isn’t so vulnerable to weather events.”  According to a survey conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change: (1) 56% of Americans say weather has gotten worse over the past several years, and (2) 65% say global warming is affecting weather in the US.  Denise Dickerson, owner of the Seaford-based Don-Lee Margin Corp., is getting tired of cleaning up after floods.  She believes that extreme events like flooding, which has occurred in Seaford three times since 2001, is “happening everywhere.”  [Mark Twain: “Everyone talks about the weather, but no on ever does anything about it.” Let’s hope the last part remains true, because the politics of controlling the weather would be severe.  Without taking anything away from the people who have suffered weather-related losses, the hyping of concern about this subject is for the purpose of promoting an agenda that will do little if anything to reduce loss exposure.]  

12/9/11, A1/A2, Markell: We have “will, fight, focus,” Jonathan Starkey Jobs summit hosted last night at UD (Clayton Hall) drew nearly 300 people.  Governor Markell talked about the Delaware City refinery, Fisker, and Bloom Energy investments, saying Delaware must capitalize on its ability to move quickly – and in unison [no one should think of disagreeing with him] – when an opportunity arises.  The governor also stressed the need to invest in public education so Delaware can offer businesses a high-quality work force.  Pre kindergarten was said to be key [?], as was working with UD and Delaware Technical Community College.  Yes, “taxes are important, regulatory systems are important [keeping them from crushing businesses?], but workforces are absolutely critical.”  Bill Thayer of Bloom Energy alluded to recruiting problems in California due to the high cost of living there, and said the new fuel cell factory should be up and running by the end of 2012.  In part, Bloom wanted to come to Delaware because of a sense that its needs and interests are not likely to get lost as they might in a much larger state.  [In sum, the meeting was basically a political pep rally.]

12/9/11, A14, National interests clash as climate talks wrap up; Some measures set for approval, Kyoto likely to fail, Arthur Max (AP) – Progress report on the Durban global climate conference, now entering the “home stretch,” with 194 countries represented.  It is predicted that “some consensus” will be reached on “how to respond to the emissions that are warming the planet,” but the “details” are still “buried under a sea of competing national interests and economic worries.”  Industrial countries led by the EU are looking to opt out of Kyoto, which expires in one year, unless all countries agree to launch negotiations on a new treaty that would obligate all countries. “Both China and the US said they would be amenable to the EU proposal, but each attached riders that appeared to hobble its prospects for unanimous acceptance.” [In short, don’t expect big to happen at the conference.]

12/9/11, A20, Rate-hike request shows Delmarva’s insensitivity, Michael Wirtschafter (Newark) –No sooner was the Bloom Energy tariff foisted on ratepayers, but now Delmarva is asking for a 5% rate increase on service delivery.  “How much more can the consumer take?  *** people haven’t seen a pay raise in years and now you want to saddle them with more  costs?”

12/9/11, Carper favors more debt, not oil security, Carol Anderson (Lewes) – Crossed paths with Senator Carper on foot in Lewes, and wanted to (but did not) give him a piece of her mind.  “How come you are in favor of the American Jobs Act (aka Stimulus II, creating more debt) but are against the Keystone Pipeline project, whereby there is no government money involved?”

12/8/11, A12, Tale of 2 societies divided by education, John Stapleford (CRI) – The writer draws a useful distinction between the amply educated and less educated classes.  LE’s are feeling the current recession much more.  Higher jobless rate (it’s the blue-collar jobs drying up), higher percentage without healthcare insurance (AE’s 4%, high school graduates 11%, high school dropouts 22%).   They are also impacted to a greater extent by “feel good” environmental policies (renewable energy mandates, Bloom Energy subsidies through Delmarva power bills) that drive up energy costs [and trash disposal as well], while the AE’s supposedly don’t notice because they don’t bother to read their electric bills anyway.  And about education, the public schools – controlled by the teachers unions – are doing an awful job, but the AE’s can move to PA or send their kids to private school.  The only hope for LE kids is charter schools, and the educational establishment is doing its best to keep the lid on by forcing the charters to be just like public schools.  Instead of an affirmative call to action, the thrust of this column seems to be undoing some of the current policies.  [It’s said the AE’s dominate policymaking in the state, however, so how is this supposed to happen?]

12/7/11, A8, NRC chief: Nuclear industry has become complacent; special inspections, plant shutdowns are increasing, Matthew Daly (AP) – The gist of this story and an accompanying piece by Jeff Montgomery, “PSEG flagged in Nov. for 3 low-level safety failings,” is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is “cracking down” on nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan.  Leading the charge, apparently, is Gregory Jaczo, NRC chairman, who reportedly says he is “not ready to declare a decline in safety performance at US plants” but “problems [are] serious enough to indicate a ‘precursor’ to a performance decline.” [We have mixed emotions about this.  On one hand, the nuclear plants should certainly be regulated in a meaningful way.  On the other, “the power to regulate is the power to destroy,” and the regulators should act judiciously.  Some of the examples seem appropriate, such as (A), but others suggest counterproductive grandstanding.] (A) Study in the wake of Fukushima resulted in NRC approval of a number of steps to improve safety at the 104 US nuclear plants by making them better prepared for incidents they were not initially designed to handle, e.g., prolonged power blackouts or damage to multiple reactors at the same time. (B) Incidents at Cooper Nuclear Station/NE and Perry Nuclear Power/OH “almost led to workers getting very, very significant doses” of radiation.”  (C) Automatic shutdown systems functioned as intended at the North Santa Anna plan in VA, when it was hit by an earthquake, yet the reactor was shut down for three months  (D) Crystal River/FL and Fort Calhoun/NE have been shut down for months based on unspecified safety concerns.  This is said to be the first time in more than a decade that several plants have been shut down at the same time.  (E} NRC has reportedly “conducted a greater number of special inspections this year – 20 so far – than at any point in recent memory.”  Fort Calhoun/AL and Browns Ferry/AL have “been placed at the NRC’s highest level of concern and are subject to additional inspections and public meetings [a great opening for anti-nuclear activists] Only 91 of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors are currently operating with the “normal level of inspections.”  On other issues, Jaczo said (1) staffing limitations caused by a flat budget could delay license renewals for nuclear plants [but apparently not all the other activity reported], and (2) he is “very comfortable” with the steps taken to close out the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, despite an inspector’s general report in June that indicated he intimidated staff members who disagreed with him and withheld information from the NRC members. [We do not know what happened at the agency level, but the abandonment of the Yucca Mountain project after years of preliminary work and billions of dollars spent, without an alternative game plan for nuclear waste building up at US nuclear plants, has left a huge unresolved problem for US nuclear power industry.]  As for PSEG failings at Salem Unit 2: NJ reported by Jeff Montgomery: (1) There was a six-year delay in cracked wires connected to a reactor coolant pump.  On June 26, the pump failed, causing an automatic cut to reactor operating levels. And investigators found that the same pump had malfunctioned in April. (2) A valve malfunctioned in July, allowing a small leak of reactor coolant during a systems test.  The NRC determined that the plant’s owners took 21 minutes to notify Delaware and New Jersey about the coolant leaking, missing a 15-minute deadline for the action.  [Fortunately, however] the NRC concluded that none of the failures were serious enough to warrant official penalties.

12/5/11, A8, Google keeps faith in offshore wind, Aaron Nathans – “With fuel cells, solar and other ‘clean technologies’ gaining momentum in Delaware, offshore wind might seem like a distant memory.”  [Well, not that “distant.”  See: Delaware must partner with neighbors to advance wind energy, Representative John Kowalko, 11/1/11.] But never fear, because (A) NRG officials “are still working to find financing and figure out what level of financial support they can expect from the federal government;” and (B) officials at the Atlantic Wind Connection, a Google-backed offshore wind “backbone” power line project held a press conference last week to say “We’re still in this thing.”  If all goes well, according to Bob Mitchell, CEO of the Atlantic Wind Connection, construction on the offshore power line could start in 2014. [It’s true; the offshore wind lobby will not go away quietly as long as there is enough government support to make this effort worth their while.  However, Google has reportedly pulled out of the picture. http://bit.ly/vrztkv]

12/4/11, A1/A9, Articles, forums aim to improve our state, Executive Editor David Ledford – Cites articles by Jonathan Starkey & Aaron Nathans as the first in a series of “Imagine Delaware” reports “examining issues critical to the First State as it moves forward during one of the most challenging times of modern history.” [Slight degree of hyperbole here.] The News Journal will also publish “essays from citizens statewide who imagine ways to get our swagger back.” And it will all culminate with a public forum at UD, co-sponsored by the News Journal and PNC, Thursday, Dec. 8, on “strategies for growing jobs.”  The distinguished panel of experts: Gov. Jack Markell; Bill Thayer of Bloom Energy; business consultant Kerry Rupp; and PNC economist Kurt Rankin.  Then, moving into 2012, “we will tackle education and other topics of statewide import, and work with PNC to hold three more community forums, which will be moderated by me.”  If you have a notion you’d like to share, please email me at dledford@delawareonline.com.

12/4/11, A1/A8-9, TURNING POINT: Delaware struggles to reboot its economy after loss of key industries, thousands of jobs, Jonathan Starkey - Portrays Delaware jobs picture as grimmer than the national jobs picture, with some economists saying a healthy rebound is “years away,” e.g., 2016 [when the current governor will be about to leave office if he is reelected in 2012].  And this is so “despite several high-profile recruitments by Gov. Jack Markell and the congressional delegation, who used hefty incentives to convince PBF Energy to restore the Delaware refinery Valero had closed, Fisker Automotive to plan plug-in hybrid car production at the former GM plant near Newport, and Bloom Energy to choose Newark for a planned fuel-cell generator factory.  These developments – plus the location of a new Amazon shipping facility in Middletown, DE – may add up to 4K jobs but that compares to 11K jobs that “have vanished from the state since January 2009.”  Governor Markell’s pledge to create 25K jobs when he campaigned for governor in 2008 is now said to have been made before “the world fell apart;” his current goal is “to create jobs for anybody who wants to be working.”  As a sign of the times, Delaware’s largest private sector employer is neither a bank nor DuPont, but Christiana Care with 10,477 workers.  Finding new areas of growth may be challenging for Delaware entrepreneurs and policymakers “who long have been adept at creating big, sustainable centers of employment.”  The ensuing coverage is mainly positive for the Markell Administration, as exemplified by an e-mail comment from DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman that “I think he is doing all he can.”  However, a few criticisms are noted: (A) Acorn Energy CEO John Moore: Delaware should be less focused on risky bets and more “focused on creating prosperity” so “jobs will follow.”  Re Fisker and Bloom, Moore says, “It just seems that they’re using our government funds, our taxpayer dollars, to play the role of venture capitalists. *** I wouldn’t invest in either [one].”  (B) Several business representatives complain about the uncertainty of government policies, including at the national level.  (C) CEO Robert Prybotuk of Polymer Technologies (Pencader Corporate Center in Glasgow) says utility costs as a percentage of revenue have doubled in the last decade.  He reportedly “urges policymakers to consider dropping support for expensive renewable energy projects, and seek new energy generation to lower regional prices, which would ease pressure on manufacturers.” 

12/4/11, A1/A9, State puts energy into quest for “clean tech” jobs, Aaron Nathans – “Delaware officials think they’ve sown the seeds of an industry here for environmentally friendly products, with about 3,000 jobs at ‘clean tech’ companies expected to arrive in the next few years.” And the factories of Bloom Energy and Fisker Automotive could “perhaps generate a buzz that builds on itself.”  Also, “local companies such as the DuPont Co. that are investing in clean energy research and development, plus ongoing research in the field at the University of Delaware, could create a new based of job growth that over time could help replace thousands of manufacturing and other jobs lost in the recession.” [Emphasis added; well, anything is possible.]  Banking the future on “green jobs” was not Governor Jack Markell’s initial intention, says spokesman Brian Selander, he simply wanted to create jobs.  However, [heavily subsidized] clean tech seemed to be where the action was.  Venture capital backers were reportedly willing to bet on companies like Fisker and Bloom, during a hard time for manufacturers, as being the next American success stories, and federal loan guarantees [not to mention Delaware subsidies and renewable energy mandates] for companies in that sector also helped. Extensive commentary follows from “green” energy fans, who see everything coming together to create what DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara describes as an ecosystem (or, in the reporter’s words, a “green and clean tech sector that, when put together, could make Delaware a destination for future employers in the field.”  By way of counterpoint, State Rep. Greg Lavelle (R-Sharpley) is quoted to the effect that “it isn’t hard to attract businesses with generous subsidies, but is it hard to sustain green jobs without them.  It hasn’t yet been proved that it can be done.”  Accordingly, Lavelle is reportedly not “entirely convinced Fisker will follow through on its plans for Delaware.” [Lavelle’s comments cannot be taken seriously. He voted for the Bloom Energy bill on a rushed basis, without meaningful review, as did almost all of his Republican colleagues.  In general, this article is egregiously slanted, amounting to propaganda versus news coverage. The “green” jobs boom defies the laws of economics, and it cannot be expected to materialize.  The False Promise of Green Energy, Andrew Morriss, et al., Cato Institute (2011). http://www.s-a-f-e.org/green_energy.htm]

12/4/11, D4, Ohio shale drilling spurs hopes of Rust Belt revival, Thomas Sheerhan (AP) – Medium size photo of bustling industrial facility: “The new Vallourec seamless pipe mill can be seen rising up on the horizon in the industrial valley of Girard, Ohio, in September.”  The basic thrust of this article is that fracking operations to extract natural gas in Ohio will not only put drilling crews to work, but also support employment in related industries such as a plant to produce seamless steel pipes for tapping shale formations.  “One study backed by the oil and gas industry” projected the creation or support of more than 200,000 Ohio jobs in the next four years.  However, Susan Helper, a Case Western Reserve University professor said the industry and politicians have self-interest in rosy projections.  “It’s a way of saying to environmentalists and others that say slow down, ‘Gee, you’re preventing all this potential great job growth here.” [The fact remains that the gas fracking boom will create jobs and lower energy costs, without government subsidies, unless the environmentalists succeed in blocking it.]

12/2/11, A16, Columnist misled public with fracking views, William Moyer (Dover) - The writer assails 11/29 column by David Stevenson of the Caesar Rodney Institute for supporting the recovery of natural gas via fracking.  References cited: The documentary film Gasland, “numerous scientific articles on the impacts of toxic materials used to dissolve the shale,” and the purported unwillingness of drillers “to divulge what is in this toxic concoction and the adverse impacts it is having on drinking water wells.” [For more about Gasland, see “Gas industry lobbies against movie’s Oscar nod,” 2/27/11. Update: Inside Job won the Oscar for best documentary, not Gasland.]

11/30/11, A1/A2, A grim glimpse into Del.’s future; Sea level along coast is rising at a slow but steady pace, Molly Murray – Delaware sea level is said to have risen about 13 inches over the past 100 years, nearly double the global average, half of which is explained by Delaware sinking vs. the sea level rising says Susan Love, a state planner with Delaware Coastal Programs.  But look for sea level rise to speed up over the next 100 years due to climate change, so state officials want to take a close look at what rising sea levels will be like so they can adapt, compensate or make location adjustments when planning future infrastructure.  Three mapping scenarios are being publicized in the sea level advisory board sessions: sea level rise over the next 100 years of 1.6 feet, 3.3 feet, or 4.9 feet.  Access roads could be at risk in some areas, although even in the worst-case scenario many existing beach areas – notably Rehoboth Beach - would not disappear.  And there could be a big loss in coastal wetlands, maybe 95%, along not only the oceanfront but also the bay-front. Some alarmists fret, however, that 100 years is longer than most people think ahead – which suggests the need for shorter-term mapping that takes into consideration tidal flooding and storm surges.  [What’s the point of this public “education” effort?  The answers may become clear when the proposed regulations start coming out.  But it sure sounds like peddling an alleged problem to justify as yet unidentified regulatory solutions.]

11/29/11, A3, A rocky road ahead at climate change talks; Nations take diverging stands on emissions – “As if to illustrate the effects of global warming, a fierce storm on the eve of the talks flooded shack settlements and killed at least five people in the port city [Durban, South Africa] hosting the international gathering.”  Scientists say such unusual weather will happen more often as the Earth warms, although “it is impossible to attribute any individual event to climate change.”  South African President Jacob Zuma reportedly called for national interests to be laid aside “for a common good and benefit of all humanity.”  But Canada is said to be preparing to formally withdraw from the Kyoto accord, and other industrialized nations are not prepared to embrace new and tighter caps on carbon emissions.  The US position is said to be that it will not join in such a regime unless everyone else does – including the world’s biggest carbon emitter, China.  [Hmm, doesn’t sound like the conference is off to a promising start.]

11/29/11, A7, Loaners offered to worried Volt owners, Tom Krisher (AP) – There have been two instances in which the lithium battery packs in Chevrolet Volts caught fire a week or more after crash tests, possibly due to a failure to drain the battery charge as GM has called for in its post-crash procedures.  GM is working hard to minimize concerns about this issue, and among other things is offering loaner cars to Volt owners (some 5,000 in North America thus far) who may be concerned about the safety of their cars.  [The real problem with the Volts is that they are an uneconomical substitute for conventional automobiles, but the battery fire problem may get more attention in our increasingly fear-based culture.]  

11/27/11, A24, The cold, hard facts about global warmists, Leonard Clapp (Wilmington) – Most people accept all the global warming propaganda at face value, “even though the global warmists of East Anglia have been hacked explaining how to discredit the deniers or keep them out of the media.”  What do the global warmists think or know about the interaction between the solar wind and the weather, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas with varying percentages of water vapor, the cause and effect of the jet streams?  People’s perceptions of weather events are colored by their experience, e.g., “my grandmother never saw a snowflake without talking about the blizzard of 1888.”  Based on Wall Street Journal commentary on orange juice futures, the citrus belt is moving south – not north.  And the shipping season in the Hudson Bay still runs from the end of July to the middle of November, so what’s all this guff about its destiny to “be a future year-round outlet for grain.”  In the Internet age, “there is no excuse for blind acceptance of the views of so-called experts, politicians and the media.”

11/26/11, A8, DuPont may feel impact of EU bioethanol probe – EU is threatening to impose on imports of bioethanol from the US, on grounds that US sellers are using trade-distorting government aid to sell below cost, aka “dumping.”  Apparently European producers are falling short in producing the mandated quota of ethanol for consumption by motorists, while US exports of ethanol to Europe grew more than 500% from 2008 to 2010 and probably doubled from 2010 in 2011.  A finding on the European producer complaint is due by August 2012.  [Government mandates and subsidies inevitably distort economic markets, and the best idea is to get rid of them.] 

11/26/11, A10, Bringing Bloom to Del. is a waste of money, A. Hirschle (Wilmington) – “The only reason Bloom is still in business is because California subsidizes the company.  Bloom cannot stand on its own.”  Now they want to do the same thing here. [First anti-Bloom Energy letter in a while.  One of ours, with more substance than this one, was acknowledged but not published.]

11/23/11, A3, Great Britain: 5,000 e-mails leaked just in time to disrupt UN talks on climate – “Those behind the [2009] breach” have “apparently released a second and potentially far larger batch of old messages.” University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford speculated that the release of the second installment at this time was intended “to cause maximum disruption” to the UN climate change talks next week in Durban, South Africa.  [What a vile tactic on the part of “those hostile to mainstream climate science.”  But doesn’t it matter what the e-mails reveal?]

11/20/11, A25, Senator’s asthma claims disputed, Dina Cappiello (AP) – Here’s a postscript on the recent Senate vote on EPA cross-border controls on emissions, which was won by Senate Democrats. Block on EPA rule rejected, 11/11/11.  The point of the story is to attack claims by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) that the emissions in question had, in the reporter’s words, “no connection to asthma.”  It is claimed that a chart displayed by Senator Paul to make his case against the alleged health benefits of the EPA rule in question “relied on some creative sourcing and pseudoscience.”  [For shame!]  The chart showed air pollution in California declining as the number of people diagnosed with asthma rose, and Paul’s “real source” was not the California Department of Health Services – which never plotted the relationship between those two factors – but a 2006 paper, “Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution,” from the NCPA, a conservative [shudder!] think tank.”   Authored by consultant Joel Schwartz, that paper “was not subjected to the normal peer-review process demanded for most published science.”  And “at best, the chart suggests that air pollution alone cannot explain the rise in asthma, a chronic lung disease that inflicts approximately 34 million people in the US.”  [Well, duh, after the article had just quoted the aforesaid California agency that asthma attacks “can be triggered by exposures and conditions such as respiratory infections, house dust mites, animal dander, mold, pollen, exercise, tobacco smoke, and indoor and outdoor air pollution.” The point is that the EPA health claims are exaggerated, not that there is no possible connection between air pollution levels and asthma. And by the way, the graph in the NCPA study is pretty striking – take a look. http://bit.ly/sEqiPY]

11/19/11, A1/A5, Global warming is causing weirder and wilder weather, Seth Borenstein (AP) – [Hey, is this a rerun of “Scientists see a world plagued increasingly by extreme weather,” 11/2/11, also by Seth Borenstein?  Well, not quite, as the earlier article talked about an upcoming confab in Uganda, and now there is a breathless report from said meeting confirming and elaborating on the claims previously reported.]  “This is the first time the group of scientists [IPCC] has focused on the dangers of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.  Those are more dangerous than gradual increases in the world’s average temperature.” Photo (A5): Peasants wading through knee-deep water: “Nearly a third of Thailand’s 77 provinces have been hit by floods since late July.  Extreme weather will become increasingly common worldwide, scientists say, possibly to the extent that humans must abandon some areas.” The IPCC report being worked on – a 29-page summary is available, the rest will be “completed in the coming months” [shouldn’t the summary be written after the report, not before?] – speaks in terms of probabilities.  Thus, (A) “virtually certain” heat waves are getting worse, longer and hotter, while colds spells are easing; (B) “at least a 2-in-3 chance” that heavy downpours will increase, both in the tropics and northern regions, and from tropical cyclones; (C) “likely” that the areas that need to be abandoned will be in poorer countries, although the middle class “may be affected” as well; (D) extreme weather events are “more likely” in a future dominated by global warming, although social vulnerability to natural disasters, aside from climate, has also increased.  And by the way, “more than 95 percent of fatalities from the 1970s to the present have been in developing countries.” [The real goal here is not saving the planet, it is a slush fund for developing countries to be provided by developed countries and administered by the UN or some similar agency.]

11/19/11, Global warming activists are just full of hot air, Arlen Besel (Elkton, MD) – “The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate change has collapsed.  The only thing ‘worse than we thought’ is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists’ baseless talking points.”  References a video, “Apocalypse?  No!” by Christopher Monckton, which among other things brings out the financial stake that Al Gore and others have in “ongoing climate change activity.”  The video also says “the limitation of fossil fuel-generated energy will condemn the poorest developing national to abject poverty and death.” 

11/19/11, A8/ Markell is right on natural gas extraction – News Journal acknowledges “the enormous opportunity offered by the Marcellus Shale . . . natural gas buried under New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia” yet lauds Governor Markell’s “objections to a too quick agreement to widespread extraction” of the resource” when “too many questions surround the method” and “threats to water supplies, including the Delaware River, were too important and too complicated to permit a rushed decision.”  [Delaware has no shale gas deposits, apparently, and the alleged concerns about the Delaware River are specious.  Remember that the battle about whether the shipping channel in the Delaware River could be deepened from 40 feet to 45 feet is still going on, over a decade after it started, with Delaware also playing the “spoiler” role in that situation.  Whatever, the Monday meeting of the DRBC to vote on the proposed regulations has been canceled – time will tell whether Delaware’s “no” vote is supported by two other members or overridden.] 

11/18/11, A1/A2, Markell rejects fracking; Key vote set Monday on rules for Delaware watershed, Jeff Montgomery – Headshot: Gov. Jack Markell says such drilling can be “devastating.”  The story on 11/15 was about how Governor Markell would vote on proposed Delaware River Basin Commission rules re fracking; this one is about how Markell plans to vote; no doubt there will be a third story next week re how he did vote.  A Markell letter to DRBC members (he is on the way back from a visit to Afghanistan) “cited unsettled and inadequate terms for state and local environmental safeguards and insufficient public review of recently amended regulatory proposals.” The governor maintained some flexibility, apparently, by “acknowledging the economic importance of shale gas resources – and saying that it does ‘not mean that Delaware will refuse to move forward under any circumstances.’’ But he said “this commission is simply not a able to properly evaluate those regulations based on the science at this time.” [In other words, let’s study fracking to death.]  Markell has some company.  New York has set up a commission to study fracking operations before allowing them, with no time limit, and its attorney general has already filed “a federal lawsuit challenging development of the draft DRBC rules without a full environmental impact study.”  PA fracking operations are currently only allowed west of the Delaware River watershed, and there have been widely publicized claims of contamination of drinking water, etc.  NJ Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill to ban fracking, but imposed a one-year moratorium to allow further study. 

11/15/11, A1/A2, Delaware could be deciding drilling vote: regional panel meets next week environmental groups opposed, Jeff Montgomery – There is no shale gas underneath Delaware, to our knowledge, but no matter.  Environmentalists like Maya van Rossum, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, are pushing for tougher regulations by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DE holds one of the 5 seat) to impede natural gas “fracking” operations in northeastern PA and southern NY.  They claim the fracking process will “damage aquifers, pollute groundwater, and eventually taint the Delaware River.  Listen to how van Possum states the issue: “Will we trade the water, air, food and health of thousands of communities and millions of people to smash gas from the ancient rocks for a false promise of cheap energy.” [That’s the whole point.  Environmentalists do not want cheap energy.  See next story.]

11/15/11, A6, Delmarva Power’s second wind farm starts cranking, A6, Aaron Nathans – Delmarva is now taking 40 megawatts from the 50-MW Roth Rock project in western Maryland, which started up this summer under a “20-year contract for the energy and renewable energy credits.”  Delmarva’s first wind-power contract was the Armenia Mountain wind farm near Troy, PA, which started in 2009.  Unfortunately, “largely due to low natural gas prices,” it “ended up adding a higher premium to customers’ monthly bills than originally expected.” [Oh well, who reads their power bills anyway?]

11/13/11, Wind power rapidly nears “grid parity,” group says – The claim: Analysts “expect wind to become fully competitive with energy produced from combined-cycle gas turbines by 2016 in most regions offering fair wind conditions.”  The source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.  The basis: Cost of electricity from wind turbines will fall 12% in the next five years “because equipment will cost less, and the turbines are becoming more efficient.” [Our thoughts: (1) What about the cost of backup generation capacity because wind power is notoriously intermittent?  (2) What about potential technology gains for conventional power?  Green advocates notoriously focus on improvements for the technologies they are trying to promote.  (3) What prices for fossil fuels are assumed in the analysis?  Falling natural gas prices due to the fracking boom have substantially widened the cost advantage of conventional power facilities.]

11/13/11, A15, Cleanup continues at Japan nuke plant; full containment will likely take [continue for?] many decades, David Guttenfelder & Eric Talmadge (AP) – Big photo of a portion of the facilities, not very distinct: “As photographed during a media tour Saturday, the Unit 4 reactor building of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station is a shattered hulk.”  Fukushima was on the front page almost every day a few months ago, but had receded from the public eye.  This report resulted because the press was just allowed to visit portions of the facilities.  As related, the situation is grim; cleanup efforts will proceed slowly and with extreme caution.  The plan is to clean up some of the mess, and then encase the facilities in a protective structure as happened at Chernobyl.  [See this coverage in the UK Guardian. http://bit.ly/rMH1fQ]

Anti-nuclear activists are working hard to dramatize the Fukushima situation.  Thus, “recent studies suggest that Japan continues to significantly underestimate the scale of the disaster.” The Norwegian Institute for Air Research claims that twice as much radioactive cesium-137 “was pumped into the atmosphere” as has been reported. The French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety “found that 30 times more cesium-137 was released into the Pacific Ocean than the plant’s owner has owned up to.” 

Fears generated by the Fukushima experience have fueled concerns about any and all nuclear operations.  The previous plan to increase Japanese reliance on nuclear plants for electric power from the current 33% to 50% by 2030 has apparently been shelved.  Worse, 43 of Japan’s 56 nuclear reactors are currently inactive.  Shutdowns are periodically required for correction of mechanical problems or routine inspections, local approval is required for restarts, and “local leaders fearing repercussions at the polls have been loath to provide [such approval].”  If the political resistance continues, the article concludes, “every nuclear reactor in Japan could be offline by May [2012].”  [This situation bodes ill for the Japanese economy, which would face higher power costs if Japan began generating all of its power with imported fossil fuels.  Also, increased greenhouse gas emissions would result.  No one can be very happy about this situation; it is indeed a disaster for Japan.]

11/12/11, A8, End regional spread of power-plant emissions – News Journal applauds Senate’s rejection of “a block on an Environmental Protection Agency order that would stop power plant emissions [how?] from crossing state lines.” However, they warn, “opponents of the rule have not given up” and “we can expect more battles before the rule goes into effect in January.”  Oh, and the EPA rule would “create more jobs” [this is an example of the well-known “broken windows” fallacy] although the “owners of the plants have organized resistance” to it. [What about the interests of consumers who do not want to pay more than necessary for electric power, not to mention Americans who are concerned about economic recovery?]  Senators Tom Carper & Chris Coons were right in voting to defeat the anti-EPA resolution, good for them! 

11/11/11, B1, Block on EPA rule rejected: Senate vote boosts efforts to limit pollution that crosses state lines, Raju Chebium & Nicole Gaudiano – Update on “Carper leads air-pollution fight,” 11/8/11.  The resolution being pushed by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was defeated by a 56-41 vote margin, leaving intact a cross-border pollution rule that will reportedly require “coal plants in 27 states to cut emissions that drift across state lines.”  Senator Tom Carper’s floor remarks, ending with “enough is enough,” are quoted.  Senator Chris Coons also voted against the resolution.  But Senator Paul remains unconvinced.  “We can have a clean environment and we can have jobs.  This is about whether or not we can have a balanced approach.” EPA officials reportedly “estimate the rule will prevent up to 34,000 deaths a year linked to respiratory illness – including an estimated 140 in Delaware – and tens of thousands of nonfatal illnesses and symptoms.” [The EPA is bent on shutting down all coal power plants, which would deal a crushing blow to the US economy.  Their health claims are based on dubious statistics, and they simply ignore the economic effects.  Realistic plans to generate the needed power from other affordable sources do not exist.]

11/10/11, A3, Donor touted solar firm, emails show – Recently released e-mails show that George Kaiser, a big donor to the president, discussed Solyndra loans with White House officials.  No surprise, except that the e-mails “appear to contradict repeated assurances by the Obama administration that [Kaiser] never talked about Solyndra, Inc. with the White House.”  After a second federal loan to Solyndra was turned down, a private loan by a Kaiser-controlled entity was made under conditions that put private investors “ahead of taxpayers in line for repayment in case of a default.”

11/10/11, A12, Subsidy OK’d to boost solar power; PSC sets prices for solar renewable power, Aaron Nathans – Update on PSC will hold hearing on solar subsidies: Long-term program for home, business owners to be discussed, 10/19/11.  The proposed program has now been approved by the PSC (4-0).  In order to “give solar equipment buyers a predictable stream of revenue to help pay off their investments in eight to 10 years,” the PSC will set the prices at which Delmarva Power must buy solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) to “help satisfy its state-mandated renewable energy requirements.”  The decision was opposed by the Caesar Rodney Institute, which stated (in an e-mail newsletter) that “subsidizing high-cost solar projects trumps the needs of Delaware’s families and businesses for affordable energy.”  PSC Executive Director Bill O’Brien reportedly “said he didn’t know how much the move would add to ratepayer bills.” [What difference does that make?  The PSC does not seem to be focused on protecting the ratepayers.]

11/10/11, A12, Four states push for natural-gas cars – The governors of Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Wyoming would all like to “encourage US automakers to develop affordable vehicles that run on natural gas.”  The motive: these states are expanding natural gas production.

11/8/11, A11, Carper leads air-pollution fight; Senate vote has big impact on Delaware, Nicole Gaudiano – A resolution backed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which is coming to a vote in the Senate this week, would block an EPA rule “targeting pollution that crosses state lines and hurts air quality in downwind states such as Delaware.” The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is reportedly designed to “curb smog and soot pollution from power plants and industrial sources in 27 states.” [The rule would not apply to DE pollution; is there a “divide and conquer” dynamic at work here?]  Senator Tom Carper is opposing the anti-EPA bill, and asserts “this is basically a fairness and equity issue” in that “some states” should not be able to “enjoy lower electricity costs” while “they’re increasing our electricity costs [because DE can’t meet ambient air standards without expensive measures] and increasing our healthcare costs.”  Similar legislation previously passed in the House, but the resolution (even though for some reason not subject to filibuster) is not expected to clear the Senate – and even if it did and a conforming version passed the House, the president “probably would veto it.”  Carper previously worked for legislation to address the issue, but his efforts broke down in 2010 because some power companies reportedly “gambled on 2010 election results rather than work towards a legislative fix.  He now refers to the EPA’s rule as “not a bad second choice” because “we’ve waited long enough.”  

11/4/11, A11, Global output of carbon dioxide has record jump; levels exceed experts’ worst-case scenario prediction, Seth Borenstein (AP) – Picture (three workers in foreground, ominous tower and belching smoke in background): “Workers ride past a coal-fired power plant on a tricycle cart in Changchun, in northeast China’s Jilin province.”  Oh no, “the world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009,” representing “an increase [over the 09 emission level?] of 6 percent.”  The biggest culprits: China, the US, and India.  Greg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University called it a “monster” increase.  “It’s a big jump,” said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab; “from an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over.”  [Hmm, so economic recovery is a bad thing? Tell that to people who are out of work and truly want jobs.]  To John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, the lesson is that “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing.”  And achieving economic growth through “increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world.”  The IPCC’s 2007 projection, which global warming skeptics have attacked as alarmist, says Reilly, was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated as likely scenarios.  The article goes on to cite other purported experts; their comments are omitted here in the interest of brevity.  [No “skeptics” appear to have been contacted for their thoughts.]

11/4/11, A14, Carney deserves praise for cancer study, Kit Zak (Lewes), a cofounder of Citizens for Clean Power – Representative John Carney is credited with “work he began over 10 years ago to deal with the high concentrations of cancer in our state.”  Thanks to his persistent efforts, “a small group of volunteers who live near the Indian River coal plant in Millsboro” will be involved in tests to “help determine the health burdens posed by its emissions.”  Which is great, because “Millsboro residents need to know what specific toxins they are exposed to on a regular basis” so they “can make informed choices about their health thorough the Cancer Right to Know law and now the body burden study.” [No question, coal-fired power plants emit some harmful pollutants.  But the line about residents making informed choices about their health is silly; the obvious objective is to fuel efforts to close down the Indian River plant entirely – whatever the economic implications.]

11/2/11, A1/A2, Scientists see a world plagued increasingly by extreme weather, Seth Borenstein (AP) – Compared to a 9/4/11 article by Borenstein – “2011 a year of extremes for US weather: gathering planned Wednesday in DC to devise strategies – this one is rather mild.  Draft summary of a report “from the Nobel Prizewinning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reportedly “marks a change in climate science from focusing on subtle shifts in average temperatures to concentrating on the harder-to-analyze freak events that grab headlines, hurt economies and kill people.”  And according to the draft report (final will be issued in a few weeks after a meeting in Uganda where it will reportedly need “approval by diplomats”), there is “at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases.” OK, the pre-Halloween snowstorm “probably isn’t the type of storm that will increase with global warming” [sounds more like global cooling], but think super-heavy rainstorms, droughts, stronger hurricanes (not necessarily more of them), etc.  Also, the report says, scientists are 99% certain that the world will have more extreme spells of heat and fewer of cold.  “Heat waves could peak as much as 5 degrees [Fahrenheit?] hotter by mid-century,” and “even 9 degrees hotter by the end of the century.” Why the gap between 2/3 and 99% certainty?  Well, “for some climate extremes in many regions,” the report says, “the main driver for future increases in losses will be socioeconomic” rather than more greenhouse gases.  The rising number of people – especially poor people – who live in harm’s way will be an even bigger problem than global warming. And various measures can help reduce disaster risks and costs, including better preparedness, sustainable land & water management, better public health monitoring, and building improvements. [Evidence continues to accumulate that the global warming trend is not taking off as predicted by climate alarmists earlier. http://bit.ly/u0DvSS]

11/1/11, A9, Delaware must partner with neighbors to advance wind energy, [Representative, D, 25th District] John Kowalko – The writer recently attended wind energy symposiums in (a) Halifax, Nova Scotia, and (b) Baltimore.  He and “a number of other state legislators had the fortune of participating in panel discussions on the topic of moving forward with alternative and renewable energy.”  Among the businesses firms at the conferences was the Atlantic Wind Connection, “a wonderfully innovative company dedicated to bringing enough wind-generated energy to satisfy the electricity needs of the Atlantic region.”  The AWC is planning an offshore high-voltage transmission backbone that will stretch from Virginia to northern New Jersey, which would connect large-scale offshore wind farms to the land-based transmission system.  With it, “power can be directed where it is needed, helping to manage the variability inherent in offshore winds” and thereby “delivering consistent, dependable supplies of power to energy-starved regional consumers.”  The “benefits almost speak for themselves,” and just think of the jobs that would be created.  The only “hook” is that the project must achieve scale by having all the states collaborate in the project. [OK, Delaware needs more power – but it would be a lot cheaper to build land-based natural gas generators.  What is the extra cost of this offshore wind vision, and who would pay for it?]   

10/31/11, A1, UD snags renowned fuel-cell researcher; officials hope professor boosts school – and states economy, Jonathan Starkey – The “potential star professor” is Yushan Yan, “a renowned fuel-cell researcher” who arrived this summer “with an entourage of nine early-career scientists and seven doctoral candidates.”  This top of the front-page story tracks a previous report: State wooing start-up Calif. fuel-cell firm, 9/20/11. One new point: Professor Yan “hopes to market technology that could efficiently convert hydrogen from the sun’s rays into power for homes and cars.” [Query, what is hydrogen from the sun’s rays?]

10/31/11, A8/A9, Commercializing technology, improving society; engineer aims to create array of clean-energy jobs in Del., Jonathan Starkey – Big color picture: Scientist with a collage of laboratory equipment.  “New University of Delaware professor Yushan Yan set up a new lab in Delaware Technology Park to teach and pursue fuel cell technology.”  Now we learn that the hydrogen idea (see previous story) is “to market fuel cell membranes and catalysts that can help cheaply convert hydrogen into power for homes and cars, and lead to efficient batteries for clean energy storage.”  [No explanation is offered as to where the hydrogen would come from.]  One key point would be to replace platinum in fuel cell materials.  Among Yan’s fans is David Weir, a former V-P at DuPont who now runs the UD Office of Economic Innovation and Partnership.

10/31/11, A5, Tax, regulation relief trump all in GOP debate; lack of consumer demand, housing costs get little play, Charles Babington (AP) – Basic thrust of this story is that the “proposed cuts in taxes and regulations: being pushed by “nearly every GOP candidate” in “the name of creating jobs” are phony.  Such proposals “seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.”  Thus, according to Bruce Bartlett, formerly an economist who worked for various Republican politicians, the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth is “just nonsense” and “just made up.”  Government and industry studies supposedly support his view: (A) Bureau of Labor Statistics explanation for large layoffs in the first half of 2011: 1,119 due to government regulations, while “144,746 were attributed to poor business demand.”  (B) “Mainstream economic theory says governments can spur demand, at least somewhat, through stimulus spending.”  (C) Birinyi Associates: S&P 500 companies have about $800B in unspent cash on hand, which is reportedly “the most ever.” (D) Moody’s: the 1,600 companies it monitors had $1.2T in cash as of 12/31/10, 11% more than a year earlier.  (E) Survey by National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB): half of small businesses saying “this is not a good time to expand” cited the poor economy as the chief reason while only 13% blamed “the political climate.” (F) Economic Policy Institute: More small businesses complained about regulation during the administrations of Clinton and Bush 41, according to their analysis of NFIB data.  (G) Recent AP-GfK poll: “most Democrats and about half of independents think ‘reducing regulations on business’ would do little or nothing to create jobs.”  Only “one-third of Republicans felt that way,” however, so the GOP presidential hopefuls must be pandering to their base. [What’s the old saying about lies, damned lie and statistics?  Anyway, this account is quite unconvincing.]

10/30/11, C1/C4, Solar power is beginning to go mainstream; installations expected to double, prices falling, Jonathan Fahey – Forget about climate change, national security, and the world running out of oil.  Soon solar power will have a cost advantage.  Picture: “Tim Johnson poses for a portrait with solar panels on his roof in Philadelphia.  Since March, he has generated 50-75 percent of his electricity with the panels.”  And consider the stats: “Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year.  More solar energy is being planning than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.”  Veritably, as one enthusiast puts it, “we are at the beginning of a turning point.” OK, it’s true that “making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments” and “as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.”  But “costs are falling so fast that [solar] advocates can credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidies shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.”  And Tim Johnson was able to avoid laying out $15K after subsidies for his solar panels thanks to SunRun, a company that builds, owns, and maintains solar systems on homes, pockets the subsidies, and charges homeowners for the electricity their panels produce. [OK, let’s eliminate the subsidies entirely, right now, and if solar can stand on its own that’s great.] 

10/28,11, B1/B2, King tides offer look at rise in sea level; Groups say event gives peek at future, Molly Murray – Follow-up to 10/26 story on the same subject, includes pictures of area where the Murderkill River joins the Delaware Bay at Bowers Beach that shows (drum roll please) “a noticeable difference between low tide (left) and high tide (right) on Thursday.” From the story, however, the King tides may not have lived up to the hopes of sea level alarmists.  For example: “On Thursday, the king tide didn’t get an added boost from high winds or heavy rains, but a similar astronomical event occurred during the March Storm of 1962[!], which caused significant flooding, destruction and death here in Delaware.”  No matter, Delaware’s Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee will be holding a series of workshops in November (each running from 4-7 PM, with information sessions at 4:30 PM and 6 PM): Nov. 9 (Middletown High School), Nov. 15 (Georgetown Public Library), Nov. 17 (William Penn High School), Nov. 21 (Kent County Levy Court Complex), Nov. 29 (Cape Henlopen High School). 

10/26/11, Romney targets Fisker loan in Calif. newspaper op-ed, Jonathan Starkey – The Mitt Romney column was in the same vein as an earlier ABC News report.  The president has “finally created some ‘green jobs,’” but bummer, they are “in Finland.”  Starkey says this claim is “not exactly true,” repeating assertions by Fisker and the Department of Energy that none of the DOE loan was used for making Karma hybrids in Finland.  However, it is also said Fisker raised more than $600M from private sources, and is using “some of that money to cover manufacturing costs in Finland.”  [We agree that the support of temporary manufacturing operations in Finland is not the real problem with the Fisker loan.  As money is fungible, however, the position that one funding source is being used 100% domestically while another funding source is being used partly in Finland doesn’t make much sense.]

10/26/11, A 18, Delaware taxpayers can’t afford Bloom gamble, Peter J. Rigby (Wilmington) –

“If this was such a great piece of technology and the marketing plan so solid as the governor suggests, then why does the state feel the need to use taxpayer incentives coupled with higher electric rates for Delaware residents and ratepayers to underwrite a successful project?”

10/26,11, B1/B2, Concurrence of lunar events offers rare peek at king tides, Molly Murray –

10/25/11, A10, Where will manufacturing jobs come from? – Bloom Energy & Fisker ventures “hold a lot of promise,” but also “involve a lot of risk.”  Both could “succeed wildly” or “fail miserably.”  The only sure thing is “to do nothing and watch the middle class disappear.”  The loudest criticism of these ventures is claims of “crony capitalism,” just look at that phony ABC News story about Fisker building cars in Finland with the proceeds of a US loan.  Let the market support startups?  Well, “the market has mostly been helping US startups move overseas where labor is cheaper.  “We are witnessing a vast structural change as products invented here are built overseas, leaving Americans to find service or government jobs.  The Bloom and Fisker projects could have a different result, and “to our mind, that’s worth the gamble.” [The negative US tax and regulatory climate is conveniently exempted from examination here.]

10/25/1, A10, Delmarva forcing us to invest with no return, William Knowles (Wilmington) – Writer suggests the Bloom tariff is a one-sided proposition in which ratepayers lose either way, an investment with no return.  “If this part of the law cannot be stopped in the courts I suggest that we all pay our bills less this investment charge.  Any other ideas out there?”

10/24/11, A9, Carper deserves our gratitude for his fight for cleaner air, Chad Tolman – The 10/15 story on Carper’s role as a “champion for cleaner air” is referenced at start of this column, with a statement that Carper has done “more to protect the environment and promote clean air than most other members of Congress.” Not only is Carper “trying to protect us from conventional pollutants like SO2, NOx, ozone and mercury,” but “he has the courage to speak out about climate change.” Tolman then segues into his own thinking (often expressed before) about “sea level rise from global warming,” which “is going to hit us hard,” and renewable energy.  [A] Delaware has the lowest average elevation (60 feet) of any state, long shoreline, lot of development near current sea level – a tide gauge at Lewes show “sea level rose more than a foot there during the past century,” and now “the rise is accelerating as both Greenland and Antarctica lose ice at increasing rates.” [B] The Delaware Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee, on which Tolman represents “the LWV of DE” [League of Women Voters], will be issuing an Interim Report soon and holding a series of public engagement sessions in November.  [C] The Caesar Rodney Institute and “its tea party allies” unsuccessfully tried to engineer Delaware’s withdrawal from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The Tea Party also opposes renewable energy, like wind and solar, “saying that clean energy costs too much, and will take away jobs.”  Humph, burning coal is “a 19th Century technology and should go the way of the horse and buggy.  The modern world will be based largely on electricity from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal power.”  [D] Tolman was hoping DE would be the first US state to have offshore wind power, but, alas, the Bluewater project is “waiting for the investment needed to put turbines in the water.”  Meanwhile, Tolman heard at the offshore wind conference in Baltimore that several states – East Coast, West Coast, and Great Lakes – “are vying to beat us.”  Also, Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind and is planning for 50%, “so this is not a new and risky technology.” Back to the initial appeal to political authority, “Senator Carper “realizes that the choice is not between environmental protection and a vibrant economy, but between promoting both and destroying both.” [This denies the reality that there are economic penalties associated with the environmental agenda, i.e., people cannot “have their cake and eat it too.”]

10/23/11, A1/A2, State plotting new strategy with energy rebate program, Aaron Nathans – Subsidized investment in home energy efficiency had to be ramped down several months ago because “demand had overwhelmed funding from Delaware’s share of profits [taxes collected] from a regional cap-and-trade program – and even soaked up a windfall from federal stimulus programs.” [“Free money” rarely lacks for demand.]  The new strategy will focus on a smaller number of relatively large projects.  DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara speaks in terms of achieving big energy and carbon emission savings without creating a large bureaucracy.  Thus, proceeds of the Sustainable Energy Utility bond sale ($72.5M) will pay for energy-efficiency upgrades to government and educational buildings.  SEU has just hired its first executive director rather than continuing to contract out management of the operation; he is Anthony DePrima, the former Dover city manager.

10/23/11, F1, Delaware receives good grades on solar access, Aaron Nathans – The Vote Solar Institute reportedly gave Delaware an “A” for both net metering (selling excess power back to the grid) and interconnection policies for renewable power.  Delaware was only one of three states to earn that grade.  The VSI praised Delaware for renewable energy policies that are “finally aligned to bring significant investment in renewable energy to the state.”  The governor is quoted as saying: “Integrating more clean energy into the grid puts more people to work, supports capital investment and promotes a healthier environment.  Through strong bipartisan support, Delaware has demonstrated repeatedly that we can strengthen our economy and improve our environment at the same time.” [Count us as skeptics.  If solar power is so economically beneficially, why is it dependent on government mandates and subsidies?]

10/22/11, A1/A2, Fisker: No misuse of federal loan; says money spent in US, Jonathan Starkey – An ABC News report suggested that a $529M federal loan (repeatedly reported by the News Journal) was being used to fund manufacturing operations in Finland.  Actually, Fisker and the Department of Energy shot back, the money will be used – as intended – to support US operations including the renovation of the Boxwood site in Delaware to manufacture electric Nina cars.  Charges attacked as politically motivated, etc.  Thus, Emily Spain, a spokeswoman for Senator Tom Carper, is quoted that  “some are trying to use this misleading story for political gain in a desperate attempt to attack manufacturing jobs and clean-energy technology.” 

 [We agree that the ABC report about diversion of funds to Finland was silly.  The issue is whether the US operations being supported make any sense – and in our opinion they do not.]

10/22/11, A6, US hurt by high price of gasoline; most drivers have no alternatives, Wendy Koch (Gannett) – “Although gas prices have recently dipped [temporarily, due to concern about the economic outlook we believe], drivers will have spent a record $490 billion on gas by year’s end – $100 billion more than [in] the prior year, according to the “Energy Trap” report by the New American Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.”  Another finding noted by Lisa Margonelli, the foundation’s director of energy policy, is that those earning $15-20K a year spend 10% of their income on gas while those earning $50-60K a year spent 4.6% of their income on gas. Also, according to a statement from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, middle-class workers simply don’t have alternatives to buying gas at whatever the price, i.e., they can’t afford to move closer to their jobs, buy more efficient cars, etc. and are therefore reduced to “cutting back on food.” [Don’t believe everything you read. You can bet that these groups wouldn’t be caught dead supporting elimination of the restraints on US oil production that are contributing to the upsurge in gas prices.]

10/20/10, A10, Fisker pushes Nina production to mid-’13; automaker holds to plan to employ 2,500 workers, Jonathan Starkey – Big photo: side view of two Karmas, parked on opposite sides of the street, in front of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Washington, DC.  Fisker’s second line of hybrids (the lower priced Nina) will not go into high gear until “mid-2013,” said company executives.  They were in Washington to meet with the Department of Energy, “which has loaned the company $529 million.” However, Fisker “continues to say it will employ 2,500 people in Delaware” including contractors and suppliers, which is supposedly a “conservative estimate.”  No timeline was disclosed for the planned production of 100,000 cars [per year?], but CEO Henrik Fisker dismissed stock analyst predictions that the target is unrealistic saying “analysts have to look at it from a different perspective.”  Current activity: [A] EPA has released an official fuel economy rating of 52 miles per gallon for the luxury Karma, including 32 miles on one full electric charge.  [B] An IPO of Fisker stock is anticipated, but CFO Joseph DaMour would not comment about this.

10/19/11, A1/A14, PSC approves Bloom Energy, Aaron Nathans – The proposed Bloom tariff was approved by unanimous vote of the 5 commissioners around 6:00 PM after an 8-hour proceeding.  Various “reservations” are attributed to several commissioners, e.g., Dallas Winslow: asking the PSC to decide the merits of an economic project was awkward and “I hope we don’t see another situation like this,” but so what?  Bottom line, none of the commissioners had the guts to defy the governor’s office and vote “no.”  The only dissenting voices at the proceeding mentioned: (A) David Stevenson, “a representative from the Caesar Rodney Institute, a conservative [shudder] advocacy group,” said the average monthly cost could be more like $3 to $4 a month than the $1.38 figure cited by the PSC staff if the market for solar renewable-energy credits is weak; (B) John Nichols, one of “numerous citizen opponents watching from the second-floor gallery,” stayed to the end and “called [the tariff] a large tax on Delawareans to benefit one company.”  Also, Commissioner James Lester – who said the new [and phony] financial assurances from Bloom were crucial in winning his vote – opened a large binder after the vote.  He reportedly said a few sheets in front came from supporters of the deal and then “grabbed the rest with an open fist” and said they “were those challenging the plan.” [What a hero, to ignore these shortsighted comments.] Look for the first surcharge to hit Delmarva bills in early 2013 [after the election] 

10/19/11, PSC will hold hearing on solar subsidies: Long-term program for home, business owners to be discussed, Aaron Nathans – Hearing at the PSC offices tonight at 7:00 PM.  Because solar renewable-energy credits have a fluctuating market price, home and business owners are thought to need a “long-term subsidy program” – proposed by a “state-created” task force; would be administered by the SEU, a “state-created not for profit organization” – to be achieved by assigning a long-term value to SRECs.  Under a proposal filed by Delmarva with the PSC, homeowners with solar panels would receive $260 per solar credit, which covers 1,000 KWH during the first 10 years of the contract and $50 per KWH during the following 10 years.  Larger systems (above 50 kilowatts but below 250 kilowatts) – including small businesses – would get a slightly lower amount of $240 per KWH during the first 10 years and the same $50 per KWH during the next 10 years.  Although Delmarva could buy SRECs in today’s market, there is no assurance of a long-term supply to help it meet its state-mandated solar purchase requirements. [Sounds like price fixing to us, which simply compounds problems with the state-mandated purchase requirements.  What needs to happen: pull Delaware out of the RGGI and abolish the RPS as soon as possible.]  

10/18/11, Bloom deal to be debated during hearing today; PSC may hold vote at conclusion, Aaron Nathans – Basically a repeat of “Divisive Bloom proposal may get vote soon,” 10/16/11, with added details that reinforce the impression that the fix is on.  Given the length of the hearing, it is now said to be “highly unlikely that public comment will be taken.”  Only “direct participants in the tariff proceedings – including the dissenting [formerly conservative, why is any adjective needed?] Caesar Rodney Institute [anyone else?] – will be allowed to speak today.”  Among “a small flurry of filings to the PSC” in recent days was a letter from three Republican legislators, Reps. Greg Lavelle, Lincoln Willis, & Dan Short, all of whom had previously voted to approve the Bloom bill, The gist of their belated letter, apparently, was to urge the PSC to “delay the vote to further explore what might happen if Bloom goes bankrupt.”  [Oh, please!  That is not the problem with the Bloom tariff.]

10/18/11, A8, Poll indicates most back Bloom Energy plan, Aaron Nathans – State officials are touting a private poll (Frederick), which posed the question whether Delaware votes would pay $1 more a month to “bring nearly one thousand manufacturing jobs to the state.”  It showed a majority in favor – although the results varied by political affiliation [GOP numbers add to 117%, what’s up with that]:

The same poll, it is said, showed 71% of state residents would pay $5 more a month for offshore windpower.  [Could be an illustration of the well-known point that poll results can be heavily influenced by the manner in which a question is phrased.]

10/17/11, A1/A2, Fowler Beach dunes vanish again; Tide washes away September repairs, Mike Chalmers & Jeff Montgomery – This report sheds a somewhat different light on an earlier story: Del.’s champion for cleaner air; Sen. Tom Carper defends environmental regulation, Nicole Gaudiano, 10/17/11.  It seems that it took just two weeks for the tides to wash away the repaired dunes at Fowler Beach, while the earlier article had focused on protecting this area for the ages, thereby allowing seawater from Delaware Bay to invade the freshwater marshes of Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge.  And we’re told that during Hurricane Irene, floodwater destroyed sections of Prime Hook Road through the refuge and cut off access to about 200 homes.  DNREC is now dubious about asking for more remedial work, which likely wouldn’t last long, on the taxpayers’ dime.  As Secretary Collin O’Mara put it: “It’s one thing to spend $20,000 to try to deal with a short-term problem.  It’s another to spend multiple millions of dollars.”  According to Mark Martell, president of the Delaware Audubon Society, the repeated breaches show that homeowners and federal agencies need to “retreat upland” over the next several decades, rather than continue spending money on repair projects.  However, property owner Ralph Graff of Hockessin said the US Army Corps of Engineers should build reinforced dunes at Fowler Beach as they have done in New Orleans to hold back the Mississippi River waters.  [For once, it sounds like DNREC is on the right side of the argument.]

10/16/11, E1/E7, Divisive Bloom proposal may get vote soon; Crowd expected at public hearing, Aaron Nathans – Attendance at the three public comment sessions in September totaled about 200, according to this story, and the formal hearing has therefore been moved to the spacious House Chambers of Legislative Hall in Dover.  PSC spokesman David Bonar predicts that the testimony will be “extremely detailed and exhaustive.”  The hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. and the PSC has the space reserved until 7:00 p.m.  The PSC will hear testimony from “those promoting the plan”: Bloom, Delmarva, and DNREC [who will naturally sing its praises], “the state Office of the Public Advocate, which has voiced support for the proposal with reservations” [another “yes” sayer], and the PSC staff [which has not publicly committed itself]. “Much of the conflict Tuesday is expected to be sparked by David Stevenson of the conservative [why is that adjective deemed necessary?] Caesar Rodney Institute, who is a formal intervenor in the case and plans to challenge the witnesses.” [A bit of hyperbole here.  As we understand it, Stevenson will be allotted all of 3 minutes for his comments.] It is also possible (outgoing PSC Chairwoman Arnetta McRae’s call) that “members of the public will have a chance to have their voices on the subject heard, if they so desire.”  And although Bloom is pushing for an expedited decision “in order to take advantage of a U.S. Treasury tax credit that expires at year’s end,” it will be up to the five-member PSC whether to “vote Tuesday” or “take matters under advisement and vote at a later date.” [Prediction: The fix is on.]

10/16/11, A30, Bloom Energy gamble is worth it – Editorial 3 (see also 10/9/11 & 6/10/11): “When you get down to it, a gamble on jobs and industry is just that – a gamble.  And no matter what critics want, no deal will be perfect.”  OK, suppose Bloom goes bankrupt several years after the factory opens?  The ratepayers will have to keep paying the $130M tariff.  But consider the potential payoff: consultants for the PSC estimate that a fully operating plant could bring $300M of business a year to the state. [Actually, we thought the PSC consultants were simply quoting claims by others, not making such claims themselves.]  Even better: “The setup also could spur other development at the site, possibly setting the stage for a high-tech cluster in Newark.  That would be a powerful addition for the state.”  As for “the speed of the deal”: “Certain federal energy subsidies will disappear by the end of the year, so the regulatory process is moving quickly.  More time would have been a blessing in examining the deal, but it isn’t there.” [Caesar Rodney’s analysis, 10/14/11, was more realistic in concluding that this deal would destroy jobs overall, not create them.  Also, whatever federal grants may be anticipated are not “free money.”]

10/16/11, Debate on recent scientific data surrounds Pa. natural-gas site, Kevin Begos (AP) – This is basically a rerun of Fracking fight becomes a war of exaggeration: both sides twist data to serve their own interests, Kevin Begos, 9/26/11.  No need to rehash the details.  However, there is a big picture (frontal view) of numerous protestors marching down a wide street behind an incendiary banner (“Fracking, Drilling, Spilling, Killing” -- $ and crescent-shaped object of no obvious significance – “Unnatural, Unethical, Unwanted, Unsafe”): “Activists and homeowners march in front of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia on Sept. 7 after a protest against hydraulic gas drilling, or “fracking.”  The several hundred activists and homeowners who gathered outside the convention center where an industry conference was being held claim that fracking, and shale oil drilling in general, has led to polluted air and water.”

10/15/11, A1/ A5, Del.’s champion for cleaner air; Sen. Tom Carper defends environmental regulation, Nicole Gaudiano – A1 photos: Big picture, seashore in background, “Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., (left) chats with Michael Stroeh, manager of Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, at Fowler Beach.  Carper wants to preserve Prime Hook, which reminds him of former Gov. Russell Peterson.”  Smaller pictures: “Pollution from industry” (smoke stacks photo) “and automobiles” (traffic on an interstate photo) “threatens the Inland Bays in Delaware.” A5 photo, Senator Carper standing in front of Stroeh and to his right, holding a map in left hand and gesturing with his right hand.  “[The two men] tour the Fowler Beach area on Friday.  Carper noted the World War II bunker [not visible in the picture] out in the distance.”  

            That bunker, formerly a lookout for German U-boats, was reportedly built “several hundred feet” behind the dune line.  “But storms and sea-level rise have helped wash away the dunes and erode the shoreline, leaving the bunker, as Carper points out, “in the soup.”  This is, according to the senator, a “graphic” illustration of climate change – which appears to be accelerating.  It took over six decades (1926 to 1992), readers are informed, for the Fowler Beach shoreline to recede about 300 feet.  In the past two decades it has receded 200 more feet. [Sounds like the bunkers should be standing in the water.  Are they?]  “People can say sea-level rise is fiction.  It’s not real,” Carper said.  “I would invite them here.”

            Carper chairs the Senate subcommittee overseeing the Clean Air Act, and in this role “he has long defended the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority under the law to regulate greenhouse gases and other pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.” Alas, however, House Republicans are fighting this authority and calling EPA regulations “job-destroying.”  And Carper, for his part, is measuring success in the Senate “by the bad things [interference with EPA initiatives to continually tighten regulatory requirements] we keep from happening.”  Thus, his subcommittee held hearings to highlight the “special threat children face from air pollution and the benefits of cleaning up, including adding jobs.”  Such efforts are praised by Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, who says Carper is “not some nutty firebrand,” but “a guy who says cleaning up the air and economic growth go hand in hand.” [What if this claim is not true?]  And now, some specific issues: (1) Delaware’s inland bays are shallow, and the major environmental problem is nutrient pollution that leads to low levels of oxygen.  15% of nitrogen pollution is deposited from the air, and modeling shows that most of it is coming from cars, power plants, and other sources outside of the state.  Stricter pollution standards could help, and the Administration is to be praised for finalizing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.  However, bummer, tougher smog standards were recently shelved under intense industry pressure.  According to Carper, the nation is therefore “stuck” at a faulty ozone standard set in 1997.  [Actually, the EPA can enforce an intermediate standard that was set in 2008 under the previous Administration.]  (2) Reference is made to a study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity that predicts high costs and job losses associated with four proposed EPA rules.  House Republicans like Rep. Eric Cantor have been using the study as a basis for targeting the rules.  “But Carper said a clean environment, economic development and job creation ‘are not mutually exclusive.”  Just look, NRG Energy is investing $360M in state-of-the-art technology to clean up emissions at the Indian River power plant.  OK, all but one of the plant’s four power units will stay in operation after 2013, eliminating about a dozen full-time positions by attrition, but hundreds of construction workers will be employed in the meantime.  All that’s needed is for the president to make a sincere effort to bring “common sense” to regulations, so that (in Gaudiano’s words) “the business community will be more at ease, the economy will improve, and [those nasty] Republicans won’t be able to convince people that regulations for cleaner air and water will somehow destroy the economy.” (3) Carper visualizes Delaware as an environmental paradise.  In this part of the interview, he recalls a comment by former Gov. Russell Peterson that 75,000 people visit Prime Hook each year, and the vast majority are wildlife observers including bird watchers.  “One hundred years from now, 200 years from now, people are going to come here, and this is still going to be a beautiful place, and it will be a safe and clean place.”   

10/15/11, A8, Eight letters to the editor are all about the Bloom Energy deal & tariff – FOR: Andy Grove, Santa Clara, Calif. writes that the scariest moment for technology ventures is at the front end when the costs & risks are obvious while the rewards are further away.  “Will Delaware, having worked hard and long to attract an American energy company to ramp up its manufacturing in its home country, blink or step on the accelerator.  As former CEO of Intel Corp. and an investor in venture funds that have invested in [subsidized] clean energy initiatives, including Bloom Energy, I hope it will be the latter.”  AGAINST: Gary Myers, Rehoboth Beach (Proposed Bloom subsidy is not shared fairly); Susan Klinefelter, Newark (Bloom deal too rushed, may be next Solyndra); Alex Garcia, Magnolia (Delaware taxpayers may be stuck with bad deal); Edmund Dohnert, Wilmington (Bloom should try to make it on its own); Eric Bodenweiser, Georgetown (Energy policy should focus on free market); Andrew Cohen, Wilmington (Put Bloom boxes close to sites of electricity use); Marilyn Costas, Lewes (If Bloom was that great, it wouldn’t need subsidy).  [“The Tribe has spoken.”]

10/14/11, A1/A2, Bloom agrees to financial collateral; company will pay penalty fees if the deal falls through, Aaron Nathans – Small head shot: “Colin O’Mara says Bloom’s penalty fee would be backed by a bond.”  Apparently reacting to comments in the consultants’ report, Bloom “has offered new financial pledges to better insulate Delaware taxpayers and electric users from risks.”

According to DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara, in a filing with the PSC, the new commitments would make ratepayers whole if the Bloom factory doesn’t get built or employment falls short of Bloom’s projections.  Thus, Bloom could be required to pay a penalty of up to $41M, which obligation would be backed by an “unconditional, evergreen letter of credit, surety bond.”  Bloom is also promising to reimburse the state on a sliding scale if its annual payroll comes in short of projections, e.g., $36M per year (900 jobs x $40K).  The ratepayer penalty would not go to ratepayers; it would be paid to the state, which would turn it over to Delmarva according to Brian Selander (speaking for the governor).  [Why should Delmarva receive this money when they are merely acting as Bloom’s collection agent for the tariff?  Who would be dumb enough to issue the surety bond, and what would it cost?  Why is this change in the terms being announced on the day after the deadline for public comments?]

10/14/11, A15, Bloom project is good for state, Gary Stockbridge (Delmarva Power Region president) – Stockbridge argues, in essence, that the ratepayers will pay a relatively modest tariff for “clean energy benefits” as result of helping Delmarva to meet “long-term clean energy goals set by the state of Delaware.” Also, the 30MW fuel cell project “strengthens our clean energy portfolio from a reliability standpoint, since fuel cells run 365 days a year, 24 hours a day.”  Last but not least, “this initiative is a major economic development project for the state of Delaware” that will generate hundreds of jobs, etc.  

10/14/11, A15, Case for Bloom is undermined by the numbers, David Stevenson & John Stapleford (CRI) – Delaware policy makers seem to be engaging in wishful thinking about the Bloom venture, which will result in “needlessly higher energy costs for Delmarva Power ratepayers and the subsequent loss of jobs throughout Delaware.”  In short, “the project is a bad deal that won’t deliver as promised.”  (1) 900 employees assumes plant will operate at 100% of capacity, but 30% of capacity looks more like it for at least the first two years.  They will never get to 100% of capacity “because there will not be the constant flow of federal and state subsidies necessary to keep the firm functioning.”  (2) In 2010, it cost the federal and CA governments nearly $63M in subsidies to have Bloom produce just 10MW of fuel cells.  The capacity of the DE plant is supposed to be 80 MW of fuel cells.  Therefore, we could be talking half a billion dollars a year in subsidies, which is not going to happen in “this time of spending austerity.”  And about the Bloom business plan, it has already been made clear that the public will not be allowed to see it.  (3) DEDO’s exclusion of job losses from higher power costs “defies common sense and experience.”  Businesses cope with higher energy costs by cutting headcount.  “If one assumes a modest loss of 115 jobs from higher electricity costs in the first year of the Bloom deal, and then a steady decline of the annual loss to zero in year 16, Bloom’s impact on Delaware’s economy shifts from adding over 2,000 jobs to losing over 400 jobs. [We don’t understand these numbers. A loss of 115 jobs in year 1, 107 jobs in year 2, . . . 8 jobs in year 15, would seemingly add up to a cumulative job loss of about 950, which is less than the Bloom project would supposedly add.]

(4) Before imposing the long-term tariff, “due diligence calls for expert examination of the ultimate economic development cost of higher energy costs.” (5) This guaranteed, 21-year increase in electric rates, to be “borne solely by Delaware’s Delmarva Power customers (in itself a discriminatory tax), is a serious blow to household spending and to the expansion, retention and attraction of businesses.” (6) In his summer of 2008 Blueprint for Change, then candidate Markell said the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. How true. As shown by the Solyndra experience, “if a private project cannot pass muster in the capital markets without massive government subsidies, it makes no sense to simply forge ahead while putting the taxpayers at risk.”

10/13/11, A7, Second offshore wind lease is called imminent, Associated Press – In remarks at the windpower conference in Baltimore, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reported progress in reviewing environmental impact assessments for the proposed Bluewater project.  “We expect we will issue the second offshore wind lease within months, maybe within weeks.”  And get this, once Bluewater has a lease in hand it can then reportedly move forward with more detailed environmental reviews to try to get a construction permit.  The first offshore project approved was for Cape Wind up in New England waters; it is stalled, however, because Cape Wind has only found a buyer for half of the proposed power output.  Salazar reportedly said, “his agency was not giving up on the Cape Wind project and called on Congress to help spur the industry, saying it was at a crossroads. [Translation: without subsidies, these deals are dead.] 

10/13/11, A7, Rhode Island wind farm developer picks Siemens to supply turbines, Aaron Nathans – There is another New England wind power project, not yet through the permitting process, which would be built by Deepwater Wind in Block Island Sound.  Like Cape Wind, Deepwater proposes to buy the turbines from Siemens.  “With any luck,” said Deepwater’s CEO, Bill Moore, the project “will become the backbone of the offshore industry in the US.”  Reportedly, the output has been fully spoken for and this project will not be dependent on a federal loan guarantee.  Parent company NRG is said to be “exploring options beyond the loan guarantee program, which Congress largely defunded this year.”
 

10/13/11, A12, Bloom, Riverfront deals sure to hurt the public, Tom Pledgie (Dover) – The writer commends the News Journal staff for ferreting out “the complicated issues related to the ‘risk’ of private enterprise supported by government involvement in the Bloom Energy and Riverfront hotel initiatives.  To reduce risk and increase the likely certainty of a loss to the public on these projects, it is sarcastically suggested, maybe the governor should ask former governor Ruth Ann Minner and her old Department of Transportation “cronies” to handle the projects.

10/12/11, A8, Poll shows support for offshore wind, Aaron Nathans – Atlantic Wind Connection, a Google-backed organization planning an offshore “backbone” power line, released a poll that supposedly shows wide support in Delaware for offshore wind power.  Thus, the poll results indicate that 71% of Delaware voters “are willing to pay $5 more a month in utility bills to receive offshore wind power.”  Per Robert Mitchell, CEO of AWC: “This poll shows that residents of Delaware want a robust offshore wind industry and the jobs and economic opportunities that come with it.” [Then why is there so much opposition to the Bloom Energy deal?]

10/12/11, A8, PSC’s Bloom hearing moved to larger venue, Aaron Nathans – This report attributes the change to the level of interest in the Bloom Energy fuel cell tariff, making it desirable to move the hearing to the spacious House Chambers in Legislative Hall.  Hearing will start at 10:00 a.m.

10/12/11, A10, PSC should reject Bloom subsidies, Bonnie White (Wilmington) – “I do not think the Bloom box idea is a sound investment.  However, if the politicians want it so badly, they should pass a tax for it.  Then we can vote.”

10/11/11, A8, Delmarva customers being forced to invest, Sally Wein (Wilmington) –So far, the evidence shows only Delmarva and “Bloom” are in a win-win situation, and ratepayers are the lose-losers.

10/10/11, A10, Bloom Energy shouldn’t be forced on ratepayers, George M. Daniel Jr. (Newark) – I am a Delmarva Power consumer practically my entire life, and a retired person against a company that needs money from their ratepayers to start their business.  I have talked to no one that wants this Bloom Energy deal, but Gov. Jack Markell and government do.  They say the average Delawarean wants it and any credit towards the state’s renewable-energy purchase does not help me in the least.  Although those with money may be able to use such added write-offs. The economic development and opportunity should not be forced on DP&L ratepayers without their permission or by government edict such as with the BlueWater wind project.  Put it on a special ballot and let us vote on it.  How about government working for residents, the people, the voters, and not some businessman with a way to start a business at taxpayers’ or consumers’ expense with no potential loss for himself.  This is the same deal as Delmarva’s decoupling.  Residents have no say, government decides for our best interests, against what we really want or need.  The fact is any jobs will be split from a tri-state area and do nothing for the Delmarva consumer except cost them dearly on their electric bill.  With times getting worse, to support a company that may or may not be able to make it, should not be forced on electric ratepayers.  Let Bloom build his business as any other business.  Let government deal with governing for the people and not deciding to make us pay for something they can play as political rhetoric if it should succeed.

10/9/11, A1/A10, Big reward but “high risk;” Bloom’s 900 jobs put Delmarva customers on hook to pay, Aaron Nathans – This latest in a long series of stories about the Bloom venture offers two new numbers.  Now the average residential surcharge is said to be $1.40 per month over the 21 years, versus $1.00.  Also, the aggregate payment by Delmarva customers is pegged at $113M (before it was said to be $67M with an unspecified additional amount for business customers).  And a new consultants report (New Energy Opportunities Inc., La Capra Associates, Inc. and Birch Tree Associates LLC; lead author being Barry Sheingold of New Energy Opportunities) says the plan is filled with risks, most involving the linkage of incentives for Bloom to build the factory to higher electric bills Delmarva customers would be paying for 21 years.  Thus, if Bloom’s business failed to catch on and the plant closed, ratepayers would continue to pay the tariff.  But not to worry, said Bridget Shelton of Delmarva, as the payments would continue to count against Delmarva renewables purchase obligation. And look at all those jobs, etc. if things go well.  [No one really seems to get it.  Ratepayers get a sure thing, tariff payments for 21 years, whereas the visualized “big reward” goes to Bloom, Delmarva, and the state as a whole.]  Comments from Governor Jack Markell exude confidence that when the consultants and PSC commissioners have access to the information on Bloom’s business plan, they will be convinced that this is a good bet, etc.  Also, Bloom is pushing for quick approval so they can take advantage of a federal tax credit for renewable energy that expires at year-end.  [No critics of the Bloom venture are cited in this report, and we imagine the consultants will be seduced or pressured into supporting the project.  Here is a link to the consultant’s report. http://depsc.delaware.gov/electric/DPL Fuel Cell PSC Staff Comments.pdf]

10/9/11, A30, Bloom must make the case for state deal –  [In an initial editorial about the Bloom venture (Manufacturing deal gives state, UD a big boost, 6/10/11), the News Journal described the proposal as “a good thing” but not “a sure thing.”  Kudos were handed out to Governor Markell, UD President Harker, Delmarva Power President Stockbridge, and the state’s congressional delegation.]  Now we are told that “the Markell administration is asking Delawareans to gamble on its [whose?] future,” which is slightly more realistic.  But even this editorial says “the cells would produce low-cost electricity.” If that were true, there would be little reason to worry about whether there will be a market for Bloom’s fuel cells.  Re Governor Markell’s prediction that the members of the PSC will be convinced by Bloom’s business plan data when they see it, the News Journal adds a good point: “Let’s hope Bloom shares it with the public, too.”   

10/8/11, A1/A7, Refinery marks official restart: owners announce they might add $1B in new units; job numbers are uncertain, Jeff Montgomery – Formal reopening ceremony went off to mutual satisfaction of the business leader (Thomas O’Malley, chairman of PBF Holding Co.), politicians (Gov. Jack Markell, Senator Tom Carper), labor, and even (apparently) the environmentalists.  The reconfigured refinery is suitable for processing high sulfur crude oil, to produce 210K barrels per day of ultra-clean fuels.  Its opening coincides with the closing of several other refineries in the area, and remember that not so long ago the former Delaware City owner (Valero) was prepared to sell this facility for scrap if no bids materialized.  [Valero likely to be torn down, 1/10/10.]  Governor Markell reportedly saved the situation by locating O’Malley, who agreed to pay $220M for the refinery with several government grants and environmental concessions as a sweetener.  Senator Carper is credited with lobbying a former Senate colleague on the Valero board to support a deal with PBF after Valero initially balked.  Carper credits PBF and the companies considering joining in an expansion investment at the site with helping in US efforts to shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy.  “We’re not going to be free of our dependence on oil and coal any time soon, but what is so important is that we use them in a more environmentally responsible way.” [Good show, all the way around.]

10/8/11, A9, Fisker Karma impresses many at auto show, Eric Ruth – Photo: Man in sports jacket standing in front of a sleek looking auto: “Jeff Garland, senior leader of partnership and business development for Fisker Automotive, talks about the Karma on display at the Delaware Auto Show.”  From this story, the Karma was the star of the show, although “not everyone picks the Fisker as their dream car of the moment.”  Thus, Ann Jackson said the Audi R8 Supercar at $183,000 was even “better.”  “I’d like it even better if I got to drive it,” said her car show companion.  And Bob Riggio was drawn to the 6.2-liter V8 45th anniversary Camaro, which he much preferred to the other Chevy “boats” (pickups and SUVs). [It’s fine to look, but we doubt that any of these cars is what the average person wants to buy.] 

10/6/11, A12, Bloom proposal could be Del.’s own Solyndra, Kevin J. Sullivan (Newark) – Why should ratepayers already struggling with rising costs of living and stagnant income be “guinea pigs” for a company whose officials, according to Aaron Nathan’s Sept. 27 article, “declined by be interviewed” about the Bloom tariff?  “I bet they won’t decline to take the Fifth Amendment if and when they are investigated down the road, along with some of our politicos for corporate cronyism and other malpractices.”  Governor Markell, Rep. John Kowalko and others should know better.

10/4/11, A6, Researchers at UD will help design turbine plant, Aaron Nathans – Four years ago, a boat factory that specialized in composites such as fiber glass closed in Salisbury, MD.  AC Wind announced in March that it plans to spend $10M retrofitting the plant to make fiberglass wind turbine blades, employing about 200 people.  Md. turbine-blade plant planned, 3/8/11.  Now it is reported that UD researchers will help to design the factory, including process design, temperature and humidity control, crane hook heights, etc.  AC Wind President John Congedo views that as “a great opportunity” to “partner with some of the world’s leading experts on composites and manufacturing plant design.”  And for UD, it will be an opportunity to “pursue funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.”  Despite some “setbacks for offshore wind in recent months,” Congedo predicts, “the industry’s going to be there.” [It all depends on the government subsidies, we’ll see.]

10/4/11, A8, Hard to believe global warming is all our fault, John Hanel (Wilmington) – The writer recites some field experience, e.g., a decade driving a van for elder hostels in Yellowstone National Park and volunteering at the Museum of the Rockies.  Obviously, he is no hater of the environment.  He goes on to say Yellowstone was covered by a glacier only 12,000 years ago, and there was a land bridge between Asia and North America because all the land ice had lowered sea levels.  Granted, things have gotten warmer since then, but how likely is it that mankind is totally (or even largely) responsible? [Good point, well made.]

10/2/11, F1/F3, Residents, government split on Bloom deal; Delawareans voice opposition at hearings, Aaron Nathans – Side shot of ten people sitting in three rows, with a number of empty seats: “Audience members listen during a public comment session [which one?] on the plan to charge Delmarva Power customers for Bloom Energy’s fuel-cell plant before the Public Service Commission in Wilmington.” This wrap-up story on the Bloom tariff sessions, reported on in three previous issues of the News Journal, compares the recent activity to the history of another project.  In the Bluewater Wind case, “Government moved slowly” to embrace the project “but citizen activists flocked to its defense at public comment sessions, sparking strong support by lawmakers and the Public Service Commission.”  Government officials have led the charge for the Bloom proposal, while attendees at the public comment sessions, “many of whom identify as conservatives [shudder],” were for the most part critical.  Also, the PSC “reports receiving about 100 e-mails on the subject, the substantial majority opposed.”  The article goes on to cite comments by three supporters or potential supporters of the Bloom Energy deal: (A) Pro-Bluewater citizen activist John Austin, a retired environmental scientist from Rehoboth Beach, reportedly “likes the jobs and the environmentally friendlier technology,” but is “worried about using natural gas extracted by the controversial ‘fracking’ method, and the higher costs being borne by customers of just one utility.” [Ho, hum.] (B) Brian Selander (a spokesman for Governor Jack Markell) rationalizes that the negative public comments do not speak for the public at large.  “People who are upset about something are significantly more likely to head out in the rain or pick up the phone to air a grievance, than someone who is generally supportive or content with an idea.”  Remember that representatives of large numbers of people, like the Chamber of Commerce and the state’s congressional delegation, showed their support at the hearings. [Shades of President Nixon’s “silent majority” speech in 1969.]  (C) State Public Advocate Michael Sheehy, who represents ratepayers in front of the PSC [but may not actually listen to what they have to say], is reported to have said yesterday that “he would support the Bloom tariff, with reservations.” Economic development potential is a big plus, and the deal will diversify Delmarva’s clean power portfolio. On the other hand, why should 70% of the state’s citizens foot the entire bill?  Unpredictability of cost to ratepayers is also a concern, but not to worry -- Delmarva customers would get the value in the form of credit towards Delmarva’s state renewable-energy purchase requirements. [This last point is wrong. Delmarva would receive the economic value of these credits, whatever it may prove to be, with no obligation to pass the value on to the ratepayers.] And what happens if Bloom goes out of business? [Presumably the tariff would stop; that would be OK.]  On balance, the opportunity [for Bloom] outweighs the risks [certainty of cost without benefit for Delmarva customers].  “If the economic development opportunity comes to fruition, this is one heck of a good deal for the state.” [This is hopelessly one-sided coverage.  One might speculate that the editors stripped out all comments by critics of the Bloom venture/tariff, e.g., those reflected in the following recap by the 9/12 Patriots: http://bit.ly/qH5Z0K]

10/2/11, F1/F3, Carmakers hope show gets motors running; new technologies seen as way to boost sales, Jonathan Starkey – This story headlines downsized conventional vehicles, e.g., “Carman Auto Group will be on hand with a trio of Italian-made Fiats 500 models with compact cars now on sale at the company’s new location on US 13 in New Castle, where it replaced a defunct Hummer dealership.” Disappointingly, Carman is selling 18-20 Fiat models a month vs. a target of 25, possibly due to continued economic malaise.  “Union Park Automotive plans to bring a $100,000 Fisker Karma to the show, which runs 50 miles on battery power after a full electric charge before the gasoline-powered motor kicks in and provides current for 250 miles of additional range.  Current drivers include actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former Secretary of State Colin Powell [also a member of the Bloom Energy board].  And lest it be forgotten, the story of how Fisker plans to make a less expensive version in Delaware is repeated for the umpteenth time by the News Journal.  The Chevy Volt will be on display/ but there will be no Nissan Leaf in these parts until January.  Admission charge for the show: $10 per person, children free. [Query: is this story representative of the interests of the motoring public, or for that matter of the full range of vehicles to be displayed at the show.  We suspect “green” bias in the coverage.]

10/1/11, A1/A5, DelTech to use $5 million grant to help workers close skills gap, Wade Malcolm – Delaware Technical & Community College plans to use a $5M federal grant to create six new instructional programs, most of which will invest in educating students for renewable energy or green technology jobs that will hopefully be created by Fisker Automotive, Bloom Energy, and solar power ventures in the state.  This “windfall” was part of about $500M in funds awarded to community colleges nationwide this week.  About $905K of the grant will to toward enhancing curriculum in core subjects like reading and math.  [We don’t think these grants should be dished out in the first place, but directing most of the money towards government-subsidized ventures makes the program seem even more questionable.]

10/1/11, A6, Dover must disclose solar price; Redacted SunPark contract released in full after complaint, Aaron Nathans – Dover powers up solar farm, 8/18/11, noted the refusal of Dover city officials to reveal the cost of purchased solar power. Now, after the Delaware Attorney General’s office concluded that the arrangement was subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements, an unredacted version of the solar power purchase contract has been released.  The News Journal is reviewing this complex 68-page document and “will report on its contents next week.” [We can hardly wait!]

10/1/11, A7, Feds approve four more solar loans; controversial program does out nearly $5B, Matthew Daly (AP) – Why controversial?  Solyndra just went bankrupt, resulting in a big taxpayer loss, and other solar panel makers are on the ropes.  But never let “free” money go to waste, and the legislative authority (via the 2009 economic stimulus package) was about to lapse, so Energy Secretary Steven Chu et al. moved ahead with the following loan guarantees:  (A) $1.5B, 550 MW, southern California; (B) $646M, 230 MW, near Los Angeles; (C) $1.2B, 250 MW, in California; (D) $1.4B, support installation of about 750 solar rooftop panel [installations] in 28 states.  [According to the Washington Post, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of a House energy subcommittee that is investigating Solyndra, called the rush to approve loans unseemly. http://wapo.st/ojFH35]

9/30/11, A8, Bloom a hit; subsidy plan isn’t: Sussex County residents express support for new jobs, but not Delmarva surcharge, Molly Murray – About 50 people attended the third comment session on the proposed Bloom Energy tariff, and most of the attendees were apparently not buying.  Although DEDO Director Alan Levin expressed his belief that the “benefits far exceed the risks,” everyone else who is quoted was skeptical. (A) David Stevenson of Caesar Rodney Institute questions several assumptions that are part of the tariff application.  With the same amount of money, he suggested, one could build a larger-capacity, conventional power plant that would have similar environmental benefits.  (B) Steve Smith, who runs the nonprofit Christian Warehouse in Millsboro: “If it’s such a wonderful idea . . . take it up to Wall Street.”  But his organization is already struggling to help families having trouble meeting electric bills, and any added costs would hurt.  (C) Matthew Opaliski: “If it [the Bloom Energy proposal] was a private venture, I’d be patting you guys on the back.  I’d like to see all the subsidies end.”

9/29/11, A1/A7, NCCCo residents face off on Bloom deal; Sides debate project’s benefit, cost, Eric Ruth – Head and shoulders shot of witness at the microphone (p.1): “Bernard August speaks against the Bloom Energy project during a public comment session at the Carvel State Office Building in Wilmington.” Smaller headshot (p. 7):  “David Hunt believes the stakes are too high to fret over higher bills.” Lively exchange of views reported at the second of three scheduled public comment sessions: (A) Rep. John Kowalko (D-Newark): “We are hemorrhaging jobs.  I’ve come to the conclusion that it is going to be successful and it will be worth the risk [of the ratepayers’ money] we are taking.” (B) Jason Meirath, Brandywine Hundred: “It’s a step in the right direction [environmentally speaking].  Secondly, the economic benefits are great.  I think it’s a no-brainer.”  (C) Others pointed to the General Assembly’s “stretch” in classifying energy produced by the gas-powered fuel cells as “renewable.” (D) Rich Chatten, Pike Creek: Natural gas prices could go up, inflating the cost.  “I’m not in favor of being on the leading, bleeding edge of an experiment.”  (E) Bruce Bachman, Wilmington said small businesses would be hard hit by extra costs. “In my experience, this is a no-brainer.  It fails.  Fundamentally, it’s a tax, a tax on Delmarva ratepayers, so it’s discriminatory . . . How is that fair?  How is that legal?”  (F) David Hunt, Wilmington.  “I’m willing to pay $12 a year for cleaner air.” [See SAFE’s statement on the issue: http://www.s-a-f-e.org/contacting_legislators_2011.htm#092811]

9/28/11, A10, Kent residents question Bloom Energy deal; PSC hold statewide hearing on subsidy for fuel-cell manufacturer, Aaron Nathans – Puts attendance of Dover session (two more will follow in Sussex and New Castle Counties) at 50.  Cites comments by: (A) Bruce Clark, Kenton chicken farmer and Delmarva customer says he already spends over $50K per year on electricity and is (reporter’s words) “wary of taking on a larger burden.”  Worries that Bloom venture may turn out to be another Solyndra. “We don’t want any surprises down the road.”  (B) Deborah Tucker of Camden-Wyoming said, “You’re giving me no returns.” (C) Ronald Timmons of Middletown is tired of hearing that alternative energy programs will only cost “a few dollars a month” because “it adds up.”  Also, the process was moving too fast, like an auto salesman saying “you’ve got to buy it tonight.”  (D) Representatives of Markell’s administration (Levin, O’Mara], UD, and Delmarva Power “spoke in favor of the plan.” (E) Open government advocate John Flaherty said the jobs were worth the risk and compromise on renewable energy definition.  [John Nichols was present and testified at length; his comments are not mentioned.] 

9/28/11, A10, Google to brighten up homes; $75M will fund 3,000 residential solar installations, Jonathan Fahey (AP) – Good old Google “wants to buy solar panels for your house.”  The typical residential installation cost $25-30K.  All they want in return is (1) a monthly fee from the homeowner to recover the up front cost with interest (supposedly will cost less than their power bill savings), plus (2) federal and state renewable energy subsidies.  [Would the venture fail without those subsidies?  The article does not say.]

9/27/11, A1/A6, Public gets first opportunity to weigh in on Bloom subsidy, Aaron Nathans – The main point seems to be that the centralized use of Bloom fuel cells to generate power for the grid would contrary to the traditional approach of selling Bloom “boxes” (fuel cell arrays) to large power users as insurance against interruptions in power from the grid.  Some observers question the “utility model.”  Estimated Bloom tariff is inexplicably reduced from recent reports: “the utility estimates [it] will cost about $1 a month for the next 21 years.”

9/27/11, A7, Study questions value of e-cars; hybrids, plug-ins more efficient, Alan Ohnsman (AP) – Prof. Jeremy Michalek of Carnegie Mellon, who led the review: “It’s not that large battery packs are bad, it’s that they are not providing as many benefits per dollar.  Ordinary hybrids increase fuel economy substantially, and the incremental costs of those systems is getting relatively small.”  Toyota plans a plug-in version of Prius that will travel 15 miles on electricity before the gasoline engine kicks in.  The car will have a $32,000 base price before a $2,500 federal tax credit.  The current Prius, which averages 50 mpg, doesn’t qualify for a federal tax credit.  Higher-priced Nissan Leafs or Chevy Volts would require tax credits of up to $7,500 in order to maybe be competitive. [And don’t forget diesel cars, which get federal tax credits and have great, worry-free performance and also average about 50 mpg.] 

9/27/11, A7, Huge solar-power farm for Fla. Panhandle – National Solar Power plans to construct a $1.5B, 400-megawatt solar array just west of Tallahassee.  400 construction workers over 5 years and “up to 120 permanent employees with an average salary of $40,000”.  [No discussion of government mandates and/or subsidies, nor of the cost of the solar power vs. other sources.] 

9/27/11, A14, Delaware’s deal with Bloom Energy looks like no bargain, Penny Atkins – Column takes a nuanced (there are pros & cons) view.  DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara is identified as the architect of the centralized generation aspect of the Bloom venture; he reportedly pitched it to Bloom executives vs. the other way around.  Atkins concludes: “I approve of emerging new technology when there is a proven market and where it is economically viable, but I worry that in a rush to gain job creation, Delawareans will find themselves with a scandal like the failed Solyndra solar-energy deal on our hands.  Concerned citizens and cautious legislators should do the math and ask pertinent questions.” [Yes, of course, but what are the “pertinent questions”?]

9/27/11, B1/B3, Power Play; UD, NRG team to tap vehicles for energy, Jeff Montgomery – Medium size profile headshot, with half images of two other people: “UD Professor Willett Kempton is all smiles Monday as the joint venture is announced.  He pioneered the concept and patented a leading-edge vehicle-to-grid technology that will be the foundation of the study.”

Joint venture between UD and energy supplier NRG, to be known as “eV2g.”  The concept: “developing safe and reliable “vehicle-to-grid” hookups, managed by a system that continuously evaluates grid needs and assembles or ‘aggregates’ power from enough electric vehicle sources to supply those needs.” Supposedly, “efficient use of stored but unused electricity in the batteries of parked vehicles can help regional electricity systems manage sudden spikes in electricity demand or abrupt falloffs in supplies from other sources.”  [We are not big fans of electric cars to begin with, but one would think the owners would not want to see the power they are relying on to get them from A to B diverted to the grid by a computer in a remote location.  Also, government grants are not mentioned, but they are almost surely in the picture somewhere.]

9/26/11, A7, Fracking fight becomes a war of exaggeration: both sides twist data to serve their own interests, Kevin Begos (AP) – Duke University biologist Rob Jackson coauthored a report that went viral in May, showing that residential water wells near drilling operations in the Marcellus Shale “had disturbingly high rates of methane contamination.”  Fracking opponents avidly embraced the report.  However, the study found no evidence of fracking chemicals in the well water. Also, there are many abandoned gas wells in PA, where drilling for oil and gas dates back to 1859, and the state Department of Environmental Protection says “thousands of these old wells were probably improperly plugged and no one even knows where many of them are.”  DEP Secretary Michael Krancer has further criticized the Duke researchers for an editorial saying they “would like to see shale gas become largely unnecessary” in the future [presumably an indication that they favor wind, solar, or possibly nuclear power instead]. 

9/25/11, A1/A2, Despite evidence, US desire to deny global warming deepens, Charles Hanley (AP) – Nearly a page of propaganda about the manmade global warming theory, albeit mainly on page 2, and most if not all of the claims have been published by the News Journal before.  Why is this news? An introductory editor’s note explains:  “Climate change has already provoked debate in a US presidential campaign barely begun.  An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer an retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny.” In other words, the story is made newsworthy by setting up an adversary (the doubters and deniers) to attack. 

Two pictures set the stage: (A) Small headshot of Professor Wally Broecker, a Columbia University geoscientist who used the term “global warming” in a report for the US journal Science in 1975.  “Eventually, it’ll become damned clear that the Earth it warming, and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years.” (B) Big picture of demonstrators against the “cap and trade” bill, June 2009 rally, Charleston, WVa, with the most prominent individual being blonde woman in pants and a sleeveless blouse brandishing a “No! to Cap & Tax” sign.  “The bill ultimately failed, and many Americans have hardened their stance on climate change.”

Some charges against the supposedly clueless opposition: “In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist.  They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well.  They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong.  And they carom from one explanation to another for today’s warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.”  And did you know that most of them are Republicans and/or conservatives.  Denial “feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad.”  But Al Gore remains upbeat, observing that “ferocity” in defense of false beliefs often increases “as the evidence proving them false builds.”

[The global warming alarmists seem to think any change is bad; none of the alleged trends is reported to have any redeeming features, e.g., increased CO2 in the atmosphere might possibly facilitate agriculture to feed the Earth’s growing population; and a summertime sea passageway through the Arctic might come in handy.  A halt in the global warming trend over about the past 10 years is conveniently ignored.  The cosmic ray theory may sound bizarre, but it has recently received a major boost from research at the CERN particle physics lab in Geneva, Switzerland.  Washington Times,  8/30/11, http://bit.ly/oI0nMH. In sum, the alarmists are the ones with their heads in the sand.]

9/25/11, A19, Fisker advertisement – Approximately ½ page ad, opening with the caption “ELECTRIFYING” over a picture of 2012 Fisker Karma, an undeniably sleek and attractive looking automobile (for approximately $100K, it should be).  The vehicle may be inspected at the 2011 Delaware Auto Show, Oct. 7-9. [Nice to see a paid advertisement for a change, we have no trouble with Fisker’s activities so long as they are not subsidized.]

9/25/11, F1, Beware of government’s employment numbers, Jonathan Starkey – Reprises 9/23/11 story to effect that proposed cuts in car technology funds will not affect the already closed Fisker loan, but adds a thought about “green job” numbers.  The DOE Website says Fisker loan has created or saved 2,000 jobs, yet there are currently fewer than 100 people working at the plant in Delaware (however, hundreds are working at Fisker’s headquarters in California).  Fisker does hope to ramp up DE employment to as high as 2,500 people but “that may depend on the company meeting its volume projections of 100,000+ sales a year.”

9/23/11, A12, Energy efficiency programs halted; Nonprofit committed to more in rebates than was budgeted, Aaron Nathans – “Home Performance with Energy Star and Efficiency Plus Business Program, both designed to improve buildings’ energy efficiency, were stopped after Sustainable Energy Utility officials realized they [had] made too many promises.”  Most of the money was supposed to come from “federal stimulus funds,” with “a small portion” from RGGI proceeds.  The SEU will apparently make up the shortfall ($4M residential, $1M business) for existing commitments, according to DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara who is on the SEU board.  Putting a positive spin on the situation, O’Mara said “the programs ended up being much more successful, much more quickly than we anticipated.”  [The lure of “free money” should never be underestimated.]

9/23/11, A12, Wind energy company surveying off RI coast, AP – Deepwater Wind is surveying the seafloor for possible sites for wind turbines and transmission lines.  It will use “several vessels equipped with high-tech sensors to create a 3-D map.” [Wow, what a story!]

9/23/11, A13, Proposed cuts won’t affect Fisker loan; car technology funds face recapture, Jonathan Starkey – There is a move afoot in DC to cut up to $1.5B from DOE’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program, but Fisker’s loan for its electric car venture at the old Boxwood plant in Delaware was closed in April 2010 and would reportedly not be affected.  As for the broader issue, Rep. John Carney and “dozens of other Democrats” are opposing cuts to the program.  They signed a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that stated, among other things, that many states with higher than average unemployment “are badly in need for the kind of good paying jobs these loans will create.”  Senator Tom Carper calls the loan program a “smart investment,” and characterized the proposed cuts as “penny-wise and pound-foolish.” [If electric cars made economic sense, they would not need to be subsidized.]

9/23/11, Turning off power has Big Brother implications, Ernie Lehman (Newark) – Reacting to the 9/18 article on decoupling, the writer slams the idea that Delmarva (rather than he) should be empowered to cut off his air conditioning system in order to save money on his electric bill.  Furthermore, “it’s remarkably socialist of Delmarva to request decoupling in this age of conservation because they need protection against the resulting loss in revenue.”

9/22/11, A1/A13, Smog rules cause outcry; Del. wants tighter laws; Wilmington area ranked poorly, Jeff Montgomery – “State health and environmental officials joined with citizen groups Wednesday in calling on President Barack Obama to reconsider postponement of new and tougher national smog standards.”  (A) DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara.  Huge problem for Delaware . . . 90% of “pollution we breathe in Delaware comes from other states on some days”

. . . federal action needed to force “reductions by upwind sources;” (B) State Health and Social Services Secretary Rita Landgraf.  The Markell Administration is sensitive [of course] to the burden of environmental regulations.   However, “clean air” is a critical health problem, especially in urban areas, “that we need to address in the most meaningful way.” Impact on medically compromised individuals . . . the very young . . . the very old . . . infant mortality and low birth weight issues, especially among minority populations . . . smog can irritate and even burn sensitive long tissues and, at high levels, can damage crops.   (C) Brenna Goggin, Delaware Nature Society.  “These standards have been delayed far too long as it is, and as someone who personally struggles with asthma, it’s disappointing.”  To keep delaying the protection of people and the cleanup of the environment “doesn’t make business sense.”

            “The public statements coincided with release of a new report [by Environment America] that ranked the Wilmington-Newark area fifth among mid-sized cities nationwide for the number of days [18] when smog reached unhealthy levels in 2010.”  Reduce the ozone standard below 75 parts per billion, and the number of unhealthy days would go up. Michael Tracht, a “federal field associate” for the organization, says the study “rose to unhealthy levels on 12 additional days last year, based on the 60 to 70 ppb standard postponed by the White House, but residents were never warned of the risk.” [In other words, keep lowering the standard to ensure the alleged problem can never be solved.]

            Speaking for the business community [sort of], Richard Heffron of the state Chamber of Commerce said Delaware’s air quality concerns are complex.  DE has repeatedly urged federal regulators to require emission controls in other states, which of course would place burdens there versus here.  OK, “we’re tied in with the national economy . . . look closely at regulations and how they affect business, but this issue in particular is a little different for Delaware.” 

9/20/11, A10, State wooing start-up Calif. fuel-cell firm, Jonathan Starkey – OH-Energy was co-founded by Yushan Yan, who is an investor but holds no management position.  A “star professor” at the University of Delaware, Yan is setting up lab space at the Delaware Technology Park campus in Newark. He was recently “lured away” from the University of California-Riverside; seven doctoral candidates and nine post-doctoral researchers “are following him to Delaware.”  OH-Energy and its CEO Joe Raguso have “been in talks to move into vacant space in Rochester, NY,” but Alan Levin of DEDO, and Colin O’Mara of DNREC would like the fuel-cell materials firm to locate in Delaware near Yan’s research team. [Stay tuned for an announcement of DE subsidies.  OH-Energy is probably the firm recently mentioned by Senator Chris Coons. Coons hosts roundtables for area business leaders, 9/1/11.]

9/19/11, A8, Utilities group signs deal for wind power; Land-based project is seen as hedge against Bluewater, Aaron Nathans – Delaware Municipal Electric Corp. has signed a deal with Duke Energy Renewables for the output of a 69-megawatt wind facility in Lycoming County, PA.  It will buy the energy and renewable energy credits from the project to 25 years, coming on line in late 2012 “just before DEMEC is required by the state to buy renewable energy.”  DEMEC also has a contract with the Dover SunPark and with Bluewater Wind if it ever gets going. [Note: If and when people come to their senses about the manmade global warming theory and what to do about it, there will be many uneconomic power projects/purchase contracts in place.  This boil needs to be lanced as soon as possible to minimize the damage.]

9/19/11, A10, GOP dishonestly ignores climate change effects, Fred Schueler (Newark) – The writer likens “willful ignorance” of the manmade global warming threat to “those politicians in the 30’s in England who did not see the rise of Hitler in Germany.”  He blames this alleged failing on “a lot of right-wing politicians” who are supposedly turning a blind eye to “the huge, impending problems caused by global climate change.” [The possibility that “the facts” may be otherwise than the global warming alarmists claim is not mentioned.]

9/18/11, A26, Taxpayers will be paying for Bloom for a long time, George Jurgensen (New London, PA) – Subsidizing Bloom Energy deal to the tune of $70 million does not make sense; politicians should have stayed home. [For full text, see SAFE letters.]

9/18/11, D1, Municipal electric provider skeptical of Bloom deal, Aaron Nathans – Reports comments of Patrick McCullar, CEO of the Delaware Municipal Electric Corp, a co-op that represents the state’s nine municipal utilities, including Newark, Dover and Smyrna. Bloom deal with Delmarva will allow it to supply the regional grid with 30 megawatts of natural gas-powered fuel cell electricity, with an “unpredictable surcharge on Delmarva Power that would fluctuate with natural gas prices, renewable-energy credits and other factors.”  According to McCullar, he could not sell such a deal to ratepayers.  “Typically, uncertain rate contracts tend to be more expensive.  When someone doesn’t want to commit to a fixed cost, that’s a red flag.”  Also, McCullar reportedly foresees “an uphill climb for Bloom’s deal with Delmarva in front of the Public Service Commission.”

9/18/11, D1/D4, Decoupling still faces opposition at meetings: the poor would be hurt, opponents say, Aaron Nathans – Delmarva Power supports decoupling as a means of ending the need for high volumes of usage to generate a plentiful revenue stream.  “That, in theory, would make the utility more enthusiastic to help its customers conserve.”  But Rep. John Kowalko (D-Newark) says decoupling would only serve to guarantee Delmarva’s profits.  Meanwhile, a larger portion of its billings would be “a fee that stays the same no matter how much gas or electricity they consume,” thereby reducing the incentive for customers to save money by using less energy.  The make “cost-causers” pay counterargument is that small electric users are proportionately more expensive to serve than big users, and are currently not paying their fair share of electric line maintenance, etc. [Subject to a review of the data, Kowalko’s argument seems sound to us.]  

The PSC stripped the decoupling concept out of Delmarva’s electric and gas rate cases earlier this year after “about 40 people packed a PSC hearing room” to argue against it.   Utility officials, PSC staff and the Public Advocate’s Office have since started a series of workshops (the first was on August 29), which are apparently intended to “educate” the public about this new billing approach.  Also, Delmarva is touting two programs (expected to “be in place” by early 2012) that would encourage reduced power consumption in a manner that would supposedly benefit its customers.  (A)  Air-conditioner cycling program, to be made available on an opt-in basis.  Customers would receive a discount in return for allowing the company to turn their air conditioning off and on during periods of peak demand.  (B) Differential rates for power at peak and off-peak demand times.  Customers would be automatically enrolled, but could opt out.  [We have reservations about both ideas, which might well be made mandatory in the future as the failure to expand affordable energy output starts to bite.  But leaving that aside, neither idea justifies decoupling – both would be less effective with decoupling than without it.]   

            The next workshop is scheduled for Oct. 25 (10 a.m., PSC’s Dover offices, 861 Silver Lake Blvd. Open to the public, but those who want to be “full participants” should ask the PSC about intervenor status.  Call 736-7500 by Oct. 5.

9/16/11, A6, Delmarva gives wind developer extension: NRG Bluewater has until Dec. 31, to pay, Aaron Nathans – The saga of NRG’s deadline to make a contractual payment to Delmarva continues.  See 9/12 entry (Bluewater’s contract delay proves futile) for the back-story.  Now the two required payments have been consolidated in a single payment of $4M, which NRG must make by December 31 in order to proceed with the offshore wind-power project. According to a Delmarva representative, “NRG feels confident that it will have the funding that it needs to proceed by the end of the year, and we’re going to take their word for it.” [Halleluiah!]  Meanwhile, Delaware’s congressional delegation and Gov. Jack Markell have written to the president asking that the Bluewater project be identified as a high-priority infrastructure project.  Such action would reportedly expedite the federal permit reviews. [What a misguided effort to saddle consumers with a unreliable, uneconomic power source.  Get the politicians out of this and let the market decide.]

9/15/11, A1/A2, GOP questioning whether solar loan was rushed for Biden visit; loan was rushed for Biden visit, Nicole Gaudiano – Updates 9/9/11 story, Solar company [Solyndra] offices searched.  The added element in the situation is a House Republican report that cites White House e-mails showing concern as to whether OMB would approve the proposed loan guarantees for the now insolvent solar panel maker before a September 2009 site visit by the vice president.  [The implication is that the loan guarantees were rushed through for political reasons without dotting all the I’s and crossing all the T’s.] 

9/15/11, Politics still influencing environmental decisions – Reprises “Politics keeps Delaware’s air dirty”, a 9/4/11 editorial.  Thus, the president’s decision to “put off imposing Environmental Protection Agency clean air regulations” is cited as an illustration of the broader theme that (per a National Journal report) “more and more capital insiders expect the Obama Administration to simply ditch controversial environmental regulations.” Granted, “the government can be slow and costly when it comes to rules that clean the air we breathe and the water we drink.  The problem is to fix the process, not junk it.” [The EPA’s cost doesn’t matter approach must go, and we have seen few signs of progress thus far.  Postponing lower ozone standards was merely a tactical retreat.]

9/13/11, A6, Fisker put to the test: people take Karma for a spin under effort to rev up sales, Jonathan Starkey – Article covers maybe 30% of the page, including a big color picture of the white model with a politician at the wheel.  “Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., returns a Fisker Karma to Union Park Automotive Group after a test drive Monday.”  The dealership also has a black model of the $100,000 sedan “allowing deposit-holders and politicians to take the cars for spin.”  The article mentions the Fisker investment at the former Boxwood plant, and positive comments by several test drivers.  Senator Carper is quoted that “we need to build things in America.” [This is free advertising, not news.  Fisker story has been relentlessly over-reported.]

9/13/11, A6, California pares back fuel-cell subsidies, Aaron Nathans – Last year, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee, Bloom Energy and its customers garnered $215.8M in subsidies from California, representing about 2/3 of the state’s Self-Generation Incentive Program.  But now the California Public Service Commission is reportedly paring back the incentives that will be available including “capping the per-project subsidy, and banning the use of out-of-state biogas as fuel.” [No wonder Bloom Energy is diversifying geographically.]

9/13/11, A7, Nuke commission wants plant risk re-evaluated now; improved blackout responses, disaster readiness reviews urged, Matthew Daly (AP) – See 9/4/11, Input sought on nuke risk study, by Jeff Montgomery.  This article does not add much to the earlier one; it simply recaps a NRC staff report on same subject.  The article does note that the North Anna nuclear plant in Virginia, automatically shutdown by the recent 5.8 earthquake, is still offline even though the plant’s two reactors did not “appear to sustain serious damage.”   Still unclear what the regulatory fallout will be for US nuclear power plants in general.  [It has been predicted elsewhere that the upshot will be to block new plants from being built while keeping existing plants going indefinitely.  WSJ, 9/8/11, link not available.  This would block technological progress in the industry, now using 30-year old designs, which would be unfortunate.] 

9/12/11, A10/A11, Bluewater’s contract delay proves futile in changing law: Parent NRG must exit before Sept. 23 to avoid payment, Aaron Nathans –  This updates 6/24/11, NRG delays Bluewater Wind farm decision.  The three-month extension for an NRG payment under the Bluewater contract will expire in two weeks, and guess what.  Congress remains divided, the loan guarantee program is still up in the air, and it is unclear whether NRG will make the $2.75M commitment or back away from the contract.  Governor Jack Markell reportedly supports moving forward with the project, “but recognizes that decision largely rests with NRG and Delmarva.”

9/11/11, C1/C2, Power usage likely to fall: demand leveling off thanks to efficiency, Jonathan Fahey (AP) – “Over the next decade, experts expect residential power to fall, reversing an upward trend that has been almost uninterrupted since Thomas Edison invented the modern light bulb.”  More efficient types of lighting – electric devices of all kinds getting much more efficient – new homes being built to use less juice – government subsidies for home energy savings programs – tough economy and a weak housing market.  So power companies are finding ways to profit when people use less power, which means requesting regulatory changes so they can charge higher rates while helping customers further reduce consumption.  “There will continue to be a need for new plants, however, as existing facilities age.” And “experts caution that home electricity demand could begin to grow again if power hungry devices that have yet to be imagined catch on, or if a device already imagined – the electric car – goes mainstream.”  Falling power usage is by implication a “good thing,” as suggested by this closing quote of Ed White, National Grid (a New England/NY utility, http://bit.ly/BssGg): “Some do it for green reasons, some for money.  We don’t care why they are doing it, so long as they are doing it.” [Actually, it matters a lot why power usage is falling.  To the extent that it reflects individual decisions, fine, but  most of the aforementioned factors are based on (1) a hopefully temporary economic slump, and/or (2) government coercion or bribes intended to drive up the cost of electricity so less of it will get used.  This country neither needs nor wants a managed economy, which is precisely what the “green lobby” is aiming for.]

9/11/11, Bloom hearings fall on major Jewish holiday, Aaron Nathans – Comment sessions on the Bloom Energy tariff will be “the highest-profile case to come before the Public Service Commission in several years.”  They were previously scheduled on the evenings of Sept. 27-29 in three different venues around the state.  Now someone noticed that Rosh Hashanah starts at sundown on Sept. 28 and continues for 24 (or 48) hours.  PSC Executive Director Bill O’Brien is reluctant to change the hearing dates, but promises accommodation for “anyone who cannot make a public comment session because of the holiday.”  Written comments can be submitted, of course, and possibly a fourth date will be designated.  Anyone can comment the case manager, Kevin Neilson, at 736-7500. 

9/10/11, A7, UD’s offshore wind studies get boost, Aaron Nathans – UD researchers may receive about $1 million from the DOE for offshore wind studies, the department announced. It seems that DOE has announced conditional grants of $43M that would be spent over the next five years, as part of “an array of stipends from the federal agency” spread across 41 projects in 20 states.  However, “the funding is subject to congressional appropriations.” [Let’s hope Congress wises up and pulls the plug for this type of activity on the taxpayer’s dime.]

9/9/11, A10, Sunoco’s refinery exit may not mean costlier gas, Aaron Nathans – Jim Lardear, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, is quoted for the proposition that Sunoco’s departure from the refinery business will not necessarily hurt the local gas market.  He suggests that “the petroleum fuel market is increasingly global,” so local competitors or competitively priced fuel imports can pick up the slack.  He also says northeast refining capacity outstripped demand in this area.  [So fine, who cares what happens to the US and regional economy?  And how can one deny that regulatory restrictions are driving up gas prices?  It’s Economics 101 that business must cover their costs or go out of business.]

9/9/11, A10, Solar company offices searched: Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving $535 million in loan guarantees, Jason Dearen (AP) – A year ago the president visited solar-panel maker Solyndra in California, which was then considered a “green” energy success story. Less than two months ago, according to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), CEO Brian Harrison assured lawmakers that the company was in a strong financial position. Now the FBI is visiting for the purpose of investigating what happened to the proceeds of over $500M in federally guaranteed loans that the company issued before filing in bankruptcy. [Whether or not laws were broken, government-supported ventures of this nature are unwise.]  

9/9/11, A11, GOP pipeline bill would block safety reforms; proposal prohibits certain inspection requirements, Joan Lowy – A 9/9/10 gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, CA, killed eight people and inured 58 others.  It also destroyed 38 homes and damaged 70 others.  Weak oversight by federal and state regulators contributed to the accident, according to a report last week by the National Transportation Safety Board. House Republicans are supposedly blocking tighter regulation by supporting legislation that would direct the agencies involved to study the issues (inspection requirements and gas leak detection standards) and “come back with findings in a year or two.”  Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) is quoted that the bill would improve safety, enhance reliability and provide regulatory certainty “that will help create new jobs.”  The bill is silent, however, on some of the NTSB’s recommendations including a requirement for the installation of automatic shut-off valves on existing transmission lines in densely populated areas.  [We have no idea what the right answers are, except that a balancing of costs and risks is needed.  All too often, regulators tend to ignore costs.  Congress should not let them get away with it.] 

9/9/11, A11, EPA’s [Gina] McCarthy opposes bills to delay cement, boiler rules, Bloomberg News – Of course the proposed regulations could not result in job losses, says the witness in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, because the rules were originally intended to be final in 2000 and should therefore be in effect already.  Indeed, “we believe there would be job growth.”  However, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) says proposed legislation would “allow – in fact, require – that new emissions controls be implemented,” but do so in a way that would “replace unrealistic targets and timetables with achievable ones.” [Good for Rep. Whitfield, it’s about time Congress took an interest in this sort of issue.]

9/9/11, A13, Bloom and Delaware’s energy future, DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara – The writer begins with several paragraphs about Delaware’s “steady progress” in “cleaning up and modernizing our energy system by focusing on improving reliability, cost-effectiveness, and environmental and public health outcomes.” Then he gets to the point of the column – where Bloom Energy fits into “Delaware’s clean energy future” – which was presumably prompted by criticisms of environmentalists that the Bloom fuel cells are not truly “renewable” energy sources, but simply another way to produce energy from fossil fuel.  O’Mara’s answer is that the Bloom “boxes” offer the best of both worlds, being “both reliable and clean.”  (A) Reliable: Technology outperforms traditional fossil fuel base-load generation.  Can be located near load centers, and thereby avoid typical transmission and distribution losses associated with centralized generation.  Helps to improve the resiliency of the electric grid.  (B) Clean: Compared to natural gas-fired generation, produces 99% less nitrogen oxides, only trace amounts of sulfur dioxide, and 17% less CO2.  Also, does not require cooling water during normal operations, which could supposedly save two billion gallons over the lifetime of the project.  And if renewable fuels were used, such as hydrogen or biogas, then the environmental performance would be even better.  And then there are the JOBS that will be created.  Not only can Bloom Boxes built by Delawareans help power Delaware homes and businesses, but they “could be exported across the nation and around the world.”  [Just one question.  If the Bloom Energy venture is so great, why is it dependent on massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies?]

9/8/11, A10, PSC will expedite review of Bloom Energy Tariff, Aaron Nathans – Before conducting its previously announced “comment sessions” (9/27, 9/28, 9/29 – see 8/25/11 entry), the PSC has committed to an expedited review for the Bloom Energy boondoggle.  Specifically, the commissioners have ordered an evidentiary hearing for Oct. 18, which the writer says is “mighty fast as far as regulatory matters go.”  Also noted: the Bloom Energy surcharge “is expected to vary according to market forces – meaning no one knows exactly how much more this project will cost ratepayers for the next 21 years.” [So much for the 7/3/11 story in which PSC Executive Bill O’Brien was quoted to the effect that the commissioners will “be able to weigh the expected price impact, balance it against the benefits of the Bloom project, and vote the tariff up or down.”] 

9/7/11, A8, Sunoco getting out of oil refining business; Company is putting Marcus Hook and Philadelphia refineries up for sale, Aaron Nathans – These are Sunoco’s last two refineries, and unless buyers materialize the company will reportedly “shut down its main processing units in July” given the “unacceptable financial performance of these assets.” What’s going on?  Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Energies in Chicago, says (a) refining is a “boom or bust business” under the best of circumstances, and (b) new environmental regulations [federal, state or both?] have made it more expensive for refiners to do business.  He adds that fewer refineries could mean higher gasoline prices for area residents, and “you don’t really appreciate having a refinery in your backyard until you don’t have one in your backyard.”  Alan Levin, Delaware’s economic development director, said these developments will impact this state because some Delawareans work at the refineries (which employ 1,500 workers overall). [One more sign of how increasingly strict environmental regulations are undermining the US economy.]  

9/7/11, A8, Labor Day hasn’t brought lower gas prices in Del. – AAA Mid-Atlantic reports Delaware’s average gas prices at $3.61 per gallon (5¢ per gallon over last week and more than $1 per gallon over a year ago).  “Blame Irene,” says the story, as “Hurricane Irene and tropical storms have disrupted production at some oil refineries.” [Tropical storms are a minor and temporary factor in currently high gas prices.]

9/7/11, A8, Solar-panel maker Solyndra seeks bankruptcy, Bloomberg – 9/6 Bloomberg story on industry shakeout for solar panel makers inexplicably failed to name the already well publicized (in other publications) failure of Solyndra LLC, a company previously praised by the president and the vice president as a creator of “green” jobs. http://bit.ly/nRFKGE Without noting said support, this story reports that Solyndra’s “$535 million federal loan guarantee was criticized by Republican lawmakers.” [The fiends!]

9/7/11, A9, $3M grant to help develop offshore windmills; federal money goes to research center at University of Maine, Glenn Adams (AP) – The center will use the money for a lab station, or “cell,” where prototype blades and towers will be made from experimental materials.  The windmill parts will be made by “a very large robot” that can weld, paint and perform other mechanical work and then apply composite fabrics to the parts.  A 12-foot deep hydrodynamic pool will be used to replicate wind and wave action so that the blades can be subjected to the kinds of wear and tear they would have to endure off the coast.  “A University of Maine-led consortium of businesses, universities, nonprofits and utilities plans to deploy its first offshore prototype next year.” [No problem with such research, but the government should not be involved in funding it.  Similarly, there should be no mandates or subsidies for offshore wind power production.  Let the market decide what kind of power is the most economical and reliable.]

9/6/11, A5, Price drops force solar mergers: competition, incentives also play a role, Andrew Herndon & Ehren Goossens (Bloomberg) – Lower Solar-cell prices, tough Chinese competition, and reduced incentives in Europe are sparking a shakeout in the industry.  M&A deals of $3.3B announced for 2011 so far vs. $2.5B in all of 2010 (however, $6B in 2009).  Thus, Evergreen Solar recently filed in bankruptcy and plans “to sell itself at an auction,” and German solar panel maker Q-Cells has said it’s open to takeover bids. [Could the fact that solar power is uneconomic without government subsidies have anything to do with what is happening?] 

9/4/11, A1/A6, “Bloom Boxes” a blow to clean energy; wind, solar firms affected by calling fuel cells “renewable,” Aaron Nathans – Wow, another front page story on the Bloom Energy deal!  This time the angle is that the decision to classify energy from Bloom fuel cells as “renewable” will cut into mandates previously provided for wind and solar power firms.  Speaking for the Markell Administration, Brian Selander said “you are trading some out-of-state wind and out-of-state solar support for Delaware jobs.”  Critics contend that the tradeoff will give Delaware a short-term economic boost [doubtful, since electricity prices will be inflated by the Bloom tariff] but weaken long-term demand for truly “carbon-free electricity.”  Maybe the Bloom deal itself will have a limited effect on their interests, but it sets a precedent that could lead to classifying other fossil fuel technologies as “renewable,” e.g., “clean coal” investments.  Among those speaking up were former Representative Diana McWilliams (a Democrat); Dale Davis, president of the Delaware Solar Energy Coalition; and Bill Zak, a Lewes environmentalist.  Sen. Joe Booth (R-Georgetown) comes to similar conclusions by a different line of reasoning: “If we’re going to keep watering this down, calling this renewable and that renewable, pretty soon, you’ll have subsidies for everything.” [The real problem is that renewable energy should not be subsidized in the first place – let the market decide.  We do not have a dog in the fight over the spoils.]

9/4/11, A19, 2011 a year of extremes for US weather: gathering planned Wednesday in DC to devise strategies, Seth Borenstein (AP) – “Unprecedented triple-digit heat and devastating drought.  Deadly tornados leveling towns.  Massive rivers overflowing.  A billion-dollar blizzard.  And now, unusual hurricane-caused flooding in Vermont.  If what’s falling from the sky isn’t enough, the ground shook in places that normally seem stable.  Colorado and the entire East Coast.  On Friday, a strong quake triggered brief tsunami warnings in Alaska.  Arizona and New Mexico have broke records for wildfires.”  [So will all these events be blamed on manmade global warming? No, the tactic is to insinuate without making claims that might be challenged and disproved.] “What’s happening, say experts, is mostly random chance or bad luck.  But there is something more to it, many of them say.  Man-made global warming is increasing the odds of getting a bad roll of the dice.”  Several more paragraphs follow about this, that and the other weather anomaly, and then Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center brings up a specific point: record-high nighttime temperatures, which he says is “part of an ongoing trend we’ve seen since 1980.”  Several more paragraphs about alleged anomalies including a La Nina (flip side to El Nino) in the Pacific Ocean, which global warming has supposedly taken and amplified to record levels.   One skeptic is quoted, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who says these extremes have happened before, e.g., in the 1950s, and “sometimes it seems as if we have weather amnesia.”  Whatever, insurers, emergency managers, public officials and academics from around the world will gather Wednesday in Washington for “a special three-day National Academy of Sciences summit to figure out how to better understand and manage extreme events.”  [A fearless prediction: nothing good will come of this meeting, it will simply be one more pep rally for global warming alarmists.]

9/4/11, A22, Proof of Co2 warming requires credible action, Paul Donohue (Wilmington) – The writer asserts “Earth is warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.”  His “proof”: warmer nights and polar ice and permafrost is melting. Also, he says the planet Venus experiences extreme warming from CO2, which “makes night as hot as day and poles as hot as the equator.”  Mercury, even closer to the sun, on the other hand, has no atmosphere so its “night is colder than any place on Earth.”  Supposedly Venue was once like Earth, but “suffered extreme warming due to feedback releases of CO2.”  And “continued warming could make Earth like Venus.”  Accordingly, “we need scientific leadership in Congress, a concerned news media and replacement as much as possible of carbon fuels by nuclear and renewable energy.”  [Venus atmosphere is over 95% CO2, and far denser than ours, making the climate obviously non-comparable to the climate here. http://bit.ly/qo3f2u]

9/4/11, B1/B4, Input sought on nuke risk study: Commission plans to update earthquake-readiness assessments at reactors, Jeff Montgomery – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced a new round of review of seismic risk at all US nuclear power plants, and feedback is being requested on a draft memorandum on the subject that was published in the Federal Register on September 1.  The writer contacted Norm Cohen of Unplug Salem, who advises: Earthquakes are only part of problem; all factors should be considered; debris in the Delaware River is “causing a problem at the Salem plants;”  Hope Creek’s design has similarities to Fukushima reactions;  Salem Units 1 and 2 are also vulnerable to accidents because of their reliance on complex pumps that pull huge amounts of cooling water from the Delaware River.  However, a PSEG Nuclear spokesman said the company is “comfortable with the NRC’s plan,” and points out that the reactors were built to withstand a 6.5 quake.  Also, the NRC approved 20-year life extensions for all three reactors on Artificial Island earlier this year.  [Bottom line: this review should have little effect on these plants.] 

9/4/11, C1, Fisker gets paint shop construction permit, Aaron Nathans – Another in the seemingly endless surveys of updates on the Fisker Automotive venture, two days after the 9/2 report of a purchase contract to buy gas engines from BMW.  This time the news is that DNREC has issued a construction permit for a paint shop.     

9/4/11, C5, Scientists explore locking CO2 in rocks: Process captures gas in limestone, Charles Hanley (AP) – Different headline, new picture (checking a valve on a test well), but essentially the same article by the same reporter that ran on 8/28/11.  [We would say once was enough.]

9/3/11, A1/A2, Obama abandons smog restrictions; Pollution proposal, decision to pull back, both met with criticism, Juliet Eilperin (Washington Post) – Photos: (A1) Small headshot: “President Barack Obama gave in to critics of his proposed standards,” (A2) Small headshot: “Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., plans hearings with White House officials;” Medium-sized head and shoulders photo with two men in background: “Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies in Washington in June.  In a statement Friday, President Barack Obama said he had ordered Jackson to withdraw a pollution proposal.” Story: The proposed regulations would have tightened restrictions on ground-level ozone emanating from power plants, other industrial facilities, vehicles and landfills, which were lowered to 75 parts per billion in March 2008 under the Bush Administration.  Apparently, the EPA intended to set the standard at between 60 and 70 parts per billion.  Director Jackson had previously testified that the existing standards “were not legally defensible given the scientific evidence in the record.”  Reference is made to a 2001 decision of the US Supreme Court, under which the EPA is supposedly not allowed to take costs into account when setting the ozone standards.”  However, “the agency estimated the compliance costs for industry could range from $19 billion to $90 billion a year by 2020, depending on what level it set.”  Associated “health benefits” were estimated at $13 billion to $100 billion a year.  In his statement, the president praised the EPA’s “effort to improve the nation’s air quality” and pointed out that the ozone standard would come for review in 2013 under the normal five-year review interval. The president’s statement was issued shortly after a monthly jobs report came out showing zero jobs created in August.  A range of reactions is cited, from Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) (“if you’re serious about a jobs agenda, the last thing you want to be doing is adding tens of billions of dollars in costs every year”) to Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org (“this is a decision we’d expect from George W. Bush, not from a Democratic president elected to protect the environment and the health of our children”).  Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) said the decision “leaves me with more questions than answers,” and that he would hold hearings with White House officials “to explain these actions and the possible ramifications.” In a phone conversation with reporters, two unidentified White House officials indicated that (1) the decision was a tactical vs. strategic move, and (2) they would press forward with other air-pollution efforts.  There are several other EPA proposals in play, including new rules to restrict CO2 emissions by power companies in the name of combating global warming.  [Stay prepared, climate realists and fiscal visionaries, this battle is far from over.]

9/2/11, A10, Tenn. Lawmakers see hope for “gasoline” as new fuel; farms are turning to switchgrass for ethanol production, Erik Schelzig (AP) – Big picture of two men standing in front of a field of grass.  “Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (left) speaks with Sam Jackson, vice president of feedstock operations at Genera Energy, during a tour of switchgrass crops in Vonore, Tenn., this week.” The idea of producing biofuel has some appeal.  First, using switchgrass as a base won’t drive up food prices, as the use of corn does.  Second, the Delaware-based DuPont Company is partnering in this project and hopes to make some money from it.  Third, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) made a statement that is at least somewhat reassuring.  “With any new technology, the key is to get the cost down so it can stand on its own in the marketplace.  The idea of long-term subsidies for energy is not practical.” [Delete the “long-term” modifier, which implies that the research project is drawing government subsidies, and we would like this statement ever more.]

9/2/11, A11, Fisker to buy BMW gas engines, contract “encouraging” sign of progress, Jonathan Starkey – Extra, extra, Fisker Automotive signs a purchase contract.  The practice of reporting even the slightest developments re the Fisker venture continues.

8/31/11, A8, Anti-climate-change letter widely discredited, Axel Schwendt (Landenberg, PA) – Another attack on George Barnett’s 8/27 letter rebutting columnist Eugene Robinson’s criticism of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s skeptical comments about the manmade global warming theory.  The charge is that the letter signed by over 30,000 scientists, cited by Dentel, “was discredited soon after it came out a few years ago” and “I did my own research.”  Supposedly, “only a small percentage of ‘scientists’ signing this letter have a degree or profession related to the field” and there were “a very high number of medical doctors and other professions including philosophy, veterinary, acupuncture, international intelligence security, etc.”  Also, says Schwendt, only 50 of the signatories had PhDs. [The correct number is over 9,000. http://www.petitionproject.org/]

8/30/11, A10, Climate change deniers need a reality check, Steven Dentel (Newark) – This letter begins with a misstatement – “several recent letter writers claim that climate change does not exist” – and goes down hill from there.  Someone supposedly said CO2 in the atmosphere is “not important,” haven’t they ever heard that plants need CO2 to exist?  And about the government grants, where are the “hundreds of millions funding this type of climate change research?” Another supposedly “denied sea level rise without understanding the difference between floating ice and land-based ice when they melt.”  Check the scientific journals “and readers will find broad consensus from these sources that climate change is significant, increasing and caused by us.” [OK, check this “Sun Causes Climate Change Shock” story: http://tgr.ph/mZtfJW]

8/28/11, C1/C4, Burial of CO2 being tested; Scientists in Iceland hope to lock away greenhouse gas as limestone, Charles Hanley (AP) – The idea of storing CO2 underground is not new, “but people worry that such stowed-away gas could someday escape.”  Therefore, a new concept is being tested – combine CO2 with water and pump the resulting “seltzer water” down a well.  By a depth of 1,600 feet, the water will dissolve the CO2 bubbles and form carbonic acid.  This acid flows into the underlying basalt formations, where it will react with the calcium in basalt to create limestone – permanently locking CO2 underground.  The CarbFix demonstration project is being conducted by a Reykjavik’s city-owned utility and US and Iceland universities.  Some of the $10M spent to date has come from the France’s National Center of Scientific Research and the US Energy Department.  The rationale, according to scientist Sigurdur Reynir Gislason, is that “in 10, 20, 30 years’ time, if climate change gets very drastic, then we are going to need solutions like this.”  Note that CO2 would not necessarily come from power plants, i.e., might conceivably be taken from the atmosphere – perhaps by millions of chemically treated vanes standing in the wind, which could be located offshore with the captured CO2 being piped to basalt below. [Hanley covered the Cancun conference on global warming in 2010.  See his 12/5/10 story on geoengineering measures that would probably be far more cost effective than CO2 burial.]

8/27/11, A12, Perry right to criticize climate change theories, George Barnett (Bear) – The writer responds to a Eugene Robinson column of two days earlier, which we apparently overlooked (sorry, no one is perfect). [A] Robinson attacked Governor Perry’s skepticism about the manmade “climate change” theory, which theory, he claims, is supported by “an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.”  More than 30,000 scientists, including over 9,000 PhDs, have signed a petition to the opposite effect.  [B] Robinson said “multiple investigations have found no evidence of fraud or manipulation of data.”  But these investigations were presumably conducted by “those living on the same grant money as received by their buddies who sent the [Climategate] e-mails.”  [The writer goes on to announce that he will not vote for Perry if nominated because “I expect to vote for the Libertarian candidate.”  Did he really have to say this?]    

8/26/11, A13, Christie limits “fracking” ban to one year – The environmentalist blowback against cheap natural gas, parading as concern about the supposed dangers of “fracking,” was on display when the legislature imposed a permanent ban on the procedure – even though experts reportedly say “there’s not enough natural gas under New Jersey to drill for.”  Governor Chris Christie sent the bill back with a conditional veto recommending that the ban be lifted in a year.  Stay tuned.

8/25/11, A10, Port of Wilmington not being used by Fisker yet, Jonathan Starkey Inquiring minds want to know department.  Given that Fisker “has already begun delivering its first car, the $98,000 hybrid Karma sedan, to a couple [of] lucky buyers,” what could be more natural than to call up the Port of Wilmington and ask whether Fisker was using it to bring the cars into the country?  “Answer: nope, not yet.”  [Must have been a really slow news day.]

8/25/11, A10, Public Service Commission sets up comment sessions, Aaron Nathans – Issue: plan to charge Delmarva Power customers for Bloom Energy fuel-cell boondoggle.  Sessions: 9/27, 7:00 PM, PSC Hq., 861 Silver Lake Blvd., Dover; 9/28, 7:00 PM, Carvel State Office Bldg., 820 N. French Street, Wilmington; 9/29, 7:00 PM, Del Tech – Owens Campus, Arts & Sciences Bldg., Georgetown.

8/25/11, A11, Hertz, GE partner in electric vehicles venture in China – The US companies have signed an agreement to offer electric vehicles in China and expand the charging station networks needed to run them.  Per the article, hundreds of charging stations will be built in major Chinese cities including Shanghai and Beijing.  The government is said to be working to promote commercialization of “new energy vehicles” as a way to reduce oil imports and help curb pollution.  [Queries: (1) To what extent will the charging stations be subsidized by the government?  (2 Will the electricity used to run the vehicles be produced in coal-fired power plants?]

8/24/11, A7/A10, New deal adjusts fuel-cell surcharge; Delmarva allowed to buy less solar power, Aaron Nathans – Small picture (head shot): “Gov. Markell wants Bloom Energy in Delaware.”  Based on the latest data, a Delmarva consultant says the fuel-cell purchase would increase residential bills by an average of $1.63 per month over the 21-year term of the Bloom Energy contract, which compares with the $1.00 per month figure that was estimated earlier by the Markell Administration.  So will Bloom be asked to sell its power for less money?  No, because DNREC Secretary Collin O’Mara plans to offset some of the fuel-cell power for solar power that Delmarva would otherwise be required to pay.  “And so Delmarva, Bloom and the state agreed that Delmarva could instead trade three fuel-cell credits for one solar credit through the first 15 years of the 21-year contract.  By saving Delmarva customers from having to buy more solar, it blunted the financial impact of the Bloom deal, O’Mara said.”  [Keep this scenario in mind the next time that you read about how wonderful solar power is.]  

8/23/11, A6, Wind-power company granted delay on grants, Aaron Nathans – The Southwest WindPower saga (see 8/22/11 & 8/16/11 entries) continues.  “A state panel has delayed action on financial incentives [$1.2M grant] to a small wind-power company planning to move its headquarters.”  It seems that “Alan Levin, Delaware economic development director, received a call from the company asking for a one-month delay.”  But never fear, because Levin reportedly “remained certain the company would see the move through.” [If Southwest WindPower gets a better deal from Arizona and decides to stay there, we could live with that.]

8/22/11, A6/A7, Big Ideas for small wind turbines in rural Delaware: Environment-friendly source pursued, Aaron Nathans – Update on 8/16/11 story re Southwest WindPower, which has been tentatively promised a $1.2M DE development grant [approval still pending, so there should be a third story shortly] for moving its headquarters from Arizona to Delaware. Today’s story covers about 40% of one page plus say 20% of a second.  Images: (1) a big picture of Center of the Inland Bays Executive Director Ed Lewandowski standing outside the Center at Indian Bay Inlet (last year the Center “generated 85 percent of its electricity with wind and solar power); (2) picture of the Center’s two 45-foot high wind turbines, which were manufactured by Southwest Windpower; and (3) a small picture of Lewandowski with one of the Center’s wind turbines in the background.  Not only do these turbines generate power, the writer informs readers, but Lewes Fishhouse owner Chuck Donohue says “they do make a statement” re the state’s environmental commitment.  Indeed, since these devices are dependent on government support [we gave them the benefit of the doubt in the 8/16 entry]. The evidence: (A) Richard Kessler, US online editor of ReCharge says “the grid is pretty overloaded” so “having a small wind-turbine unit . . . can help” to avert brownouts and such. [Why is the grid overloaded?  Because economical power generation facilities, particularly the coal-burning ones, are being forced to shut down without providing economical replacement capacity.] (B) What really kicked the industry into high gear, says Southwest President Mike Bergey, was a 30% federal tax credit that runs through 2016.  “It really makes the economics work for a lot more customers.” 

8/22/11, A8, “Texas First” should be Perry’s campaign slogan, Daniel Pritchett (Smyrna) – According to the writer, Governor Perry’s “state leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, and he conveniently says that he does not believe that global warming or climate change has any relation to human activity, and . . . he has on at least two occasions suggested seceding from the union.”  Accordingly, his slogan should be: Texas First!  American Second! The Planet Third! [Just a taste of how the global warming alarmists will react if their supposedly proven ideas are challenged in the public forum.  Be prepared!]

8/21/11, A13, Global warming debate heats up presidential race: Political discussion has shifted in four years, Joel Achenbach & Julie Eilperin (Washington Post) – Four years ago, John McCain embraced the manmade global warming theory on the campaign trail; now Rick Perry is doing just the opposite.  And according to the reporters, “this is not simply a case of two very different politicians saying two very different things. The political discussion about global warming has lurched dramatically in four years – even as the scientific consensus has changed little.”  Why?  Americans started waking up to the fact that proposed measures to combat global warming would cost them a lot of money, i.e., this is not simply a theoretical point.  Global warming has become a “wedge issue” among GOP presidential candidates, with Perry and Michelle Bachman on one side of the issue and Mitt Romney & Jon Huntsman on the other.  But the article says the alleged scientific consensus is solid, never mind lapses exposed by the Climategate e-mails and reported “flattening” of the warming trend.  Thus: (A) Re flattening, “scientists” say “multiple factors are dampening the trend, including sunlight-blocking volcanic aerosols and soot emitted from China’s coal-fired power plants.”  They also assert that the full impact of the greenhouse gases that we’ve already added to the system today won’t be felt for 20 or 30 years. [Sounds like double talk.]  (B) Dissenting scientists are allegedly a “small minority,” e.g., “a 2010 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found 97 percent to 98 percent agreed humans were contributing to global warming.” [Many things affect global temperatures, but magnitude matters.  Does human activity (including the expansion of cities) outweigh other factors that have caused major shifts in global temperatures over the entire age of the Earth, e.g., fluctuations in solar activity”?] Polls show conservative Republicans are least likely to believe climate change is “occurring.” [A general warming trend over the past two centuries has been demonstrated, and it certainly may continue although not necessarily on a straight line basis.  The issue is what is causing the warming and what, if anything, should be done about it.]

8/21/11, A13, Bay slowly swallowing up tiny Tangier [VA] Island: Residents are battling combination of erosion, rising sea level, Bill Lohmann (Times Dispatch) – This is not a global warming scare story, the low lying island is demonstrably sinking and/or being washed away, albeit at a slow pace.  Tangier Island once had more than 1,000 residents; the total is less than 500 now.  A possible fix has been suggested by the US Army Corps of Engineers – seawall extension and a series of breakwaters – “but funding for those projects, totaling more than $12 million, is not available, and no one knows when or if it will be.”  In any case, the long-term trend is unmistakable.  “Sea level has been rising very slowly for the past 5,000 years at the rate of about a foot a century . . . because of a combination of climate change and local geography.” [OK, change happens – it’s a fact of life.] 

8/21/11, F1/F2, Fisker asks investors for $200M more; Funding is being called a “pre-IPO” round, Jonathan Starkey – Fisker is reportedly taking advantage of “a flurry of hype surrounding its first car – the $98,000 Karma hybrid” to try to raise some more money.  John Gartner, an electric car analyst at Pike Research said “the money Fisker is looking to raise is ‘within reason’ given that the company is hoping to produce and market thousands of high-end luxury hybrids.”

Next month, Union Park Automotive expects to receive its first Karma.  [We can hardly wait.]

8/20/11, A1/A5, Delmarva customers’ cost in Bloom deal varies wildly; $1 per month for residential ratepayers far from certain, Aaron Nathans – For a front page headline story, this account contains little new information. Readers do learn, however, that: (A) The subsidy to be billed to residential customers would fluctuate with the open market price of electricity, i.e., customers would “pay more if Bloom receives less than expected for its power on the open market, and pay less if the power price is more.”  (B) Bloom would sell the output of the fuel cells for $166.87 per mega-watt hour for the first 15 years of the project; $102 per mwh during the next five years; and $30 per mwh during the final year.  Whatever money Bloom makes from selling electricity from the fuel cells will be subtracted from the guarantee.  (C) While Bloom’s revenues are guaranteed, Bloom’s cost for the fuel cells and expenses are undefined.  “State officials said they did not know, and [Joshua] Richman [a Bloom executive] declined to be interviewed.” (D) Bloom is pushing for PSC approval by October 18 to help get the first fuel cells up and running by December 2012.  [If this deal sounds like a “pig in the poke,” it should – because that is exactly what it is.  For background on how the scam was sold, see the SAFE newsletter account. http://bit.ly/oBElni]

8/19/11, A6, Warming has species moving faster; Scientists says pace of animals’ northward flight is up, Seth Borenstein (AP) – According to a story published in the journal Science, researchers have found that global warming is causing animals and even plants “across the world” to move away from the equator and to higher altitudes.  Thus, a 2003 study found species (in the northern hemisphere) moving north at an average rate of about a third of a mile per year and up at a rate of 2 feet of year.  Which if continued over long periods of time could add up to significant changes. The underlying premise seems to be that flight from the equator is inevitable, irreversible, and demonstrates that mankind is destroying the global environment.  Thus, according to Borenstein, “the last decade was the hottest on record, and 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record.” And why: “Gases from the burning of fossil fuel, especially carbon dioxide, are trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth and changing the climate in several ways, according to the overwhelming majority of scientists and the world’s top scientific organizations.” [There were substantially warmer periods before the records that are mentioned started being kept.  Furthermore, the best data available – satellite measurements – indicate that average global temperatures have not been rising over the past decade.]

8/19/11, A12, GM will build electric Cadillac – Why does the world need a luxury version of the Chevrolet Volt hybrid? No matter, GM has announced that it will go ahead with it. [Could it be that the automaker is trying to curry favor with the government?  The president recently lectured the car companies as follows: "You can't just make money on SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market." http://bit.ly/oq49oj]

8/18/11, A3, Perry [in NH, speaking to “local business leaders in a region known for its environmental policies”] says global warming unproven – Perry: “I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change. *** I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money [billions, maybe trillions] on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”  But not to worry, global warming zealots, for the story goes on as follows: “But Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.  Perry’s home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide – the chief greenhouse gas [actually, that would be water vapor] – than any other state in the country, according to government data.” [The rebuttal is not news, it is propaganda.]

8/16/11, A6, Turbine maker moving to Del.: $1.2 million grant offered to Arizona company, Aaron Nathans – Southwest Windpower may move its 65-employee operation (assembling devices from imported components) from Flagstaff, Arizona to Delaware.  The company describes itself as the world’s largest producer of small, battery-charging wind generators.  [Unlike large-scale turbines, such devices – generally for remote locations lacking connection to the power grid – may make economic sense without government mandates and subsidies.]  Why Delaware?  Southwest’s CEO has been looking for “a headquarters location with access to engineering expertise, good transportation facilities and state support.”  The Delaware Economic Development Office has proposed a $1.2M grant to locate in Delaware, which is to be reviewed on Monday by the Delaware Council on Development Finance.  Gary Smith, DEDO’s director of capital resources, is quoted to the effect that “the clean-energy company will nicely complement the incentive-laden Bloom Energy fuel-cell factory planned for Newark.” [Indeed!]

8/12/11, A8, Unleaded gasoline prices in Delaware level off – “For the first time in a while, the price of a gallon of unleaded [regular?] gasoline in Delaware is roughly the same as it was a month ago.”  Why?  Well, “stock market instability and concerns about global growth do have a brighter side.”  [If Federal Reserve monetary policies continue pushing down the US dollar, this victory will prove short-lived.]

8/11/11, A13, “Reckless” best label for tea party behavior, Chad Tolman (DE chapter of the Sierra Club) – H.R. 2584, an appropriations bill, says Tolman, is “the most shameless assault on the environment and on the health and welfare of the American people that I have ever seen.”  #Cuts EPA funding by $1.8B (17%), while restoring $55M in oil and gas subsidies.  #Cuts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife budget by 30%, and eliminates funding to list new endangered species.  #Reduces the NOAA budget by 18% from the president’s FY 2012 request and wholly eliminates funding for NOAA’s climate service.  #Cuts Land and Water Conservation Fund by 80%, to lowest level in the program’s history.  #A number of specific provisions to “prevent the protection of public health,” notably a block on regulations of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles after model year 2016 “to address climate change.”  Who is to blame for these outrages? Why, the Tea Party – who can probably prevail in the House so this measure must be stopped in the Senate.  “Please contact Representative Carney and Senators Coons and Carper to thank them for their support of responsible legislative action to address the deficit without endangering the health and welfare of our citizens.”

8/9/11, A6, New Perdue solar farm powers Bridgeville plant: Marginal former cropland now generates electricity, Aaron Nathans – Photo of Jim Perdue, Perdue Farms chairman, and Senator Tom Carper walking by some of “the 6,720 solar panels that power Perdue’s Bridgeville grain facility and feed mill.”  The project cost $5+ million, and will occupy a field formerly used to grow corn and soybeans – supposedly a good economic decision for Perdue.  Herewith some of the reported commentary: (A) Jim Perdue: “We have four values and one of them is sustainability.  This is one of our efforts to become more sustainable.”  (B) DNREC Secretary Collin O’Mara lauded new state laws governing solar power, which # permit the production of up to 10% more power than Perdue needs, with the balance being sold to utilities; and # allow solar power from a single array to go to more than one meter owned by the same person or business.  “This represents another potential profit center for agriculture.” (C) Senator Tom Carper praised the teamwork between utilities, state & federal government, and the solar company.  “I’ve never seen anything like this in Delaware.” (D) Senator Chris Coons: This is “a great example of the virtuous cycle that is possible” when government and industry work together. (E) Harry Warren, president of Washington Gas, said the project will help his company meet its state-mandated requirement to buy 25% renewable power by 2025 (and apparently resell some of it to Delmarva Power, based on other comments, this part of the story is not very clear).  Noted in passing are other large solar power projects in the area: Dover SunPark, a larger project expected to be dedicated later this month; 7,300-panel array completed last month by Astra-Zeneca in Fairfax; and a slightly smaller array at Perdue’s headquarters in Salisbury, MD. [These projects are being built due to government mandates and subsidies.  Eliminate them and let the market decide.]

8/7/11, C2, Cape Wind saga gets big-screen treatment, Jay Lindsay (AP) – The Cape Wind project (130-turbine offshore wind farm) was first proposed in 2001, and has featured some colorful characters on both sides of the debate. The project has finally won federal approval, but it “is still looking for financing [$2.6 billion] and facing numerous court challenges.”  Now a movie has been made, which is intended to “separate facts from distortion and let viewers decide about Cape Wind for themselves.” Filmmakers Daniel Coffin and Robbie Gemmel reportedly tell both sides of the story. But offshore wind power boils down to mundane economics: is this a reliable and cost effective way to generate electricity or not? To be entertaining, “Cape Spin” practically has to have a pro-wind bias.  Thus, some characters (represented by “Pirate Jim”) “protest a technology that might cut into their fossil-fuel profits,” while residents of West Virginia [a representative cross-section, no doubt] “speak about the devastation from that fossil fuel and ask Cape Codders to consider cleaner alternatives.”  [We can hardly wait!] 

8/7/11, A22, Engineer didn’t tell the whole story of CO2, Charles Blaisdell, Odessa – After referring to Dr. David Mage as “my fellow chemical engineer,” Blaisdell criticizes Mage’s 7/22 letter for “giving an incomplete assessment of the [role] of CO2 in global warming” in that CO2 “absorbs all the heat it can within a short distance from the surface of the earth.”  Double the CO2, says Blaisdell, and “it will still absorb the same amount of heat but in [an even] shorter distance.” [Blaisdell’s explanation is hard to follow, but recent research does suggest the heat trapping effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. http://onforb.es/n5G0Ec]

8/3/11, A1/A5, Record-breaking heat might be here to stay: Some experts see July’s warmth as a sign of more hot summers to come, Jeff Montgomery – The combined average temperature for the National Weather Service Wilmington and Georgetown stations hit 81 [81.0?] degrees for the month, above last year’s average for July of 80.7 degrees.  Weather Service records date back to 1895.  The Philadelphia area, District of Columbia and neighboring states also broke records for the month.  Above average heat is expected to continue through August 16.  Various “experts” are quoted as to whether the hot weather does or does not have something to do with the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Among them: (A) “Many researchers, including hundreds on a prominent United Nations Panel,” e.g., Michael Mann of Penn State, who argue in the affirmative; (B) Konstantin Vinnikow, Maryland State climatologist, who “cautioned that greenhouse gases might account only for a small part of the heat in an always-variable world.” Professor Vinnikow adds, however, that “certainly, we should try to fight global warming to avoid increasing the probability of such events.” [How should global warming be fought?  And by the way, why hasn’t the News Journal reported new research showing that the heat-trapping characteristics of CO2 are much lower than some researchers have thought? http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/]

8/3/11, A8, Bloom Energy factory delayed by Delmarva, Aaron Nathans – A month has passed since the Bloom Energy bill was enacted by the legislature.  The “Public Service Commission is still waiting to receive key pricing information from Delmarva Power” that would determine how much Delmarva ratepayers would pay to subsidize the deal.  Initially, the average tariff on consumers [businesses would pay much more] was said to be 70¢ per month; then the Markell Administration said $1 per month; now indications are the figure will be “between $1 and $2 per month.”  And that’s a levelized average over 21 years, so “the premium will be higher in the early years.” [Oops.  Is it too late to kill this scheme?  After all, the PSC is not required to approve any tariff that is put in front of it; that’s just what looks likely to happen.]

8/2/11, A6, Acorn Energy spins off coal subsidiary for $101M, Jonathan Starkey – Acorn Energy has agreed to sell its largest subsidiary, CoaLogix, for $101M to a private equity firm.  Acorn created CoaLogix in 2007 and had $18.2M invested in the company.  It expects to net proceeds of $61.8M and income taxes for 2011 won’t exceed $5M, i.e., will do very well on this deal.  CoaLogix is an example of the seemingly pedestrian energy ideas that Acorn is pursuing: it cleans filters that coal-fired plants use to reduce emissions, which saves money vs. buying new filters.  [For more Acorn Energy ideas, see this book: http://bit.ly/opbe1F]

7/31/11, D4, In plug-in race, Volt ups output to catch Leaf: Nissan winning – but GM will go full throttle with production, David Welch (Bloomberg News) – Nissan is winning this year, selling 3,875 of the Leaf[s] in the US to the GM’s 2,745 Volt sales (goal of 10,000 for 2011).  However, GM will make 5,000 Volts per month as soon as January 2012 with a goal of 60,000 for 2012 (45,000 for the US).  According to Ivan Drury, an analyst with Edmunds.com, however, “it’s going to take five to six more years before we see these cars selling over 100,000 a year.”  To some extent, the initial sales pop is due to the novelty factor.  The article states that “it’s still unknown whether customers ultimately prefer a pure electric car like the Leaf or a plug-in hybrid like the Volt that can travel longer distances and how many people are willing to pay for the gas-saving technology.” [The real question is how much consumers would be willing to pay for the technology in the absence of government subsidies.]

7/30/11, A6/A7, New standards aiming to reduce gas use, emissions, Dina Cappiello & Tom Krisher (AP) – A 7/28 story reported that the new CAFE standards were to be announced; this story reports that the “deal” was indeed announced and will “[usher] in the largest cut in fuel consumption since the 1970s . . . [saving] drivers money at the pump and drastically [cutting] heat-trapping gases coming from tailpipes.” Addressing executives of 11 major automakers and the UAW, the president said “this agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we have taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”  The 54.5 MPG average by 2025 requirement [not really a “deal” or “agreement”] “builds on” a 2009 requirement that cars and trucks average 35.5 MPG by 2016.  It is reported that the rising MPG requirements “are likely to push up the cost of a new vehicle, but just how much is unclear because the regulation still has to be written.” [Talk about “buying a pig in the poke.”  Without knowing the additional vehicle cost, there is no way to evaluate the costs vs. benefits of the proposed requirements. http://bit.ly/nzI7ku Additionally, smaller, underpowered cars would be inherently less safe. http://bit.ly/B485L]

7/28/11, A10, What use are good, but unenforced, regulations? – This editorial discusses a suit filed Tuesday against the EPA for “not policing illegal storm water runoff in New Jersey.  Maya Van Rosssum, the “Delaware Riverkeeper” [who appointed her?] asserts that local New Jersey officials are approving development plans that are not in compliance with state storm management rules, thereby adding to the environmental damage of waterways in the Delaware River watershed. And, hey, the situation is bad already, because of all the oil being transported through the estuary, with a high risk of oil spills, heavy metals and organic contaminants from Philadelphia industry, etc.  “Delaware is going to experience a very direct impact if New Jersey can’t get its problem under control,” Van Rossum said.  “In stepping up its concern to lawsuit status,” says the News Journal, “the Delaware Riverkeeper Network is rightly calling the feds to make good on [their] promise that regulation can secure a clean environment.” [All this because rainwater is being allowed to run across roads, rooftops, and parking lots in New Jersey.  Seems to us that the same thing often happens in Delaware.]

7/2711, A8, DRBA exploring green energy; Authority seeks wind, solar expertise, Robin Brown – Center page article in Business section, under a big picture of a Delta jetliner at the New Castle Airport. According to the reporter, the Delaware River and Bay Authority is “looking to go green with wind and solar power.”  It hopes to enter into contracts to buy electricity produced by “privately-owned, cost-effective renewable sources built at its sites in Delaware and New Jersey,” e.g., the Delaware Memorial Bridge, airport, and Cape May-Lewes ferry landing sites.  Goals of this effort are said to be “increasing efficiency of energy usage and reducing energy-related operating costs.”  [Any cost savings from wind and solar power will be dependent on government mandates and subsidies.  We would imagine that this program is primarily for public relations purposes.]

7/26/11, A7, DuPont to buy solar startup Innovalight; Silicon Valley company makes inks and processes that enhance efficiency, Jonathan Starkey – Financial terms were not disclosed, but the deal is evidently significant.  DuPont had previously supplied materials to Innovalight, and the founder Conrad Burke will become general manager of the combined DuPont-Innovalight business.  The venture’s goal will reportedly be to reduce the cost of solar energy, thereby “making it more competitive with fossil-fuel based sources.” Solar [materials and technology] represent a $1 billion market for DuPont, which is projected to grow to $2 billion by 2014.  [Government mandates and subsidies, not mentioned in the article, are the source of this “boom” in solar business.  And if they are left in place, DuPont and others will grow increasingly reliant on them.  What ever happened to free market principles?]

7/24/11, F5, Sustainable Energy Utility, Inc.’s (SEU) advertisement for preliminary offering of Energy Efficiency Revenue Bonds, Series 2011, in the amount of $70,220,000 – One point of interest about this proposed offering is that the SEU will have no apparent source of revenue to repay the loans other than proceeds from the sale of emission permits under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  Thus, the sale of these bonds creates additional stakeholders in the perpetuation of the RGGI, an experiment that in our view is doomed to fail.  We are further struck by the fact that the bonds are structured so that the interest will be federally tax exempt and state tax exempt for Delaware residents.  Pretty neat trick for a non-government organization that, as set up, will not be subject to effective legislative oversight.

7/22/11, A13, Carper pushes for wind power aid: Tax credits for offshore projects sought, Eric Ruth – Senator Tom Carper and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) are cosponsoring a bill to perpetuate existing federal tax credits (30% of cost for offshore, wind-generated electricity, first 3,000 megawatts.)  Carper says the credit is needed because offshore wind projects can be more costly [no kidding] and take years to secure needed federal permits [supposedly were to be fast tracked]. Also, no tax credit until the project actually starts up and generates electricity, for which reason Senator Carper says, “we reward success.”  And Carper hopes to convene a roundtable of the stakeholders in late August or early September to have a “robust discussion” of what other government incentives might be needed to spur private capital investment in wind power.  “This is not something a government should be trying to do alone,” Carper said.

Senator Chris Coons apparently is working the same issue from a somewhat different angle.  He and four other senators are co-sponsoring an Offshore Wind Power Act, which would involve a regime of tax credits of some kind.

  [Why doesn’t the government just get out of the business of trying to pick winners and losers in the energy industry and let the free market decide?]

7/22/11, A14, Increasing levels of CO2 lead to global warming, David T. Mage, Newark –

Intemperate rebuttal to William Day’s 7/19/11 letter on global warming,  “ ***typical of the beliefs of the uncredentialled know-nothings who are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts *** [describes his own essentially irrelevant credentials as] a PhD in Chemical Engineering . . . served with the World Health Organization in Europe and Asia and with the U.S. EPA in the areas of health effects of air pollution *** it is not to be debated whether or nor carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that traps heat within our atmosphere.” [Brilliant arguments, congratulations sir.]

7/19/11, A1/A2, Climate change skeptic steps down as state climatologist, Wade Malcolm – David Legates's departure from the state climatologist, to be replaced by Dan Leathers who left the position as state climatologist in 2005 to serve as a deputy dean in the College of Earth, Ocean and the Environment, is described by UD as having nothing to do with Legates skepticism about the manmade global warming theory so beloved to environmentalists and Delaware politicians (notably former Governor Minner and current Governor Markell).  The administrative post for Leathers ended, and Legates was supposedly just honoring a “gentlemen’s agreement” made in 2005 to give back the state climatologist post if Leathers should ever be in a position to reoccupy it.  This article contains paragraphs about how Governor Minner and Markell said Legates could not “speak for the state” about the causes of global warming, but not one word of praise for his professional accomplishments over the past six years nor future with UD (beyond a statement that Legates is “a geography professor” and “will continue to serve on UD’s faculty”).  Supposedly, Professor Leathers will be under the same restriction that Legates was, i.e., must go around telling people that he is only expressing his personal opinion and not speaking for the state.  [As far as we are concerned, Professor Legates was an excellent state climatologist who has been treated shabbily by UD and by the State of Delaware.  Too bad the politicians thought they knew more about global warming than he does, which seems absurd on their parts.  The pretense that he is not being forced out will not fool anyone. And this graceless little article does nothing to burnish the journalistic credentials of the News Journal.] 

7/19/11, A8, Getting at source of Delaware’s bad air – This editorial approvingly quotes DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara’s testimony at a US Senate committee hearing: “Today, the vast majority of Delaware’s air quality problems are caused by transported emissions, as much as 90 percent.  In fact, our modeling shows that Delaware could eliminate all pollution from in-state stationary sources and still not achieve attainment [meet federal clean air standards].”  EPA health claims accepted without question, e.g., the new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule [7/12/11, A1/A5] will supposedly prevent 13,000 to 34,000 premature deaths annually,” so it will “save far more than it will cost.”  As for the claim of Texas Governor Rick Perry et al. that the rule will kill jobs, “it’s more likely to create them.”  Senator Tom Carper is said to have rightfully hailed the EPA decision, which is in line with principles that he has long fought for.  Why should Delaware and the other “tail pipe” states on the East Coast suffer “dirty air” from their Western neighbors?  “The rule makes sense,” concludes the News Journal.  [Health benefits greatly overstated; economic costs basically ignored.  It is hard to argue with people who make their minds up without considering the facts.]

7/19/11, A8, Stop perpetuating the CO2-climate myth, William Day – Letter rebuts 6/19/11 editorials re the Crisis Indifference Cycle.  Among other things, “canceling expensive and ineffective alternative energy programs is not ‘indifference,’ it is recognizing the facts.”  Full letter is posted at Letters 2011 (7/19/11).

7/14/11, A14, “Green” economy coming but hype oversells reality – This editorial says the “green jobs” mantra is exaggerated [as in the News Journal’s 7/13 front page story].  True enough, but the reasons cited – changes “won’t come quickly, they will cause disruption and they will need a better-educated workforce” – the rhetoric of politicians “has outrun their actual commitment to the industries that would produce those jobs” as shown by the fact that tax credits for wind and solar “are often an iffy thing, making steady investment difficult” – do not ring true.  [The real point: economic decisions should not be made by politicians based on half-baked economic theories.  Eliminate mandates and subsidies; let investors and consumers decide whether and when to “go green.”]

7/13/11, A1/A10, Growth spurt for “green” jobs in Del.; Increase in state employment in sector outpaces the majority of other states, Jonathan Starkey – This story takes up about 1/3 of the front page, including a big picture of some of the 7,300 solar panels installed at various locations at AstraZenca’s headquarters in Fairfax, which “produce 10 percent of the electricity used to power the campus.”  Growing businesses like Solar Dock are said to “have Delaware outpacing green job growth nationally, according to a report published this morning by the Brookings Institution.” http://bit.ly/qCh2J8  Thus, nearly 7,000 people in Delaware supposedly work in the “clean economy,” up about 2,000 jobs since 2003.  And that does not include Fisker Automotive or Bloom Energy jobs.  It does include “some unlikely suspects,” however, including “workers in waste management services and public transportation.”  Governor Jack Markell is quoted that “every job is important” and “we need a well-diversified economy,” but he also says “when you think about all the [effects] of pollution, climate change and the like, people are going to be more and more focused on renewable energy sources” and “as the industry takes off, I want Delaware to be well positioned.” [Fine, but why should taxpayers and ratepayers be forced to pay for energy from high cost sources.  And what about the jobs in conventional industries that are being destroyed or blocked?]

7/13/11, A6, Thanks to flywheels, N.Y. grid kept in tune; Battery farm near Albany stores excess power for later use, Michael Hill (AP) – Battery farm in Stephentown, NY, which cost $69 million, reportedly represents an improved solution to the problem of how to smooth out the ever-fluctuating balance between electricity supply and demand in power grids.  Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, MA) says its flywheel batteries “provide a cleaner and more efficient buffer in times when more intermittent power sources like wind and solar [are] coming online.”  [The article goes on to say flywheels “cannot store a lot of energy,” i.e., do not represent a real answer to the on and off nature of renewable energy that necessitates backup power sources.]

7/13/11 AT&T to use Bloom Energy fuel cells at 11 Calif. Sites – “AT&T expects the fuel cells to provide a total of 7.5 megawatts of power, and will help it to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 250 million pounds [but fuel cells oxidize fuel, so what happens to the CO2?].”  No financial details provided [including how much of the cost will be passed on to taxpayers].

7/13/11, A7, EPA: All Texas plants will get air permits – EPA ruled last year that the “flexible permits” approved by Texas regulatory agencies for 136 Texas plants and refineries violated the Clean Air Act because it was impossible to accurately measure emissions at those facilities.  Texas went to court, and a deal of some kind has now apparently been negotiated.  

7/12/11, A1/A5, New rule on plant emissions is boon to Del. and other “downwind” states, Jeff Montgomery – EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson released a new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that “officials said would eliminate hundreds of thousands of tons of soot and smog-forming pollution, saving an estimated 34,000 lives and averting hundreds of thousands of illnesses yearly as early as 2014.”  [We believe these health claims are much exaggerated. See, e.g., Dr. Willie Soon’s recent column re mercury. http://bit.ly/isyo0V] The new requirements would apply to 27 named states, supposedly responsible for pollution drifting across state lines, including MD, NJ, NY, and PA – but not DE.  An earlier, Bush Administration proposal to address the issue was tossed out by a federal appeals court.  The new version is expected to cost the power plant industry $800 million yearly in 2014, per EPA estimates, atop existing costs of complying with past efforts to reduce smokestack emissions.  The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity predicted that the EPA’s rules would be the “most expensive every imposed” on coal-fired generators.  “I hope we can now stop battling it out in court and start cutting emissions dramatically,” said Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), who has sponsored legislation over the years to curb SO2, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, etc. emissions supposedly linked to human health problems and global climate change.  Before the EPA move, Carper had complained that big power plants in the Midwest were able to produce electricity cheaply at the expense of downwind states.

            [If coal power plants were forced to shut down, as is the EPA’s intent, what would replace them?  Maybe nuclear power with natural gas as a bridge, but not costly wind and solar power.]

7/11/11, B1/B2, Red knots on fast track to protection: Endangered status may come within year, Jeff Montgomery – Another piece about these plucky birds, most recently written up (front page story) on 5/17/11.  Now the writer says the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service is moving red knots to the head of the queue of endangered species candidates, which could lead to the coveted protected status within a year.  And then what will happen?  The real game plan may be inferred from this comment: “[Some environmental] groups have predicted that the wave of endangered species findings could have far-reaching effects, including increased pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency to step up its own pollution control and conservation requirements.”  [So the EPA isn’t pushing its war on cheap energy produced from fossil fuels hard enough already?  Give us a break!]

7/10/11, E3, Investments rise in renewable energy; wind, solar, geothermal get boost from changing policies, Dan Vergano (Gannett) – Drops in solar-cell prices and surging interest of developing nations led to a 32% increase in investments in renewable energy globally in 2010, a UN report finds.  A total $211B investment in wind, solar, and geothermal is cited, supposedly “driven by policies in nations that increasingly require such power worldwide.” [Why do nations require “such power” vs. “power” period?] http://bit.ly/rjCl7W According to the report, China spent $50B, Germany $41B, and the US $30B of the total.  Total investment in fossil fuel plants was $219B last year, per the US Energy Information Agency, but a source is quoted that renewable energy may close the gap in the next year or two.  Among the factors cited for increased renewable energy investment is a 60% drop in solar panel prices tied to price-cutting by Chinese manufacturers since 2008.   However, wind is still cheaper than solar.  [We have nothing against renewable energy, provided that it is not propped up with government mandates and subsidies – which is what has boosted renewable energy investment.]

7/9/11, A6, PA. taps brakes on drill permits; Regulators to slow approval process, Marc Levy (AP) – The state Department of Environmental Protection was settling a complaint filed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2009, which demanded new requirements and contended that the DEP had approved three deficient permit applications.  According to the article, the settlement “essentially reverses some steps the department took two years ago to speed the permitting process for Pennsylvania’s booming natural gas industry.”  The effect will be predominantly found in northern Pennsylvania where PA’s “high quality” and “exceptional value” waterways are predominantly found, said Harry Campbell of the CBF.  [This is not the end of fracking in PA, necessarily, but remember that the power to regulate is the power to destroy.  Current state law dictates that no well may be prepared or drilled within 100 feet of any waterway, but who knows what buffer zone the DEP will wind up requiring for “high quality” and “exceptional value” waterways.]

7/6/11, A7, Carmakers criticize EPA fuel proposal – Nine automakers (including Chrysler and Toyota) have criticized an EPA proposal to allow gasoline containing up to 15% ethanol (or E15) in all cars and trucks in the US saying that its use may void warranties, i.e., that motor vehicles would be damaged.  Letters to this effect were reportedly sent to Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).  [In addition, proposal would raise motor fuel costs and serves no valid purpose.]

7/5/11, A5, R. I. court upholds wind power agreement – RI SCt supported a deal approved last August by the RI Public Utilities Commission, which is key to construction of an offshore wind farm.  National Grid (a utility) will pay Deepwater Wind 24.4¢ per kilowatt-hour for the electricity generated by the project.  Two manufacturers [presumably business customers] had filed a court challenge on grounds that the wind farm did not meet the statutory requirements for state approval because the high cost project was not commercially viable. [The courts seem to have little regard for the economic interests of consumers.  Too bad, it was a good effort.]

7/3/11, D1, Delmarva: PSC has some flexibility on Bloom, Aaron Nathans – Delmarva expects a regulatory filing with the Public Service Commission “later this week,” which will determine the precise size and incidence of the Bloom Energy subsidy to be added to Delmarva Power bills every month.  And PSC Executive Director Bill O’Brien reportedly said the commissioners will “be able to weigh the expected price impact, balance it against the benefits of the Bloom project [what are they?], and vote the tariff up or down.”  [The role of the PSC gives the legislature and Governor’s office a shred of deniability, but you can bet the PSC will not vote the tariff down.]

7/3/11, D4, Ethanol subsidy likely to end; Even without $5B in federal aid, experts say industry should be fine, David Mercer – How could “the industry be fine” and corn continue to be burned for high cost energy while food prices are artificially boosted?  (1) Most likely the steep tariff on imported ethanol will remain, which prevents competition from ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil. (2) There is no thought of ending the federal mandate that a steadily rising amount of ethanol be blended into motor fuel.  (3) Even if the current 45¢ a gallon tax credit was given up, the corn ethanol lobby would work for “a smaller credit to encourage sales when economic conditions dictate that ethanol producers really need it and money to pay for the installation of gas pumps that would let drivers fill up with fuel containing up to 85% [15%?] ethanol.”  [Welcome to Washington!  Killing government subsidy programs will never be easy, and without relentless pressure it won’t happen at all.]

7/3/11, D5, Sportsmen worry about Marcellus Shale drilling; groups want to make sure fracking won’t harm water, wildlife, Kevin Begos (AP) – “A new coalition of outdoors groups is emerging as a potent force in the debate over natural gas drilling.”  Among those mentioned in the article: Sportsmen Alliance for Marcellus Conservation, Izaak Walton League, and Trout Unlimited.  “The sportsmen worry that stream without bugs could quickly become a stream without fish, and then a valley with fewer birds, and so on up the food chain.” [Unless some degree of common sense prevails, this kind of activity could lead to stringent restrictions on “fracking.”  Who is sticking up for the interests of energy consumers?]

7/2/11, A10, State hatches another clean energy scam, Jerome J. Markiewicz, Newark – Referring to the Bloom Energy deal, the writer says “another sad chapter in Delaware corporate socialism has begun, with theft masquerading as energy saving. *** [earlier it was] the never-ending Wind Farm Soap Opera; it generates hot air, but not electricity.  *** Now ratepayers and taxpayers foot the bill in concert, so Bloom can produce [super expensive] power and sell it on the ‘free market.’”

7/1/11, A10, Gas prices continue to dip, near $3.50 for weekend, Aaron Nathans – Price of gas at the pump has been trending down, is now about 20¢ lower in Delaware than a month ago – albeit some 80¢ a gallon higher than a year ago.  Jim Landear of AAA Mid-Atlantic is quoted to the effect that traveler’s with household incomes of less than $50,000 will be less likely to travel over the upcoming Fourth of July weekend than they were last year, while those with incomes of more than $100,000 will be more likely. [Prediction: gas prices are likely to start climbing again, as the effect of releasing oil from the US strategic reserve will be short-lived.  See 6/24/11 entry.]

7/1/11, A11, Solar projects get federal backing – The Department of Energy loan program has provided “over $38 billion to support 40 clean energy projects across the country.”  The latest round is “nearly $4.5 billion in conditional commitments for loan guarantees for three California solar projects” that are reportedly “expected to create 1,400 jobs and generate 1,330 megawatts of installed solar power.” [No comment on offsetting jobs losses as a result of mandating high cost electricity and displacing workers in the conventional energy sector.  One more time, why should the DOE be allowed to commit taxpayer resources to these projects?]

7/1/11, A12, Caesar Rodney essay distorts facts on climate, Scott Safford, Smyrna – The column (6/25/11) “is so full of innuendo, half-truths and distortions that I feel compelled to respond.”  (1) Climategate based on “hacked” e-mails is old news, and “five independent investigations have concluded that the integrity of the climate change science is entirely sound.” [Note this contrary view from the UK Telegraph, which characterizes the investigations as “whitewashes.” http://tgr.ph/cxb6sr] (2) Assertions and conclusions reached in An Inconvenient Truth are “in fact moderate and even conservative.” [A British court decision found otherwise, concluding that the film was politically biased. http://bit.ly/lR32oP] (3) Fossil fuel is more expensive, not less, e.g., due to resulting healthcare costs. [We suspect that such claims are wildly exaggerated.  Also, study results were misstated as per John Greer’s 6/7/11 letter.]

7/1/11, B1, Lifespan extended for Salem reactors; Regulators see “no safety concerns,” Jeff Montgomery – PSEG Electric was cleared to run its twin Salem reactors for another 20 years.  Unit 1 plant extended to 2036, Unit 2 until 2040.  Extension has also been requested for the Hope Creek reactor, but in that case approval is reportedly awaiting details on management and monitoring of drainage systems around an area under that reactor.  The Sierra Club et al. were predictably critical of the NRC decision, claiming that various issues have not been studied to the Nth Degree.  Also, this decision could be superseded by whatever recommendations come out of the nationwide review of nuclear safety that was ordered after the tsunami-caused meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan. 

6/30/11, DuPont ethanol plant to be in central Iowa, A5, AP – The facility will use corncobs, leaves and stalks to produce ethanol, hence not diverting grain from the food supply.  That’s good.  Total cost $275 million, but a company representative reportedly “declined to say how much DuPont would invest.”  The article references some government support: Town of Nevada, nearly $8.7M in tax abatement over 10 years; Iowa Power Fund, $9M project grant, $586K in job training assistance and $4.6M in tax credits.  [Hmm, how about the Feds, e.g., the big subsidy for blending ethanol in motor fuel and tariff on imported ethanol?  And if this project is such a good idea, why should subsidies be required?]

6/26/11, Bloom Energy subsidy reeks of desperation, Charles Boncelet, Newark – Gov. Jack Markell and the state legislature must be getting desperate to create “jobs,” desperation being the only rational reason for the Bloom Energy subsidy.  Note that ratepayers will “not actually get any electricity for $67 million.  We are paying for renewable energy credits. Bloom will keep the electricity and sell it on the open market.”  Also, Bloom boxes will release CO2, just as gas turbines do.  Calling them “renewable” energy sources stretches credulity.  And if the governor and legislature really want to create jobs, they should seek to make Delaware a more desirable state for all business, not just a favored few, by working to lower [not raise] electricity rates.

6/26/11, Encouraging words from Fisker boss: “The car is the star,” John Sweeney – The writer was impressed by Barny Koehler, co-founder and CEO of Fisker Automotive.  Koehler is a “car guy,” not a “numbers guy,” who wants to “turn out expensive, hybrid-electric cars for a discriminating audience.”  And “who doesn’t want to talk to a man who’s hiring?”  The plan is “to get it right” and “they will be looking for continuous improvement.”  By the way, Delaware won out as the site because of its port, which will permit Fisker cars to be exported worldwide. [The subsidies that Delaware offered had nothing to do with it.]

6/26/11, Offshore project likely faces “slow, painful death,” Aaron Nathans – This piece speculates that the Bluewater wind power project may collapse due to the cutoff of government subsidies, but NRG and Delmarva Power are playacting so it will look like they “tried everything” before pulling the plug.  “It’s just a slow, painful death,” says Bloomberg energy analyst Amy Grace. [Fine by us.]

6/25/11, A9, Conventional energy provides improvements cheaper, faster, David Stevenson (Caesar Rodney Institute) – A recent News Journal story (6/19/11) blamed slipping public support for green energy costs on economic troubles.  “The truth is the public has gotten a [peek] behind the curtain and has developed a healthy skepticism about a panicked and expensive response to [manmade] global warming claims."  Climategate e-mails – resignation of Dr. Philip Jones who admitted in an interview that “there has been no increase in global temperatures in 15 years – Al Gore’s admission that he only supported the corn-based ethanol program because he was running for president – over 400 factual errors demonstrated in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth – environmental movement has morphed into “a social crusade to eliminate the use of fossil fuels regardless of the costs or facts.”

          And yet, right here in Delaware: DNREC still bases state energy policy on the 2007 IPCC report – University of Delaware “celebrates a professor of urban affairs who extols global warming science while musing in a published article how energy policy should be used to end Western-style capitalism” – an environmental scientist [Dr. David Legates] was forced from his job at UD for refusing to toe the global warming party line – an environmental activist [Tom Noyes, 5/31/11] (1) misquoted a study that showed a natural-gas plant reduced CO2 emissions by five times more than a wind farm by replacing more coal-fired electric generation, and (2) ignored the fact that cheap energy and a healthy economy will promote human health more effectively than efforts to end the last little bit of pollution from fossil fuel power plants.

6/24/11, A1/A2, NRG delays Bluewater Wind farm decision, Aaron Nathans – Remember the “key decision point” for NRG on June 23, which was previously reported on 5/26/11?  Well, when June 23 rolled around, NRG and Delmarva power “decided to stall.”  A 3-month extension was negotiated, which will reportedly “allow NRG to see whether Congress will extend tax credits and restore funding for a shelved loan guarantee the energy firm says is critical to paying for the wind farm it wants to erect off the coast of Delaware.”  To date, NRG has forfeited $2 million of its $6 million security deposit,  “It now has until Sept. 23 to exit the deal, or lose $2.75 million, and until Jan. 1, 2013, to leave before it loses the rest.” [Will the government subsidies materialize or won’t they?  The suspense is killing us.]

6/24/11, A5, 30M barrels of oil from US reserves to be sold; Largest release ever from US supply a response to Mideast disruptions, energy chief says, Matthew Daly (AP) – This will amount to half of a 60M barrels infusion of oil planned for the world market over the next month, which sounds like a lot, but the 30M US portion is only about three days of oil imports. 

   “The timing brought criticism from business groups and Republicans, who accused President Obama of playing politics with the country’s [strategic] oil reserves, which are intended to address emergencies.”  [Politics, you think?  Let’s try loosening the many restrictions on US domestic oil exploration and production instead.  Tip for fiscal visionaries: be persistent or get run over, 4/25/11 entry in our weekly blog.]

6/24/11, B1/B2, UD wind turbine turns out surplus; Energy produced meets expectations, Molly Murray – It seems that the wind continues to blow in the Lewes area, and the blades of the wind turbine that was started up about a year ago continue to spin. On balance, more than enough electricity has been generated to supply the needs of the UD-Lewes campus, with the balance being sold to Lewes at wholesale prices.  However, there will probably be a deficit this summer because “the wind just doesn’t blow as hard during the summer.” [No word in this puff piece about the cost of the electricity being produced, which of course is higher than from conventional means.]

6/24/11, B2, House clears way for surcharge to subsidize Bloom: Fuel-cell maker to occupy Chrysler site, Craig Livengood – SB 124 was passed by the Delaware House, only two weeks after the announcement of the Bloom Energy proposal (see 6/10/11 entries).  As a result, Delaware ratepayers will pay a subsidy tariff of about $1 per month (much more for businesses) over the next 20 years – and under the express language of the bill, any attempt of future sessions of the Delaware legislature to kill the tariff would require a payoff to Bloom of all its capital costs for the project.  Neither the government nor Delmarva Power are on the hook, only Delaware ratepayers.  Yet only four members of the House voted against this legislation, all “downstate Republicans” (Gerald Hocker, Harvey Kenton, Harold “Jack” Peterman, & David Wilson). The dissenters’ views are briefly noted at the tail end of the article: (A) Hocker: “I can’t subsidize another new business on the backs of other businesses that can’t make it by paying these rates.”  (B) Peterman reportedly expressed concern that the contract between Bloom and the state for the $16 million in direct taxpayer funding can’t be amended by future legislators.  [The point is that the subsidy imposed on ratepayers without their consent can’t be amended without triggering the Bloom poison pill.  SB 124 does not say anything about the direct taxpayer funding.]  “I think that we’re giving some of our authority away, and that really concerns me.”

6/23/11, A1/A8, Fisker to hire 120 this year; workers will retrofit old GM plant for reopening in 2012, Jonathan Starkey – Idea is to have production start in the 4th quarter of 2012 on the “Nina” (a lower cost version of Fisker’s $96K electric car.  “Funded in part by a $529 million loan from the federal government and $21.5 million in grants and loans from Delaware, Fisker has said it plans to employ 2,500 people when the plant on Boxwood Road is at full production.”  However, analysts at JD Power & Associates and IHS Global Insight have characterized Fisker’s sales goal (100,000 cars to be produced at the site in 2014) as lofty.  [Reports from other sources suggest electric cars will be a tough sell.  See, e.g., Bob Beauprez, Obama blunders on batteries badly, Townhall.com, 6/23/11. http://bit.ly/mtBU2f]

6/23/11, a flurry of letters defending government “green” programs, A12 – (A) Amtrak isn’t only mode of subsidized transport, Mark Anderson, Elkton, MD.  So are airlines (funds for airports and air traffic control), motor vehicles (roads, albeit largely paid for by the gas tax), etc.  [The idea of eliminating other subsidies instead is not mentioned.]  (B) Big businesses stymied battery-powered cars, Gus Patterson, Hockessin.  The writers claims abandonment of the EV095 NiMH battery program that GM purchased control of in 1994, which if pursued would “have us driving much further [today] than 120 miles at 80 mph with batteries that outlive the car.”  [The story revealingly ends with the statement that the “American people are being exploited by the same corporations getting government bailouts and huge tax breaks.”] (C) Christie fans wrongly slam energy initiative, James Young, Middletown.  Decries “recent spate of letters from tea party land” that extol NJ Governor Chris Christie for rejecting the RGGI.  Claims that the 18-month program has saved $5 million in costs, 28 million kilowatt hours in usage and 2,600 tons of emissions from our air.  “Not bad for a cost of pennies to the average consumer.” [If the program saves costs, why does the consumer have to pay more.  How was the reduced usage achieved?  And what difference did the emission reductions make, if indeed they were due to the RGGI versus increased use of natural gas to power electric production?]

6/23/11, House Bill 146 would create more jobs than Bloom Energy, A13, DE Representative Dennis E. Williams – The writer claims that HB 146 [re “THE LICENSING OF VIDEO LOTTERY CASINOS AND HARNESS RACING DAYS”] would create 3,600 jobs, mostly “good-paying jobs with health[care] insurance and other benefits.  The new businesses would invest $600 million in Delaware within three years, and “no taxpayer money would be needed.” The only drawback mentioned is that the three existing casino owners would face some competition for a change. [Sounds too good to be true, but we do not have a handle on this one.]

            Representative Williams throws in a plug for the Bloom Energy deal, allowing that “casinos are not the sole answer to new jobs and revenue.”  According to him, “all of the legislators in Dover are thrilled and will help make sure any legislation we need is quickly enacted.” [The fallacy of expecting to help the economy by mandating and subsidizing a super-expensive source of energy is not addressed.  See 6/22/11 letter by George Jurgensen.]

6/22/11, Microturbines dominate Bloom’s technology, George Jurgensen (Lincoln University, PA) -- DEDO head Alan Levin and DNREC head Colin O’Mara should resign for promising $11.25 million [$16 million?] to a manufacturer that promises to build devices that produce electricity at a capital cost of 8 to 15 times as much as incumbent technologies.  Gas microturbines cost a fraction of the reported cost of Bloom’s silicon oxide fuel cell technology and operate with comparable efficiency.

6/21/11, A1/A2, Bloom subsidy a burden, detractors say: conservatives say surcharge is unfair to Delmarva ratepayers, Aaron Nathans – Re the Bloom Energy deal, the state would provide $16 million in financial incentives, and another subsidy for Bloom “would be raised through a surcharge on Delmarva Power bills.”  The tariff would be included in delivery charges, meaning customers could not avoid it by switching electricity providers.  Although the exact amount is uncertain because the fuel cell boxes won’t be fully operational until 2013, Delmarva estimates “it will need to raise the average residential bill by an average of $1 per month, for 20 years ($67 million in revenue over 20 years), to put 30 megawatts of power onto the regional grid.” An “unspecified additional amount” would come from business customers. The details of the proposed surcharge would be filed in Public Service Commission proceedings later.

          The detractors: (1) Senator Colin Bonini:  “I’m just concerned a lot of these green energy ideas don’t pan out in the long term.”  (2) Barrett Kidder, CEO of the Caesar Rodney Institute: “I do not believe that building high-cost, inefficient methods of making electrical power is the right way to go for an economy that is struggling.” 

          But “others say the bill is a necessary boon to clean energy – and the jobs Bloom will bring.”  House Speaker Robert Gilligan: “It’s not a significant amount of money for ratepayers.  I think that what we’re trying to do is take every step imaginable to try to generate jobs here in Delaware.”  Delmarva representative Bridgett Shelton: The legislation is not the end of the road because the PSC will scrutinize the project and would need to approve any impact on customers.

6/21/11, A10, Global warming causing sea level rises, study finds: Most detailed study of past 2,100 years yet: Randolph Schmid (AP) – Summarizes a new study on sea level rise that concludes sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, supposedly by more than 2 millimeters (nearly .01 inch) per year on average.  Kenneth Miller, chairman of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University, called the new report significant.  He has reportedly advised NJ Governor Chris Christie that the state needs to plan for a sea level rise of about 3 feet by the end of the century [0.4 inch per year]. The report was produced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the International Program on the State of the Ocean.  [Environmentalists seem prone to exaggerate this concern.  Check out this SPPI study for a contrary view. http://bit.ly/kYFJH0]

6/19/11, A1/A12, Slump limits clean energy: Congress, economy hold back US shift, Aaron Nathans – Remember how united everyone seemed five years ago, when they “streamed from theaters showing the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ many resolving to push for change to curtail carbon emissions from power plants, factories and homes to lessen the impact of climate change.”  But advocates for “clean energy” are now “in full defense mode” as recession-battered consumers blanch at the modest added costs required to shift to cleaner power and resurgent Republicans rail against government subsidies or carbon control programs that might add costs for businesses and ‘kill’ jobs.”  Proposed national “cap and trade” scheme and renewable energy mandates have been blocked.  Tax credits and loan guarantee program may fall “victim” to “budget-cutting deals.”  And New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wants to pull his state out of the RGGI, although a similar proposal in Delaware was “rebuffed.” 

  “The renewable power industry is reeling.”  NRG treading water on Bluewater project – cost disadvantage, “particularly now that natural-gas prices are very low because so much of it is available due to fracking of large reserves in U.S. shale formations” – boom & bust timing of wind projects because “Congress keeps renewing wind subsidies just before they expire” – gullible consumers “spooked” by overestimates of subsidy costs for renewable energy, e.g., the Bluewater Wind farm would only add “about $1 a month on the average residential bill.”

  Rep. John Carney “points to a long list of near-party-line votes in the House this year that undermine efforts to combat carbon emissions, including defeat of a bill that would have stated human activity is causing climate change.” He believes traditional fuels have been subsidized for years [details?], so it should be OK to subsidize renewable energy investments too. “Frankly, even if you have doubts about the climate change science, why wouldn’t you take a chance for future generations?  I think that’s not being responsible stewards of the planet.” 

  Still, solar and wind power generate 1% or so of US electricity at this point, and costs are coming down.  Besides, says Michael Kannelos of Greentech Media, “natural-gas prices will rise again, because consumption will become so high that the US will need to become a net importer.” And “not even the hardest climate skeptic wants to live down the road from a coal plant.”

          [The stunning point about this article is the refusal to consider that the case for renewable energy might, just might have been overstated.  Start with the well-known exaggerations in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which was propaganda rather than a real documentary.  Factor in the subsequently revealed Climategate e-mails, the lull in the global warming trend over the past 10 years, and the miniscule effect that increased use of renewable energy by the US would have on global temperatures.  And if costs of renewable energy are coming down, wind and solar may eventually be able to compete without mandates or subsidies.  But the last thing “clean energy” advocates want is a level playing field.  To the contrary, a Washington Examiner editorial notes “alternative energy advocates are pulling out all their propaganda and government lobbying stops to greatly limit the use of fracking or eliminate it entirely.” http://bit.ly/lVjC2F]

6/19/11, A15, Is the crisis-indifference cycle back? – This editorial suggests that “real-life difficulties of technology, politics, economics and public opinion” will complicate the transition to “a post-industrial Eden with pollution-free, renewable and cheap energy serving our every need.”  But instead of admitting that the vision may be illusory, the News Journal blames the bumps in the road on “our habit of short-term thinking.”  As a result, “we probably will continue drifting until the next crisis.” [A financial crisis? http://bit.ly/ma6Q2z]

6/19/11, A15, Markell should take a lesson from New Jersey, Theresa Garcia, Magnolia – The writer praises NJ Governor Chris Christie for standing up to special interest groups and representing the people of New Jersey in his decision to pull the state out of the RGGI.  She goes on to say that DE Governor Jack Markell should “get educated” about the issue and follow suit. 

6/17/11, B1/B9, Senate OKs bill to boost Bloom: Gas-powered fuel cells get exception, Chad Lievengood & Jeff Montgomery – Another milestone for the Bloom Energy initiative is reported.  By an 18-2 (bipartisan) vote, the DE Senate created an exception to the “renewable energy” definition that would include Bloom fuel cells run on natural gas.  Also, Delaware’s Public Service Commission will be empowered to grant Delmarva Power authority to levy a “tariff” on customers to cover the extra cost.  Said cost was initially estimated at 70¢ per month for the average ratepayer, although Governor Markell said yesterday that it could be closer to $1.00 per month.  House leaders will “fast track” the legislation to the governor’s desk next week.

          [We are appalled by the ready acceptance of this dubious proposal.  Consider the quoted comment of Sen. George Bunting, D-Bethany Beach:  “I know this train is on track and it’s going in a direction.  But we just cannot continue adding more costs to residential customers.”  Fine, why not vote against the proposal here and now?]

6/16/11, A12, Was ethanol vote a sign of break in fiscal fight? Senator Tom Coburn’s proposal to eliminate ethanol subsidies and import duties fell short in the Senate, but the News Journal says the subsidy fails on three counts: makes some Midwest corn farmers rich, hurts environment, and raises price of corn and overall cost of food.  Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons voted “no,” ostensibly on procedural grounds, but issued a joint statement saying they look forward to voting for a bill that ends the subsidy. http://1.usa.gov/lk88Nz [Watch what they do, not what they say.]

6/15/11, A10/A11, Google investing in residential solar power: in its latest green initiative, company will pay for installation of solar panels, Jonathan Fahey (AP) – Google will finance (to the tune of $280 million) solar panel systems installed by SolarCity so that homeowners will not have to make an up front investment.  All the homeowner need do is agree to pay a set price for the power produced.  Google charges Solar City interest and takes the tax credits.  According to the article, Google (a) is counting on a tax credit of 30% from the federal government, (b) can write off solar panel systems in the year they are built, and (c) takes any state and local tax credits that may apply.  This will be Google’s 7th green energy investment, bringing their investment to more than $680 million.  Other projects: wind farms in ND, CA, and Germany; contemplated transmission system off the East Coast. 

          Electricity prices have not risen in recent months [due to cheap natural gas], but “they’re expected to creep up in coming years as the cost of increasingly stringent clean-air regulations [the EPA war on coal] are passed on to customers.

6/14/11, A6, NJ sees blitz of wind interest: 11 companies apply to build turbines, Aaron Nathans – Why have 11 companies “applied to the federal government to build wind turbines off the coast of New Jersey,” including a NRG Energy unit that “has expressed misgiving about its ability to build a wind farm off Delaware’s shores” due to “decreased federal support?”  Nathans notes that New Jersey passed a law last year “requiring utilities to buy a portion of their power from offshore wind generators” [no matter what the price?].  And despite Governor Chris Christie’s decision to pull NJ out of the RGGI, he still apparently supports development of wind and solar power.  [We thought Christie had seen the light on the global warming scam, but bad ideas do not go quietly into the night.]

          Another point, only tangentially mentioned, is that “filing low-cost, early-stage federal responses” is a strategy to hold a place in line for the hoped-for federal renewable energy bonanza.  The Bluewater project is further along, and it could cost NRG Energy some serious money to take the next steps – so they are balking in that case.

6/13/11, A10, Pressure from Markell killed energy reform bill, Russ Murphy (9/12 Patriots), Milford – The writer contrasts the actions of Governors Chris Christy of New Jersey, who announced that his state will withdraw from the RGGI, and Jack Markell of Delaware who applied pressure “for weeks” on legislators to keep H.B. 86 (a bill to take Delaware out of the RGGI) bottled up in committee.  “As one of the many citizens who attended a hearing [on H.B. 86], I can say with all honesty this meeting was a farce and slap in the face to the citizens of Delaware.” [See our 5/13/11 entry.]

6/12/11, F1/F5, Bloom’s price and reliability questioned: fuel-cell maker promises up to 1,500 jobs, Aaron Nathans – More on the Bloom Energy coup that was reported in a 6/11 story.  Bloom’s “board members include Colin Powell, and it has the backing of well-regarded venture capitalists.”  There are also “some high-profile customers” (e.g., Google, eBay, Bank of America) with “Bloom Boxes” onsite.  Yet “observers” say “Bloom may face the same debate that offshore wind faced in Delaware a few years back [this debate is NOT over]: price and reliability.”

          Bloom has reportedly been selling its system at about $7-8K per kilowatt.  To become competitive with combined-cycle gas turbine power, says Sun Shu, a Bloomberg energy analyst, it would have to get the purchase cost down to about $1,500 per kilowatt.  For the time being, at least, the only way to do that is to rely on government mandates and subsidies.  And even so, Delmarva’s 30-megawatt plan would reportedly come with a 70¢ per month surcharge for ratepayers.

   Another detail: there is some controversy as to whether Delaware law should be amended to recognize the Bloom fuel cells as “renewable” energy since the cells would be powered with natural gas, a fossil fuel.  DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara points out, however, that carbon emissions “are minimal compared to traditional fossil fuels” and “this isn’t combustion [shudder] technology.”

6/12/11, F1/F5, Savings for wind power expected to drop: 4.3 percent cut likely to fall to 1.9, Aaron Nathans – The details of this story are convoluted, but here is what we get out of it.  The “savings” mentioned are due to the currently low market price for natural gas; in February, they were projected at $5.88 per month for the average ratepayer.  However, this estimate has been reduced to $2.79 per month due to Delmarva’s losses on the resale of wind power that it has contracted for (to get the accompanying renewable energy credits) but elects not to use (since wind power is variable and complicates keeping track of the power required from other sources).  [Bottom line: there are no “savings for wind power,” only added costs.] 

6/11/11, A3, Blaze burns on, threatening more towns and two major power lines, Bob Christie & Susan Bryan (AP) – The 408,876-acre blaze in Arizona has been burning since May 29.  Authorities suspect it was sparked by a campfire.  It is the second-largest wildfire in state history. [No mention that “green” policies demanded by environmentalists and followed by the US Forest Service have greatly amplified the severity of this event. http://bit.ly/kroI2y]

6/11/11, A6, Volt sales now open to all 50 states: GM lowers base price to $39,995,” Chrissie Thompson (Gannett) –Next year, GM plans to build 60,000 Volts, with 45,000 designated for the United States. Step right up and buy one! You may “even be eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit.”

6/10/11, A1/A8, Del. woos firm, 1,500 jobs: Innovative fuel-cell company to build facility on ex-Chrysler site, Eric Ruth – The firm is Bloom Energy, “a California manufacturer of electricity-producing fuel cells” that would “build its East Coast manufacturing facility on the site of the old Chrysler plant in Newark.”  The proposed investment is painted as a coup for Governor Jack Markell et al., arranged with “some help from U.S. Tom Carper.”  Bloom would hire up to 900 at the site over the next five years, with additional jobs added by supplier firms that would set up shop in Delaware.  OK, Bloom would “receive millions of dollars in incentives from the state,” but these incentives are contingent on reaching “employment milestones within the next five years.”  And other states supposedly offered even more loot.

            Just what would Bloom do?  They build “blocks” of fuel cells that are used by utilities and corporations to produce electricity.  Some type of input fuel – most commonly natural gas (can also be ethanol or biofuels) – is used.  Electricity is produced by an electrochemical reaction vs. combustion, with 40-50% less CO2 “pollution.”  The process has reportedly attracted a lot of attention via “60 Minutes” and other “top business publications.”  [Here is a simplistic description of the process. http://bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-animation/]

            Delmarva Power has committed to use Bloom’s fuel cells to generate 30 megawatts of power for its customers, which would “help the company reach its mandate” of 25% of its electricity come from “renewable” energy sources by 2020. Besides, Bloom documents say “our customers generate their own electricity for less than they pay the power company.” [Without subsidies and a renewable energy mandate, would the economics still be attractive?  No word on this, but we suspect the answer is NO. See this article re Bloom’s government subsidy track record.  http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/04/bloom-pro-subsidy-game/]

6/10/11, A12, Manufacturing deal gives state, UD a big boost – The state’s investment will run about $15 million over five years.”  News Journal describes the proposal as “a good thing” but not “a sure thing.”  Kudos are awarded to Governor Markell, UD President Harker, Delmarva Power President Stockbridge, and “the state’s congressional delegation.” 

6/10/11, A11, Biofuel blend for jets OK’d: Passenger flights could use up to 50%, Louise Downing (Bloomberg News) – The idea is to power jets with “a blend of traditional fuel and biofuel from inedible plants.”  It originated in Europe, but the US Air Transport Association is now on board.  According to a Bloomberg analyst, “the real winners” will be “technology companies involved in the production of aviation biofuels.”  The fuels in question are described as “cleaner” and also “hydro[gen?] treated,” producing reduced CO2 emissions.  No word on cost versus conventional jet fuel [who cares about that?].

6/9/11, A11, Swiss move to phase out nuclear reactors: Critics warn that replacing 40 percent of energy will raise cost for consumers, Phillipe Clavel (AP) – In the wake of the Fukushima problems, a majority in Switzerland’s lower house voted in favor of a gradual plan to shut down the country’s five nuclear reactors by 2034 *** [which] currently generate almost 40 percent of the country’s energy.  Hydropower supplies most of the rest.  Never mind that “Switzerland’s reactors are considered safe and the country isn’t prone to large natural disasters.”  Replacement expected to come from “a combination of sharp efficiency improvements, new gas-fired power stations, small heat-generating plants fired with organic waste, and tapping the country’s considerable potential for geothermal energy.”  [In other words, energy costs will rise for no good reason.] 

6/9/11, A11, Oil prices rise as OPEC maintains production – The decision “sent oil back above $100 a barrel” and “sets the stage for higher prices later this year.” [SAFE is on record as predicting $5 a gallon gas, although we hope this won’t happen.  Needed: more leeway for domestic oil production.]

6/9/11, A11, Carper co-chairs hearing on air quality: Effects of pollution on children explored, Nicole Gaudiano – As chairman of the Environment and Public Works subcommittee on clean air, Senator Tom Carper called the hearing to gather information about the impact of air quality on children’s health.  Telegraphing his leanings on the issue, he made reference to the “sensible” rules the EPA is considering for mercury, smog and other pollutants.  And, of course, the EPA is also “setting pollution standards linked to global warming to satisfy a Supreme Court ruling.”  Legislation to block these efforts has passed the House, but “failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate.”  Witnesses mentioned in the article: (A) Patty Resnik, a Christiana Care Health System official said children are seeking hospital treatment more often for asthma – one of the top three diagnoses responsible for juvenile patients.  “We see people enter into our hospitals who are adversely affected by what they breathe.”  (B) American Lung Association’s 2011 State of the Air Report gave each of Delaware’s three counties failing grades for the number of high-ozone days between 2007 and 2009.  “These kids may have to miss school,” said Carper, and “their parents may have to miss work and all the while healthcare costs in America – already the highest in the world – continue to rise.”  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said,  “I have absolutely no confidence in the science coming out of the EPA.”  Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) suggested that the EPA has already made the nation’s air cleaner than every before, and “today, the crisis is the economy and jobs.”  [The pending EPA rules would sharply drive up energy costs.  We fail to see why Congress should allow this to happen. http://bit.ly/kpr52a]

6/7/11, A10, Renewable energy will not improve air quality, John E. Greer Jr., Wilmington – A recent Delaware Voice column erroneously claimed that renewable energy for electric generation in Delaware would have a large positive impact on air quality and health. [“Consider health costs in energy planning”, Tom Noyes, 5/31]. While a consultant’s report for Delmarva Power’s Integrated Resource Plan predicted improved air quality from 2010 to 2020, factors other than renewable energy were [primarily] responsible.  The main factors per the report: “implementation of emission control technologies following state and federal rule requirements, the shutting down of older facilities, fleet turnover of on-road motor vehicles and off-road equipment, the introduction of cleaner engine technologies, and the use of cleaner fuels.”  Thus, Delmarva’s assessment indicates that alternative energy generation in Delaware would have very little impact on air quality and health and would not justify the high cost. [Point well taken, but we would add that the overall health benefit claims are wildly exaggerated.]

6/5/11, C5, Companies look for power way, way up in the sky: Jet stream energy potential many times world energy needs, experts say, Jay Lindsay (AP) – No surprise, winds high above the earth’s surface are more powerful than surface winds – and “flying, swooping and floating turbines are being developed to turn [them] into electricity.”  Christina Archer, an atmospheric scientist at California State University in Chico says there is “not a doubt anymore” that high-altitude winds will be tapped for power.  WHEN: Some say earlier, but Fort Felker at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says industry is 10 years away from making a meaningful contribution to the nation’s electricity demands. Ultimate goal would be to tap power of the jet stream, which is 4-10 miles high, but start by focusing below a 2,000-foot ceiling.  Advocates say their smaller, lightweight turbines will be far cheaper to build than surface windmills with huge blades and towers.  The savings would mean inexpensive energy, possibly down to “an astonishingly low 2 cents per kilowatt hour.”  OVERCOMING OBSTACLES: Plenty of remote and offshore no-fly areas where turbines won’t interfere with aircraft and have minimal interaction with people.    Extensive testing of turbine concepts, e.g., to demonstrate that they can safely fly unsupervised for prolonged periods of time.  In extreme weather conditions, stay up or come down?  Interference with bird flight paths?  Conducting electricity to earth via the tether.  Should turbine be designed to hover, swoop, or circle? [This is a new one on us.  Fine, give it a go, so long as there are no government subsidies or mandates involved.]

6/3/11, A1, State could be left in bind if NRG exits: Risky contract makes finding new developer for offshore wind project difficult, Aaron Nathans – Front page update on 5/26 front page story by Nathans.   The gist is that Governor Markell’s talk about finding someone else to build the Bluewater project if NRG isn’t willing to pursue it aggressively was just bluster, because no one is likely to want in unless tax credits are renewed on a long-term basis.  [Without subsidies, the numbers are not going to work.]

5/31/11, A3, Germany to abandon nuclear power by 2022 – In the wake of the quake-related problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, nuclear alarmists have been pressing hard to stop the planning for future nuclear plants and even shut down plants currently in operation.  [This message has resonated strongly in Germany, where almost unimaginable price tags have been put on “worst case” nuclear disaster scenarios.  5/1/11, Nuclear industry under-insured worldwide.]  Now the German government (led by Chancellor Angela Merkel) says it will shut down all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022.  Merkel reportedly “hopes” the transformation to more solar, wind and hydroelectric power will serve “as a roadmap for other countries.”  Underscoring that this decision has not been thought through, the story concludes with the observation that “the government had no immediate estimate of the transition’s overall cost.” [Let’s hope people in this country will exercise better judgment.]

5/31/11, A5, GE: Solar may be cheap option in 5 years, Brian Wingfield (Bloomberg) – Solar power may be cheaper than fossil fuel or nuclear energy “within three to five years because of innovations.”  Source: Mark Little, the global research director for General Electric.  Researchers are boosting efficiency of thin-film panels and cutting the cost, which could “make developers less dependent on government subsidies, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.”  Also coming, supposedly, is “the smart grid.”   This year, GE will introduce the “Nucleus,” a device that will let consumers track household electricity use with personal computers and smart-phones.  [OK, go for it GE, guess you won’t be needing government subsidies and mandates any more.  Guess again!]  “Utilities need incentives to put in place devices that save energy and Congress needs to provide greater certainty in tax policy concerning renewable energy, Little said.”

5/31/11, A7, Consider health costs in energy planning, Tom Noyes (Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club) – Cites alleged huge “economic benefits of using more renewable energy to generate electricity for Delaware” based on imputing “$2,000 to $4,750 in reduced health and mortality costs for every Delaware resident between now and the year 2020.”  And the Sierra Club chapter “has intervened this docket [PSC] to make the case for including the calculation of health benefits as an integral part of our energy planning.  Ken Kristl of Widener Law School is representing them.  Tracks Governor Jack Markell’s call two years ago for a “level playing field for clean energy” by including all of the costs and benefits in PSC proceedings.  [But what if the imputed health and mortality costs are phony, as we would suspect?  See 5/9/11, Children and environmental pollutants.]

5/29/11, A17, GOP hopefuls do about-face on climate change: doubters in party help spark reversals among contenders, Dina Cappiello (AP) – In 2008, the Republican standard bearer – John McCain – supported proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  [He differed from his opponent, however, in advocating aggressive support for nuclear power.]  Now the political calculus is changing, and four presidential hopefuls (Huntsman, Pawlenty, Gingrich and Romney) have dialed back or outright rejected their previous support for “green energy.”  Not to mention Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who plans to pull his state out of the RGGI.

          Case in point: As governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty signed a law to cut greenhouse gas emissions and also “called on Congress to limit the pollution blamed for global warming.”  Two years later, he wrote Congress opposing the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” bill as “overly bureaucratic, misguided and would be very burdensome on our economy.”  This month, in a South Carolina debate, Pawlentyt apologized for his “climate past” calling it “a mistake.”

          Polling shows Republican voters have shifted on this issue, while “among liberals and moderates, there’s been relatively little movement.”  [Heck, what’s wrong with the people who are not reassessing the unsubstantiated theory that CO2 “pollution” could result in catastrophic global warming?  This issue should be resolved based on facts and logic, not politics.]

5/28/11, A8, Greenhouse gas plan can work if given a chance, David Richards, Frankford – The writer complains about a “letter-writing campaign to kill [RGGI]” that is “using figures for a decade to make the monthly cost increase for electricity sound like a gigantic amount.”  Also, “the campaigners” are harping on problems with the home winterization program that could be fixed by hiring “highly qualified retired contractors” who would “be proud to oversee this necessary program for minimal compensation.”  Everyone should write their legislators in favor of RGGI “before the Legislature votes on this.”  [But what purpose is RGGI serving to justify the added cost? None is cited in this letter.]

5/27/11, A1/A5, N.J. nixes pollution caps: Del., 8 other states to remain in pact, Aaron Nathans – “New Jersey Gov. Christie said Thursday he will unilaterally pull New Jersey out of a 10-state climate change reduction agreement, giving heart to conservatives who tried – and failed – to force the same action in Delaware.”  [Thus, for the first time, the News Journal reports what happened at the 5/11/11 hearing on HB 86 – which was blocked on a straight party line vote after a shamefully brief and stacked hearing.  See our 5/12/11 entry for details.]  Reactions to Christie’s decision [which will probably involve plenty of follow-up to implement, victories in this type of battle never come easy] follow, in the order reported by Nathans:

          #Bill Zak, a Lewes resident and member of Citizens for Clean Power: “ . . . gives no incentive to fossil-fuel generators to do anything to adjust or modify their past behaviors.”

          #Governor Christie: “RGGI is nothing more than a tax on electricity . . . with no discernible effect on our environment.  We remain completely committed to the idea that we have a responsibility to make the environment of our state and the world better [but] we’re not going to do it by participating in gimmicky programs that don’t work.”

          #DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara: RGGI “has made a positive impact in Delaware by focusing attention on the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and driving clean energy investments that save residents and businesses money.”  Also, low-lying Delaware is especially vulnerable to climate change.  Several paragraphs follow about the $21.3M that Delaware has “received” from participating in this program since 2008 [as though it was “found money”] and the supposedly good things that have been done with the money.

          #Rep. John Kowalko [chairs the House Energy Committee that blocked HB 86]: Christie is an “environmental Neanderthal.”  RGGI is the first step to putting a price on carbon emissions.

          #Brian Selander, speaking for Governor Jack Markell: “The decision reduces the size of the ‘R’ in RGGI but doesn’t reduce the sound science behind it.”

          #John Byrne, co-chair of the SEU: Christie’s move is unfortunate, but won’t affect the amount of money received by Delaware or the willingness of the remaining states [Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware and Maryland] to stay in.

          #David Stevenson, Caesar Rodney Institute: Praised Christie’s “guts,” said New Jersey’s move will embolden Delaware opponents of RGGI to keep pushing.  “Do we really want to be the last ones carrying the water?”

          #Brian Yerger, president of AERCA Advisors: RGGI has been a plus, but environmentalists are losing the argument “because of the failure of scientists to forcefully defend their findings that human activity is driving climate change.” [The quoted part is a paraphrase.  Amazing statement after the Climategate revelations, what scientists is he talking about?]

          #John Nichols, a citizen activist: Decision is good news for New Jersey, but bad news for Delaware as lower NJ electric rates will encourage businesses to locate there versus here.

5/27/11, A8, Economic uncertainty at heart of new delay – Editorial relates to the 5/26/11 entry re NRG slowdown on Bluewater offshore wind project.  This project remains a “good idea,” but “the economics – both in private industry and at the government level” do represent a “tough” problem. Therefore, Governor Jack Markell’s bluntness was probably overdone.  “Let’s not pretend we can develop a new energy industry without risk or some semblance of a reliable national policy.” [SAFE says: let’s concentrate on nurturing abundant, inexpensive energy.]

5/26/11, A1/A2, NRG: Wind project in jeopardy: Markell hints state will look for other companies willing to move forward, Aaron Nathans – In summary, NRG Bluewater is treading water on the offshore wind project [see 5/22/11, D1 entry] because Congress (a) eliminated “most new funding for two loan guarantee programs” as part of the FY 2011 budget deal, and (b) “has left uncertain the fate of renewable energy credits important to making electricity from wind or solar projects competitive with power from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.”  An NRG spokesman said the company is “just slowing down our momentum until we have a clearer picture of the future.”  Delaware Governor Jack Markell reportedly says the Bluewater “project was not pitched as contingent on federal loan guarantees.”  He has expressed disappointment with the status of the project, and says: “I think it’s going to be important” we quickly figure out how committed NRG is to the project.”  A key decision point will come on June 23, when NRG can either walk away from the project with a $2M loss or pay an additional $6M to Delmarva Power. 

          Meanwhile, Governor Markell said Delaware’s Congressional delegation will work to get the tax credit and loan programs restored, but “waiting around for a couple of years to see what develops is probably not going to do a whole lot of good.”  Senator Tom Carper recently spoke with NRG CEO David Crane, who assured him that NRG is “still with us.”  Rep. John Carney is quoted as lamenting that “many in Congress have decided that instead of investing in new sources of energy, the US should continue to hand out billions in unnecessary oil subsidies.”  And according to the reporter, there are signs of “the political winds” shifting away from subsidies for renewable energy during “the economic downturn.”  [Various other sources that favor subsidized wind power are quoted.  No one is quoted who thinks the project slowdown is a good thing, let alone making our point that it is time to end the uncertainty by killing the tax credit and loan guarantees outright.]

5/23/11, A1/A2, Sludge cleanup accord is close: Failed operation piled coal ash at city landfill, Jeff Montgomery, – Basically an update on Montgomery’s 12/27/10 story on the same subject.  Previously the objection to the recycling of city sludge by mixing it with coal ash, etc. was said to be EPA regulations, but this story has DNREC taking the lead with a refusal to renew VFL Technology’s permit for the operation in 2009.  Collin P. O’Mara is quoted: “It’s another reminder of the importance of taking into account all the long-term consequences of decisions.  It may have been seen as a cash injection [for the city] at one time, but the long-term costs are far greater.”  Now coming up is an agreement re shutdown of the Pigeon Point Landfill,” where thousands of truckloads of sludge were “illegally dumped.” [Presumably after the mixing operation was stopped.]  Plans now call for a soil cap to keep rainwater from pushing pollution deeper into soils, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells. 

  Another proposal in the works is the construction of a 4 mega-watt power plant fueled by landfill and sewer plant gas.  The power plant would provide power for the wastewater plant and also use excess heat to dry Wilmington’s sludge, making it cheaper to manage (i.e., the city might be permitted to stop trucking sludge to north central PA at an annual cost of $2.8M.)  “They’re running the financials right now, seeing how to make it work,” said O’Mara.  Note: the power plant would reportedly be “eligible for federal clean energy incentives that could drive operating costs down and potentially provide new revenues for the city. [Get three layers of government involved in a situation, and things can get pretty complicated!]

5/23/11, A6/A7, Brighter LED bulbs ready for roll-out: 100-watt incandescent bulbs to be banned, Peter Svensson (AP) – The Congressional ban on 100-watt incandescent bulbs will start in 2012, with similar rules starting for lower wattage conventional bulbs in 2014.  California has already banned stores from restocking the 100-watt bulbs.  So what are people going to use.  [Previously, we had understood it would be the curlicue CFL bulbs at $5 a pop, but now there is a new possibility.]  Two bulb makers showed off a compliant LED bulb at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia, which it is said will initially cost “about $50 each.”  Accordingly, this “development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.”  [We have no problem with the development of new types of light bulbs, so long as consumers can decide for themselves whether to buy them.  This technocratic mandate is absurd, and we do not feel guilty about “hoarding” light bulbs.  If you agree, write your legislators.]

5/22/11, A12, Fukushima disaster isn’t end for nuclear power, Oswald Bergmann, PhD, Wilmington – The writer’s point is that nuclear power plants should not be built “at the seashore and/or in geologically unstable locations,” as was done with the ill-fated Fukushima plant.  And “existing nuclear plants in such areas must be ‘hardened’ immediately.”  That being said, “nuclear power is, and will be, one of our best sources of low-pollution energy.”  The “hysteria” about this subject “is entirely unjustified based on rational analysis.”

5/22/11, B1/B3, Dredge fight returns to court: New Jersey appeals rejected challenges to federal panel, Jeff Montgomery – With the strong support of business and shipping interests, the Corps of Engineers wants to deepen the 102-mile shipping channel in the Delaware River from 40 feet to 45 feet.  The legal battle over this proposal has been going on for 10 years or so, at goodness knows what cost to the government [probably more than the dredging cost].  Delaware finally accepted the outcome that dredging could proceed, but New Jersey environmental interests (led by New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection) are now appealing to the 3rd Circuit.  Their general position is that the project has not been fully reviewed ([no study, no matter how long, would ever satisfy them] and is environmentally and/or economically unsound.  There is also some question as to whether Congress will appropriate the money for the dredging cost, although the Corps has already deepened a 12-mile section (between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the C&D Canal) and hopes to begin deepening a 5-mile section between the Bridge and Fox Point this summer.  [This is but one example of how unchecked environmental litigation can delay or block economic development.  Can’t anyone do something about it?]

5/22/11, D1, Bluewater narrowing field of turbine suppliers, Aaron Nathans – An “inquiring minds want to know” piece about the turbines for the proposed offshore wind project.  NRG-Bluewater has not made any of the choices yet, apparently, but the reporter does manage to offer some nuggets.  (1) Offshore wind turbines are likely to be bigger than onshore wind turbines.  If a wind farm was 10+ miles for shore, the height of the turbine would not make a noticeable difference in visibility from shore.  (2) “Until there are enough offshore wind farms in the pipeline,” industry officials expect the turbine blades to be imported (creating “green” jobs in Europe or Asia instead of here).  (3) If and when Bluewater signs with a turbine supplier, examine the contract.  “If it’s an actual purchase order, that would show a lot more confidence the project would go forward,” but “more likely, it will be an exclusive negotiation contract, with lots of ways out for both parties.” [If government subsidies for wind power are eliminated, these proposals will disappear without a trace.  What a boondoggle!] 

5/19/11, A9, Senate blocks GOP bid to speed offshore drilling – . . . rejected was a GOP bid “to speed up offshore oil drilling in the face of $4-a-gallon gas prices.”  A “procedural vote” failed Wednesday 57-42.  “The vote comes days after President Barrack Obama directed his administration to ramp up production by extending leases and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska.” [The vote was 42 for the GOP bill and 57 votes against, which is not entirely clear from this text.  Also, the presidential action was basically just a head fake. http://bit.ly/lwZnDr If this country is to capitalize on its abundant energy reserves, a major shift in policy will be required.]

5/18/11, A7, Siemens U.S. chief unhappy with climate-change policy – Eric Spiegel reportedly said “a national strategy is needed to reduce clean-energy technology costs and find solutions for environmental risks associated with greenhouse gases.  Siemens makes wind turbines, and is said to be “well on track to becoming one of the world’s top three providers.”  At a “clean-energy” conference in Washington, Spiegel advocated a national mandate for renewable energy production to spur more investment. “We need to drive down the cost of clean-energy technologies,” he was quoted.  [Is there an element of self-interest here?]

5/18/11, A10, Port ready for refinery’s coke: Del. City byproduct to be shipped overseas, Aaron Nathans – New dry bulk storage facility opened near the Port of Wilmington.  It will be used to store petroleum coke, a by-product from PBF’s refinery Delaware City, until shipped to China et al. and there burned as fuel.  All concerned appear satisfied that no environmental problems will be created in Delaware, and the operation will be monitored by DNREC.  [Whew!  You can bet no one would allow this stuff to be burned here in Delaware.  But wait, isn’t the earth’s atmosphere affected by what goes on in China?]

5/18/11, A11, GOP nixes Senate vote to end tax breaks for big oil – Measure was proposed as a reaction to high gasoline prices, but “might fare better when Congress and the White House negotiate a deal later this year to increase the government’s ability to borrow.”  Per the bill’s sponsor, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), “even the most rich and powerful among us must do their fair share to help us reduce the deficit.”  The amount involved is roughly $2 billion a year [which is dwarfed by the scope of the deficit problem].

5/18/11, B1/B9, PSEG may make small changes for safety: Japanese tragedy sparks review of local reactors, Jeff Montgomery – National review of US reactor safety in the wake of the tsunami-triggered Fukushima disaster has not come up with much so far, at least based on this article.  Speaking during a public forum on nuclear power convened by Rep. John Carney, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regional administrator, Bill Dean, referenced “a number of findings that have been identified” by the initial nationwide assessment, but none that I would say are significant.” However, the PSEG Power president, William Levis, did say plant managers at Salem and Hope Creek are examining whether “we have the staff and equipment to deal with an event at all three units at the same time.”  The forum took place at the Delaware City fire hall, with about 30 people present.

5/17/11, A1/A10, Shore Birds in Danger: New study reveals red knots’ secrets: Molly Murray – On its surface, an interesting story – including pictures of this plucky little long distance migratory bird (which flies from the Southern Hemisphere to the Arctic every year).  [Remember, the red knot has been chosen as a mascot by the SEU.  5/12/11 entry, A8.]  Delaware Bay is a key point in the journey, where red knots stop to refuel on horseshoe crab eggs.  But alas, the numbers of red knots have been declining since 1985, which has prompted an endangered species review by the US Fish & Wildlife Service.  [Such reviews provide employment for government bureaucrats, environmentalists (other than the volunteers), and attorneys – not to mention creating costs for business firms and the general public.  See our 5/9/11 blog entry, example 5. http://bit.ly/f3oa9Z].  Possible actions to protect the red wings include (a) tightening of present restrictions on the harvesting of horseshoe crabs, and (b) guidance in the placement of offshore wind farms to have minimal effects on the birds (and presumably all other species of birds, fish, and mammals).  [Although not pointed out in the article, one of the drawbacks of wind power – in addition to being expensive and unreliable – is its huge environmental footprint versus nuclear power.]

5/13/11, xx, News Journal coverage of HB 86 hearing (see 5/10 story) – Still nothing, but here is a summary (somewhat condensed) of the action per John Greer of Climate Common Sense:

   A Delaware Legislature House Energy Committee hearing was held 5-11-11 on a bill to withdraw Delaware from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a 10-state Northeast Regional CAP-AND-TRADE organization.  There were perhaps 50 people at the hearing.

          Outcome: the bill was tabled on a 4-3 party line vote.  It will not come before the full house unless 21 House members petition it.  This would require all 15 Republicans plus 6 Democrats.

          Testifying first FOR the bill to withdraw from RGGI was David Stevenson of the Caesar Rodney Institute.  He got 5 minutes to speak, and was then grilled by Democrat Rep. Dennis E. Williams, mostly about costs/revenues.  So far RGGI has cost Delaware electric customers $21 million, while generating $21 million in revenues.  Stevenson said future costs could be much higher.

          Testifying first AGAINST the bill was DNREC Secretary Colin O'Mara.  He was also supposed to have 5 minutes, but seemed to get all the time he wanted for his PowerPoint presentation.  He emphasized the uses for the money: (a) 65% to Sustainable Energy Utility goals (subsidizes solar and wind), (b) 15% for low-income Weatherization Assistance Program (fraud and abuse scandal reported by the News Journal "should not deter us"), (c) 10% to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Projects (reduced 26,000 tons/yr so far), (d) 10% for Administration.

          Asked if he thought there might come a time when Delaware could withdraw from RGGI, O'Mara said Yes, when we get a National (CAP-AND-TRADE) program.

          Members of the public were then allowed to speak, alternating people FOR and AGAINST.  Each speaker was originally to get 3 minutes but this was cut to 2 minutes because of the number of people wanting to speak. 

          I went first simply because I was first to sign up on the FOR sheet.  My big moment was holding up an 878-page book with nonstop footnotes (Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered:  2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Heartland Institute, 2009) raising scientific questions about man-made global warming.   I and all other FOR speakers received applause; none of the AGAINST speakers did.

          Other FOR speakers included: John Nichols, whose statement (cut short by the 2-minute rule) emphasized the delegation of authority to RGGI and the SEU, both non-governmental organizations that are neither elected nor accountable.

          Dover Downs president said they have hired consultants and invested extensively to reduce electric usage but RGGI is still costing them $130,000/yr.  One Dem Rep (Williams?) said this was not a whole lot for a company like DD.  The witness disagreed, pointing out that DD just had its first ever losing quarter and management is very concerned.

          Delaware State Chamber of Commerce head said the #1 impediment to new manufacturing businesses locating in Delaware is the high cost of energy.

          Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce head said that the cost of energy is critical to small business.  The public should be told exactly how the RGGI funds are being used and why (implying that this arrangement is just a way to hide the extra costs).

          Father Thomas Flowers of Smyrna DE said his parish spent $46,000 last year helping the needy pay their electric bills and that even small increases were serious problems for the poor.  He said they get five calls a day asking for help with electric bills.

   A farmer said high electric costs were a serious problem for himself and other farmers.

             SPEAKERS AGAINST withdrawing from RGGI included representatives of the Clean Air Council (Global Warming would cause heat-induced disasters) and Nature Conservancy (we must reduce carbon emissions).

Chad Tolman of the Sierra Club said RGGI was a matter of social justice, global warming could cost Delaware $10 billion per year based on the Stern Review, and we must save people in Bangladesh from drowning.  [No kidding, this is what he said.]

          Cora Lee Price (?) said she believes in the science of global climate change and doesn't care what they do in China.

          Activist Tom Noyes said better air quality would save billions in healthcare costs.

5/12/11, xx, News Journal coverage of HB 86 hearing (see 5/10 story) – Nada, nothing, zilch! [Per John Nichols, the attempt to vote the bill out of committee “went down in flames,” but “this is just the first skirmish.”]

5/12/11, A8, Energy nonprofit chooses red knot for new mascot, Aaron Nathans – The red knot is a migratory shore bird that visits Delaware every spring on its annual journey “from South America to the High Arctic of Canada.”  A video about the bird will be posted on the Website of the Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU).  [Fits with the SEU’s “feel good” agenda, but hardly news.]

5/10/11, A6, Bill would pull Del. from CO2 pact: hearing, possible vote, set for Wednesday, Aaron Nathans – According to the reporter, the bill [HB 86] “has been the subject of a spirited lobbying effort by conservative groups such as the Caesar Rodney Institute, which claim to have won over several Democratic senators.” A hearing is scheduled 4 p.m. Wednesday in Legislative Hall and the House Energy Committee is expected to vote on the bill.

            Nathans perpetuates the estimate per RGGI that cost for ratepayers is 38¢ per month “on the average utility bill,” but quotes David Stevenson of CRI to the effect that this “amount is likely to grow as the initiative is expanded over time.” [Stevenson’s 5/1/11 column pegged current figure at $10 per year, or $10,000 for the average business ratepayer, to grow to $50/$50K.]

       “Citizen activist” John Nichols is quoted that ceding government power to nongovernmental agencies like RGGI and the SEU is “a threat to freedom and liberty.” 

       A spokesman for Governor Jack Markell’s office said RGGI is “based on sound science and a record of having delivered positive results.”  He denied claims that the governor or his staff are making calls [in an effort] to defeat the repeal bill.  [So who is making the calls?]

5/10/11, A6, Gas prices expected to drop by nearly 50 cents for summer, Chris Kahn (AP) –

Various analysts; one predicts “$3.50 per gallon this summer.”  One of the reasons cited is that the price of crude oil will keep falling, e.g., “from about $97 a barrel to about $80.”  [SAFE has predicted that the price of oil (and therefore gasoline) will keep rising – barring another recession.  Two reasons: inflationary policies being pursued by the Federal Reserve, which should result in continued weakness of US dollar, and continuing unrest in the Middle East.]

5/10/11, A6, Natural gas leaking into Pa. water wells, study finds: pollution likely from faulty gas wells, not fracking, experts say, Mike Lee (AP) – Duke University study (published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) reports natural gas is leaking into well water in New York and Pennsylvania from drilling sites, fouling nearby wells with 17 times more methane than more distant wells.  The levels of gas were reportedly “high enough to cause a risk of explosion.”  Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy Corp. said in an April 8 speech that (1) “you can go back 100 years and people talk about gas in their water wells,” and (2) while the Marcellus drilling may have contributed “inconveniences,” they all have “engineering solutions.”  [Look for continuing scrutiny of shale oil gas recovery, whether focused on fracking or gas well construction, and calls for restrictive regulations.]

5/10/11, A8, State has save money being in RGGI program, [State] Sen. Harris McDowell – In response to 5/1 column by David Stevenson, Senator McDowell claims RGGI “has allowed our state to innovate and lead in saving energy and money and moving toward a clean energy economy that generates hundreds of new jobs.  Thus, “in less than 18 months, SEU Energize Delaware programs have collectively saved 29 million kilowatt hours of electricity, $5 million on energy bills, 236,000 therms of natural gas and avoided releasing 26,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.” [Per Stevenson’s column, the SEU has yet to issue a required progress report, despite a Freedom of Information suit, so how does McDowell know these things.  And of course, readers have no way to assess his numerical claims.]  Also, contractors for the Delaware Home Performance program are supposedly “required to meet high standards of customer service.”

5/9/11, A10, Children and environmental pollutants – Editorial cites report in current issue of Health Affairs as saying (paraphrase) “poor childhood health caused by environmental factors, such as air pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals, cost the United States at least $76.6 billion in 2008.”  This is said to represent 3.5% of total healthcare costs in 2008 vs. 2.8% in 2007. http://bit.ly/lVDYGy All this despite what the News Journal calls targeted outreach over the last two decades about the harmful effects of a “pretty exhaustive” list of pollutants including lead-based hazards, pesticides, harmful chemicals and radon.

       Could be that the outreach provides “education that explains the problem, without an equal emphasis on knowledge of resources or solutions for parents to tackle.  So government may need to step in and publicize preventable health threats.

       [The editorial is unexceptionable, in that it focuses on parents as the first line of defense.  But statistics of this nature are of questionable validity, in our view, and should not be taken at face value.  The underlying agenda is more government regulation of all human activities, including – see the posted abstract of the article – curbing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.  Also, note how glibly the EPA picks up such statistics as a rationale for tightening its environmental restrictions on energy companies and industrial processes – whatever the cost.]

5/9/11, A10, Obama’s ethanol push threatens Del. revenue, Peter J. Rigby, Wilmington – Solid critique of ethanol program, ending on this note: “Now Obama wants to increase ethanol in gasoline to 15 percent from the mandated 10 percent, and worse yet, Obama’s point man, Tom Vilsack, the current secretary of agriculture and Iowa’s former Democratic governor, wants to expand the use of ethanol fuel by subsidizing gas stations that install E-85 pumps. [We hadn’t noted Mr. Vilsack’s role in this regard, will try to keep an eye on him.]

5/9/11, To save energy, burn oil to generate electricity, Ed Soboczenski, Lewes – The writer’s idea is that people who heat with oil could install electrical generators in their homes kept where the furnace is usually kept.  “The electricity generated could be used to power the home and any excess could be directed into the electric grid.” [Fine, if the homeowner pays for the system and the utility isn’t forced to shoulder extra costs, but let’s not have a new version of the solar panel racket.]

5/6/11, A1/A6, Liquid natural gas terminal delayed by risk calculations, Jeff Montgomery – Here is an update on the proposal to build an LNG terminal on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River.  We thought the proposal had been shelved as a result of falling natural gas prices (due to extracting gas from shale formations via “fracking”), but apparently not, so regulatory issues continue to arise.

        Hess LNG says it needs another year to develop a location and layout for the terminal; the company has therefore asked for “a third permit deadline extension” from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The reason (reporter’s words): “the discrediting of a key risk analysis model for LNG terminals nationwide,” i.e., there is “a little-known ruling [by whom?] that a widely used model for calculating spill and fire risks at LNG terminals could result in ‘truly gross underestimates of the hazard.’” A scenario attributed to “researchers” is that (reporter’s words) “a catastrophic spill from the largest type of LNG tankers could trigger a flash fire that would emit massive amounts of heat, with blistering conditions reaching for more than a mile.”  The only expert cited is Jerry Havens, a professor and director of the Chemical Hazards Research Center at the University of Arkansas, “who has warned for years that accepted risk estimating methods were inaccurate.”

        BP initially proposed an LNG terminal in this area.  Hess bought the rights in 2009 after the US Supreme Court upheld Delaware’s right to block the originally proposed offloading pier that extended into Delaware waters.  Hess has downsized the proposal, likely keeping it out of Delaware waters, and may be interested in LNG exports vs. imports. 

Several critics are quoted, e.g., Jane Nogaki (a member of the New Jersey Environmental Federation) who worries that construction of the terminal (reporter’s words) “could increase pressure for a controversial natural-gas production process called fracking in the Delaware River watershed.” [Who needs cheap natural gas!?]  No proponents are quoted, although local resident Steve Tindall does say, “I understand that you have to weigh the public’s unbridled [i.e., short-sighted] interest in low-cost energy.”

[We can’t speak to the risk assessment model specifically, but are suspicious of extreme “worst case” thinking.  Compare current pronouncements about trillions of dollar risks from nuclear power plants.  5/1/11, C8.  Also, low cost energy is crucial to this nation’s economic future, not an incidental goal.  As for whether an LNG terminal meeting reasonable regulatory requirements makes business sense, let the free market decide.] 

5/6/11, A6, half page “paid advertisement” addressed to Delaware Citizens, Caesar Rodney Institute – Lucid statement in support of House bill 86 “to repeal Delaware’s Cap and Trade law (RGGI).”  Points out, among other things, that Delaware currently produces less than 40% of the electricity that it consumes and industrial users are paying 50% higher rates than in other states.  As a result “we have lost thousands of jobs and virtually no new industries will expand into Delaware.” [There has been no end of pro-RGGI coverage in the News Journal, while critics must pay for advertisements to get their side of the story covered.  Why won’t the News Journal news staff cover both sides of the story?]

5/4/11, A3, Arctic melt could raise sea by 2100, Karl Ritter (AP) – Photo of ice mass with an apparent missing piece, projecting into the ocean, captioned “an iceberg is seen melting off the coast in Greenland.” [See 8/11/10 story by Ritter, “Ice island buoys climate concerns,” which presented several scenarios of the potentially awful results of a “giant ice island” that had broken loose in the Arctic.  We never saw a follow-up story as to what actually happened.]

 The article’s claim about the outlook for accelerating sea level is attributed to “an authoritative new report” by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), which “builds on a similar assessment in 2005.”  Watch out low-lying areas, like Bangladesh and Florida, and there could be flooding of New York City’s subways.  The full AMAP report will be released next week, but “an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday.”

The report is said to shatter [be more dire than] sea level rise forecasts made in 2007 by the UN’s IPCC report.  AMAP also predicts the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice-free in summer within 30-40 years. [Compare this January 2005 letter, which notes past fluctuations in Arctic conditions and suggests current fluctuations are hardly extraordinary. http://bit.ly/jOdit6]

5/2/11, A11, Regional cap-and-trade revenue is wasted, David Stevenson (Caesar Rodney Institute) – [Although there is no reference to Chad Tolman’s 4/22/11 column, this was written in response thereto.] The writer urges that Delaware withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [RGGI] for the following reasons: (1) DE greenhouse gas emissions have already been cut by 40% vs. the RGGI goal of 10%, for other reasons: generator shutdowns and conversions from coal to natural gas.  (2) Consumers have to pay more for power under RGGI -- $10 per year in 2010 for average consumer, $10K for large industrial customer, could increase over the next decade to $50/ $50K.  (3) Auctions have raised $21M cumulative thus far, $2M for administration and most of the remaining $19M turned over to private nonprofit organizations.  Low-income weatherization program was a proven mess; low energy programs of the Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) have produced no documented results and SEU has yet to issue a required progress report despite a pending Freedom of Information lawsuit.  (4) Meanwhile, investments by individuals and businesses have been increasing energy efficiency by almost 2% a year (which dwarfs the results that might have been achieved if all the RGGI money had been invested effectively). (5) The entire 10-year RGGI goal for carbon emission reduction “is replaced by unregulated increases in Third World countries every 30 seconds.” CONCLUSION: “Cap-and-trade schemes are dead globally and nationally, and several of nine other RGGI states are considering repeal.  We should do the same before we are left with an orphaned program.”

         [Excellent analysis as far as it goes, but withdrawal from RGGI is just one of the things that needs to be done.  The other shoe is to eliminate state and where applicable federal mandates and subsidies for wind and solar energy because (1) the manmade global warming threat has been vastly exaggerated, and (2) wind and solar power are simply not a practical substitute for fossil fuel energy.]

5/1/11, ANOTHER SUNDAY NEWS JOURNAL WITH A LOT OF ENERGY COVERAGE, AND WHETHER BY COINCIDENCE OR DESIGN, THIS WEEK’S THEME WAS THE WAR ON CHEAP ENERGY

5/1/11, A3, Obama wants to end tax breaks for oil industry – In his weekly radio address, the president reportedly called for termination of $4 billion in annual tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.  “These tax giveaways aren’t right.  They aren’t smart.  And we need to end them.” He also said the funds generated should go to “clean-energy initiatives,” not be applied to reduce the government’s huge deficit.  [This is just an attempt to change the subject, which should be what the country is going to do about high motor fuel prices.  See http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm, 4/25/11 entry.]

5/1/11, A20, Environmentalists never said it would be easy, Lynne Betts, Seaford – The writer takes issue with the News Journal’s 4/27/11 editorial re high gasoline prices for stating that “one of the biggest failures of the environmental movement has been its repeated overselling of the ease of the transition from an old industrial model to a sustainable system.”  True blue environmentalists never said it would be easy, heck no.  The point is to make “a personal commitment to use less and a personal commitment to live sustainably.”  Use public transportation, put solar panels on your roof, farm without toxic chemicals, eat food that has not been scientifically modified, etc. [Well, at least she is honest.]

5/1/11, C1, Energy Constellation buy no boon for Calvert station, Aaron Nathans – The 4/29/11 story on this deal left out the possible nuclear connection, as we previously pointed out.  Nathans now fills the gap.  “At first glance, this [deal] would seem to be an encouraging sign for Constellation’s halted plans to add a reactor to its nuclear facility at Calvert Cliffs.”  [Not to worry though, according to Nathans, because] “Exelon’s CEO John W. Rowe has said the company doesn’t plan to expand nuclear at this time.”

5/1/11, C5, N.M., Texas protesting possible protection for lizard: Residents, lawmakers fear listing could take oil-rich land out of production, Susan Bryan – What is more important, domestic oil production or protection of the dunes sagebrush lizard?  Apparently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is inclined to favor the little (less than three-inch long) lizard, and this possibility has some of the folks in West Texas and New Mexico upset.  If endangered species status is granted for the lizard, it could reportedly result in taking “thousands of acres in the Permian Basin out of production” with corresponding “lost jobs, fewer royalties and tax revenues, higher prices at the gas pump and less energy security.”  However, environmentalists reportedly respond that “the lizard’s situation is dire and that scientists had warned more than a decade ago that it may be too late to save the lizard from extinction.” [The Endangered Species Act has spawned one ridiculous controversy after another.  It should be repealed.] 

5/1/11, C8, Nuclear industry under-insured worldwide: Governments take their chances rather than raise price of electricity, Juergen Betz (AP, dateline Berlin) – Large photo of technicians in bulky protective suits with gas masks preparing to enter the building housing the damaged Unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island in October 1980.  According to the article, “governments around the world choose to run over 440 nuclear power plants with hardly any [insurance] coverage” because “nuclear power is a viable source for cheap energy only if it goes uninsured.”  This is an easy case to make if one concludes the potential risk of a “worst case” disaster is in the trillions of dollars, as the article asserts.  Thus, according to a member of the German government’s environmental advisory board, the Euros 2.5 billion in mandatory reactor insurance for German plants would only cover “stamps for the letters of condolence.” 

And remember that the world has already suffered three major nuclear accidents “in just about 30 years – Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.”  [The costs of these accidents is conveniently omitted.  We doubt the numbers would come close to the trillions of dollars estimates being tossed around.]

“In the U.S., where no new reactors have been planned and completed since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, insurance for nuclear operators is capped at just $375 million by law, with further claims funded by the utilities up to a maximum of $12.6 billion.” In contrast, to pick an example, “a worst-case disaster” at the Indian Point plant 24 miles north of New York City “could lead to the closure of New York City for years, as happened at Chernobyl . . . leading to almost unthinkable costs.”

The supposed options: (1) Raise insurance costs to levels necessary to cover the worst-case risks, pricing nuclear power beyond reach? (2) Run for luck, with society to bear the cost if the worst happens.

[The potential loss estimates being generated are wildly unrealistic.  One major factor, we suspect, is paranoia about radiation releases.  As readers familiar with the concept of hormesis know, increases in radiation levels do not translate into increased health risk on a linear scale – as has often been assumed – and up to a point may actually be beneficial.  See  http://bit.ly/hNSyF4, Morris, 4/22/10.]

4/29/11, A3, Exxon grows defensive after posting first-quarter profit of $10.65 billion – Here was a preemptive strike against the highly predictable claim that American motorists are being gouged, etc.  Among other points: Exxon paid $59 billion in US taxes over the past 5 years, compared to after-tax earning from US operations of $41 billion.  However, the story states, “drivers and politicians may still need some convincing.” [Sadly, some of the people concerned are incapable of being convinced.]

4/29/11, A9, Exelon to buy Constellation Energy in $7.9B deal, Jonathan Fahey (AP) –

This deal is said to be in reaction to “lower power prices and rising costs tied to tightening environmental standards” [if both are true, hardly a happy combination for the industry].  No mention of nuclear power, per se, although the picture shows steam escaping from an Exelon nuclear power plant in Byron, IL. [Not mentioned: Exelon is the biggest operator of nuclear power plants in the US, and Constellation also operates some nuclear plants including Calvert Cliffs in MD.  See prior 10/28/10, A7 story about a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs being put on hold – per recent speculation, Exelon may be interested in reactivating the project.] 

4/29/11, A10, Two ugly forces responsible for birth certificate brouhaha, Eugene Robinson – So why did “the leader of the free world” summon the media for an announcement about his birth certificate.  Robinson’s suggestions: (1) racism, and (2) “an increasing tendency for facts to be treated as personal accoutrements, as easily adopted or discarded as the newest-model smart phone.”  In support of point 2, he cites “the birther lunacy” [with some justification in our view] and “other examples, some much more consequential,” of which just one is indentified.

            “The vast majority of scientists look dispassionately at the data and conclude that atmospheric warming and climate change are real.  Deniers don’t produce data of their own, they just say no, no, no – and attack the scientists’ political views, rather than their research.” [Compare this 2010 video, ten minutes but worth it, by Drs. Willie Soon and David Legates, re using the scientific method. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0]

4/29/11, B2, Tax-free drilling makes Pa. cuts hard to swallow: Top senator wants to tap Marcellus rush, Marc Levy (AP) – State Senator Joe Scarnatti (R) supports imposing a tax or fee “to collect money from companies rushing to drill wells on the Marcellus Shale formation, the nation’s largest-known natural gas reservoir.”  [Probably inevitable, and OK within reason.  The biggest danger is that severe regulations will be imposed on “fracking” operations, delaying or blocking development of these reserves.]

4/27/11, A1/A5, Lewes group questions UD wind turbine: Project built without environmental studies, permits, Molly Murray – Remember the wind turbine in Lewes, atop a 256-foot tower, which will power the UD campus in Lewes when the wind is blowing?  See Molly Murray’s previous article (4/28/10, A1). 

Now readers are informed that some local residents (organized as Citizens Advocating a Livable Lewes) are unhappy about the turbine, e.g., Gerald Lechliter, a retired US Army colonel, and are asking (in Murray’s words) “whether state environmental officials were so intent on seeing a green, wind energy alternative up and running that they didn’t require the university to go through the same permit and review procedures that would have been required for a conventional power-generating facility.”  Another issue is how the facility could have been built on state-owned land without approval of the state’s Open Space Council.  And Lewes officials exempted the university from a 35-foot height limit without seeking a variance from the municipal Board of Adjustment.

Among the defenses: There were public information meetings (this is what UD is going to do), even though they did not represent a formal review process.  Also, a DNREC spokesman cites a “research and development” exception to state regulations because sale of excess power (periodically generated by the turbine) to the city of Lewes was not the turbine’s primary purpose.

 [Far be it from us to be sticklers about government red tape, but it is interesting that the News Journal took a year to discover local opposition to this venture.  Also, here is a timely reminder that, in addition to high cost, wind power has a big environmental footprint.]

4/27/11, A14, Complaining about price won’t produce gasoline – Face it, says this editorial, “for the time being, we are stuck with higher gasoline prices.”  None of the political posturing that is going on “will stop the Chinese from buying oil, bring peace to the Middle East or produce 80 miles per gallon SUVs.”  But it will “delay recognition of longer-term energy problems.” [These words are unexceptionable.  Based on prior editorials, however, the News Journal’s views on energy policy would accentuate rather than eliminate the bias in favor of promoting forced conservation and driving up energy prices.]

4/27/11, A15, A tankful of cheap gas is not an inalienable right, Caroline Baum (Bloomberg) –

Baum says Americans must “send a message to Washington that we are willing to accept sacrifices.”  She concedes that the talk about investigating fraud in the oil markets and complaints about oil company profits will go nowhere, but also belittles the idea that Americans might possibly, just possibly be in favor of ramping up US oil production.

        Do Americans want the president to respond with “Drill, baby, drill”?  “I doubt it.  Environmentalists haven’t warmed up to oil exploration and drilling since last year’s Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.”

       Does the public want more hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation?  “Not in my backyard, thank you.”

       Her conclusion: “Americans have a fundamental philosophical dilemma over what we want from our government.  In good times, we want an arms-length relationship.  In bad times, we want a nanny looking out for us.  We can’t have it both ways.”  [Fine, so let’s sacrifice some of the government restrictions and handouts that have perverted US energy policy since the 1970s.]

4/25/11, A10, Anti-nuclear columnist repeats same tired lines, Gerry Gauding, Middletown – Response to 4/11/11 column by David McCorquodale urging renewable energy versus nuclear. Sample: “states that there is a tremendous amount of fossil fuel required to build and equip a nuclear plant” and “in his next breath” says enormous battery storage capacity should be built to overcome the intermittency of wind and solar power.  What about the fuel costs to mine all the heavy metals that go into those batteries, not to mention the harmful environmental effects when the batteries are discarded?  Also complains about taxpayer subsidization of nuclear power “without mentioning the incredible subsidies (taxpayer funded, too) solar and wind are receiving.”  Also, utilities have paid billions to the federal government for nuclear waste storage, yet the Yucca Mountain repository that was supposed to be built has been scrapped. 

4/22/11 (Earth Day), A10, Preserving the planet comes with a steep cost – This editorial makes some valid points.  A. Overselling of the ease of the environmental agenda.  “For example, it’s a lot easier to promise well-paying ‘green jobs’ than it is to produce them.  Likewise, it’s a lot easier to go green with a hybrid car when you can afford the higher prices.”  B.  Some of the accomplishments of the environmental movement since the first Earth Day in 1970 are commendable, e.g., cleaner water and cleaner air.  Additionally [and here we see less reason for enthusiasm], “there is an awareness of ecosystems and the dangers of burning fossil fuels” and “as everyone knows, there is so much more to be done.”  To make continued progress, the News Journal advocates (1) having “the courage” to make gasoline cost more [presumably by taxing it, blocking US oil drilling, etc.], and (2) more research [subsidized by the government] to make renewable energy cost less. [Sorry, but this kind of thinking is not “realistic,” it is a formula for economic decline.]

4/22/11 (Earth Day), A11, Emission-control program not to blame for high energy costs, Chad Tolman – A rebuttal of the April 14 “opinion piece” by State Rep. Jack Peterman advocating legislation to take Delaware out of the RGGI, which is said to be based on “bad science, bad economics and misleading statements.” 

Science: Tolman cites a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report re “Climate Stabilization Targets” that claims, among thing, that human-caused CO2 emissions are “so vast they will largely control the future of the Earth’s climate.” http://bit.ly/c6yqNx He also refers to the threat of massive sea level increases, which should be of concern to “Rep. Peterman’s constituents in coastal communities along the Delaware Bay in District 33.”

Economics & Misleading Statements: Peterman’s bill, HB 86, purportedly “says that Delaware has 50 percent higher electricity costs, that employers leave the state for that reason, and that Delaware homeowners pay about $500 per year in higher energy costs – implying that RGGI is to blame.”  But “in fact”, based on the last three auctions of CO2 emission allowances, RGGI has added “less than $1 a month to a typical home electricity bill.” [At least the phony 38¢ per month figure is gone.]  And that money is not lost, since it is used to do good things like weatherize homes, buy more energy-efficient appliances, and promote renewable energy production. 

Yeah, OK, Delaware electricity costs are high, but the main reason for that is “the lack of adequate generating capacity in the state and the need to bring in electricity over congested power lines.” [So why does DNREC keep pushing to shut down existing generating capacity?] 

The capacity bottleneck could be eliminated by “sufficient development of offshore wind and solar power – which the Caesar Rodney Institute opposes.  Apparently it wants to see as much fossil fuel burned as possible.” [We are not making this up!]

Peterman, like the CRI, “chooses to ignore the health and environmental benefits of moving from burning fossil fuels to using renewable energy sources.”  Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal,” Paul Epstein et al., which “found a best estimate of 17.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the health and environmental damage of burning coal for electricity.” http://bit.ly/eb1WWb

       Peterman “also ignores the great work of Gov. Jack Markell, Alan Levin (Economic Development), and Colin O’Mara (DNREC) “to bring new green industries and jobs to Delaware.”

 Time to move forward, not move backward, so join Delaware’s League of Women Voters, Sierra Club chapter, Nature Society, and Audubon Society in working to reject HB 86. 

        [Tolman’s sources say what he claims they do, although there are other studies that reach distinctly different – and we believe more reliable – conclusions.  Neither Tolman nor his sources explain how the US is going to compete with the Chinese et al, if our country chooses to hobble its economy in the manner proposed and they do not follow suit.  Moreover, it should be obvious that no matter how severely carbon emissions might be repressed here, continuing economic growth by other countries of the world could reverse the effects.  Also, the discussion omit alternatives, such as nuclear power plants or geo-engineering, which would almost assuredly be far more cost effective than the renewable energy agenda that is argued for.]

4/20/11:  judging from today’s lineup of global warming/ energy policy stories (see below), it may be time for “The News Journal” to rename itself “The Environmental Journal.”

4/20/11, A1/A5, Busy Del. 1 rest stop installs truck plug-ins, Jeff Montgomery – state officials have switched on 24 big rig plug-in sites at the Smyrna Rest Area along Del. 1 & U.S. 13 – cost $547,530, paid for with federal “Recovery Act” funds – the idea is that trucks can park and obtain low-priced power, heating, cooling, television, cable and internet service, which “also makes it easier to comply with a state ban on idling of parked trucks and buses” – Governor Jack Markell is quoted: “When you think about opportunities to find that intersection of what makes sense for the environment and what makes sense for the economy, this is absolutely one of them.  Truckers are not going to have to idle their engines.  That will reduce harmful emissions and it will also save money for them in terms of fuel costs.”  Other sources offer similar praise.  Yet “the Department of Energy currently lists only 40 electrified plug-in sites among the 5,000 truck stops nationwide.”  And IdleAire, one of the nation’s leading plug-in vendors, with nearly 8,500 stations [plug-ins?] in 34 states, filed for bankruptcy in 2008.  Efforts are being made to reorganize IdleAire, but most of its network remains shut down.  [If truck plug-ins are such a great idea, why can they only get done with government funds borrowed from China?]

4/20/11, A8 & A9, University of Delaware’s Energy Institute: Power for the People, Ken Mammarella (special for the News Journal) – No mention of global warming in this two-page, multi color-photo spread, the theme is responding to “a country eager to lessen its dependence on foreign oil” [sick and tired of soaring gasoline prices would be more like it] by providing ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.  But as no single source of alternative energy will do the trick, research must be done in all kinds of areas.  Stories follow on UD-centered research programs: (A) Catalysis (enzyme aided transformation of glucose to fructose); (B) Vehicle-to-grid (scheme to create electric cars with batteries that could send power back to the grid during peak demand periods); (C) Industrial processes (if all the industrial boilers in the US were painted with low-emissivity paint, $420 million a year in heat loss could be avoided); (C) Fuel cells (hydrogen-burning buses); (D) Magnets (stronger magnets would be more energy-efficient); (E) Solar cells (objective is to cut costs; the Department of Energy’s new SunShot initiative aims to reduce the cost by “roughly 75% to $1 per KWH); (F) Wind (“at least eight projects are planned on wind power or for the wind turbine that began turning last summer at the university’s Lewes campus” – dealing with corrosion resistance, bird impacts, construction issues, and even planning assistance for governments, e.g., advice as “what fees and tariffs encourage wind power”).

        And if this isn’t enough, look what is “coming Friday” on Earth Day, a 20-page section devoted to environmental trends in Delaware.

        [We have no problem with these research programs, but the government should not fund them.  Also, the programs described will do very little to solve high gasoline prices.  The most promising approach would be to relax the tight restrictions on production from thus far unexploited domestic petroleum reserves – Anwar, Bakken formation, offshore both coasts, etc.]  

4/20/11, B1/B2, DNREC backs off on sea level: regulators revise order barring construction of treatment plant, Jeff Montgomery – DNREC issued an order barring construction of a private sewage treatment plant near Leipsic in Kent County.  Ashburn Homes had filed suit against the order, which originally ruled that the 40K gallon a day wastewater treatment plant was “contrary to sound environmental policies” and would “enable intensive development to occur in an environmentally sensitive area” outside Delaware’s targeted growth zones.  Ashburn had accused DNREC of exceeding its authority and effectively vetoing county land-use authority.  It argued that all of Leipsic would be “under 4 feet of water” under the scenario DNREC posited, and that DNREC had “not drawn up any plans to deal with that future environmental catastrophe . . . perhaps because the Department realizes that such a projection possesses only the most tenuous connection to reality.”

       DNREC has now conceded that its current regulations “do not include specific provisions” for full consideration of sea-level rise and other emerging environmental challenges in permit decisions.  However, Ashburn will still be encouraged to connect its development to a county wastewater collection system instead of building a private plant.  Also, DNREC Secretary Collin O’Mara says DNREC’s regulations will be revised to “reflect departmental policy,” [so this apparent victory for common sense may prove short-lived.] 

4/18/11, A7, Science often ignored in locating Asia’s power plants: Many facilities at risk of being hit by tsunami: Margie Mason & Robin McDowell (AP) – This story reports that “Asia, the world’s most seismically charged region, is undergoing a nuclear renaissance as it struggles to harness enough power for its huge populations and booming economies.”  But “China, Taiwan, India and other countries frantically building coastal [nuclear] facilities have made little use of new science to determine whether these areas are safe.  At least 32 plants in operation or under construction in Asia are at risk of being hit by a tsunami, nuclear experts and geologists warn.  And even in cases where “appropriate seismic hazard assessments” [can any study ever be considered comprehensive enough?] have been performed, the results have generally not been shared with the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, “leaving experts frustrated and in the dark.” [What’s the point here: are these countries supposed to stop building nuclear power plants?  And is the UN the only organization on the planet with credibility?]

4/18/11, A11, Study may have averted nuclear crisis, Jeffrey Seamans (registered landscape architect in Delaware) – Seamans reports a “war story” from 1973, when ecological planner Ian McHarg of the University of Pennsylvania was invited by the Japanese government to review a plan “that would disperse Japan’s concentrated population throughout the countryside, including industry and commerce.”  As the story goes, McHarg asked this question: “What facts of the environment have you included in your deliberations?”  In a subsequent book (“Quest for Life,” 1996), he reported the response:  “there were no answers – only smiles.”  No environmental experts had been hired by the Japanese government to assist in preparing the plan.  And McHarg concluded that the Japanese government was “willing to sacrifice the Japanese environment and people to achieve economic supremacy” and would not be “deterred by my recommendations.”  Perhaps if McHarg had been listened to, several nuclear reactors would not have been sited “right on the eastern coast of Japan” that is part of the Pacific “Rim of Fire.”  In any case, according to Seamans, “the environment must most assuredly be studied before building any [more] nuclear reactor sites.”  He invokes the simple, seemingly common sense premise of “design with nature.” [In reality, this kind of thinking could very well serve to block economic progress.  See news story, “science often ignored,” also in today’s News Journal.]

4/17/11, A19, Let facts control your support for EPA's future, Philip Palmer (Newark) – This letter to the editor makes clear that Republicans are not trying to eliminate the EPA.  They are simply trying to defund the program to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power suppliers. [We agree that the EPA is wrong to treat CO2 as a pollutant.  And if the EPA is going to be allowed to continue in operation, we think it should get back to garden variety pollution controls administered in a manner that gives appropriate recognition to the economic costs of imposing ever-stricter environmental restrictions.  As matters stand, the EPA’s decisions are more political than scientific. A prime example is its prohibition of DDT despite its own finding that the benefits of DDT outweigh the drawbacks.]

4/15/11, A3, Despite lessons, deep-sea spill remains possible: Drilling industry “ill-prepared at least,” Harry Weber & Holbrook Mohr (AP) – Gist of this article is to express skepticism about all adjustments that have been made in the wake of BP explosion and oil spill, supposedly even including questionable decisions by regulators under “great pressure from the industry and lawmakers seeking to protect communities and workers whose livelihoods depend on drilling.” [Shame on those people, who do they think they are?]  Charles Perrow, “a Yale University professor specializing in accidents involving high-risk technologies,” is quoted extensively.  Sample: “There are so many opportunities for things to go wrong that major spills are unavoidable.” [Fine, but an insistence on zero risk operations is incompatible with a viable US economy.  How many Americans really want to pay $5, or even $10, per gallon for gasoline? Also, it should be borne in mind that this is the first major offshore drilling accident for the US since the Santa Barbara spill in 1969.]

4/15/11, A12, Delaware’s cap-and-trade is paying off for the state – News Journal expresses disagreement with the proposal to withdraw from the RGGI. (1) Not as good as a carbon tax, but we’ll take it.  Does provide incentive to reduce CO2 emissions.  (2) Proceeds from the arrangement go to the state [perish the thought that businesses should keep them], which has been “used by businesses in the form of loans to make Delaware industry more energy efficient” and thereby “cut energy costs, become more profitable and hire more people.” [What about the job losses due to higher energy costs, shutdown of existing facilities, such as have been experienced in Spain?]

        The punch line is the last paragraph, which says “[the RGGI] doesn’t come free.  It adds about 38 cents a month to the bills of Delmarva Power customers.  In tough times, that hurts.  But it doesn’t hurt that much.” [As pointed out in yesterday’s entry, we believe this estimate is understated by a factor of 10+. Do not accept it as “fact,” or the RGGI debate will be over before it really gets started.]

4/15/11, A3, Despite lessons, deep-sea spill remains possible: Drilling industry “ill-prepared at least,” Harry Weber & Holbrook Mohr (AP) – Gist of this article is to express skepticism about all adjustments that have been made in the wake of BP explosion and oil spill, supposedly even including questionable decisions by regulators under “great pressure from the industry and lawmakers seeking to protect communities and workers whose livelihoods depend on drilling.” [Shame on those people, who do they think they are?]  Charles Perrow, “a Yale University professor specializing in accidents involving high-risk technologies,” is quoted extensively.  Sample: “There are so many opportunities for things to go wrong that major spills are unavoidable.” [Fine, but an insistence on zero risk operations is incompatible with a viable US economy.  How many Americans really want to pay $5, or even $10, per gallon for gasoline? Also, it should be borne in mind that this is the first major offshore drilling accident for the US since the Santa Barbara spill in 1969.]

4/15/11, A12, Delaware’s cap-and-trade is paying off for the state – News Journal expresses disagreement with the proposal to withdraw from the RGGI. (1) Not as good as a carbon tax, but we’ll take it.  Does provide incentive to reduce CO2 emissions.  (2) Proceeds from the arrangement go to the state [perish the thought that businesses should keep them], which has been “used by businesses in the form of loans to make Delaware industry more energy efficient” and thereby “cut energy costs, become more profitable and hire more people.” [What about the job losses due to higher energy costs, shutdown of existing facilities, such as have been experienced in Spain?]

        The punch line is the last paragraph, which says “[the RGGI] doesn’t come free.  It adds about 38 cents a month to the bills of Delmarva Power customers.  In tough times, that hurts.  But it doesn’t hurt that much.” [As pointed out in yesterday’s entry, we believe this estimate is understated by a factor of 10+. Do not accept it as “fact,” or the RGGI debate will be over before it really gets started.]

4/14/11, A15, Delaware should withdraw from regional greenhouse gas pact, [DE Representative] Jack Peterman – [One day after publishing a mangled story about the legislative proposal to withdraw from the RGGI, see 4/13/11 entry], the News Journal ran a “Delaware voice” column by its prime legislative sponsor making the case for it.  Among the additive points: (1) given that a national cap-and-trade program has been blocked, and that Mike Castle’s support of the proposal may have cost him the Senate seat, many Delawareans may be surprised that Delaware has been part of just such a program for the last three years via the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI); (2) the New Hampshire assembly recently voted to withdraw from the RGGI and the bill is expected to be passed by their Senate; “New Jersey is also reconsidering participation” [and energy states PA and WV never joined in the first place]; (3) Very little reason to believe that program would have a notable effect on global CO2 levels, e.g., total annual reductions that DE is expected to make would be “produced by China’s industrial sector in the span of just a few minutes.”

        [What about the claim cited by RGGI – and repeated by the News Journal – that the cost of the initiative to DE ratepayers is a mere 38¢ per month on average, or less than $5 per year?  This figure is based on carbon credit auction proceeds.  It is not the incremental cost from the mandated use of a growing percentage of “renewable energy” sources, which will likely run a lot higher. 

Quoting Peterman: "According to the Caesar Rodney Institute (CRI), the cost of the RGGI could add between $15 million and $35 million to the total annual cost of providing power to Delawareans -- an expense that is expected to be passed along to ratepayers."

Let's assume that with a population nearing 1 million there are 400 thousand Delaware ratepayers and use the midpoint of the $15M/$35M range.  This would produce an average increase in annual cost of over $60, 13.7 times the level of the figure being bandied about as a measure of the RGGI program cost.  And for this, what do Delawareans get – basically nothing except some subsidy handouts to people who convert to wind or solar power, etc.  Why not get the government out of this equation and let power-sourcing decisions be made on the basis of the free market?

Folks, the sponsors of this legislation could use some informed support.  Let’s see if there isn’t some way we can give it to them.]

4/13/11, A1A2, Delaware plans for nuclear incident, Schiliro tells Senate preparations are solid, Nicole Gaudiano (Jeff Montgomery also contributed to story) – At a Congressional hearing chaired by Senator Carper, Lewis Schiliro, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, said he has "no specific concerns" about the Salem-Hope Creek nuclear complex.  Lisa Jackson, head of EPA testified, "EPA has not seen and does not expect radiation (from Japan) reaching harmful levels in the United States."  Gregory Jaczko, head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the NRC "will examine whether evacuation plans around nuclear plants should cover a 50-mile radius."

[We need to continue educating the public about the beneficial effect of nuclear radiation at low levels, called hormesis.  Guidelines for evacuating a 10-mile radius represent an abundance of caution; any consideration of a 50-mile radius should be dropped.]

4/13/11, A3, Japan’s crisis on par with Chernobyl – “On Tuesday, Japanese authorities raised the severity rating of the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi power plant to the highest level on an international scale, on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.  *** [However, a Japanese official] emphasized that radiation released from Fukushima [to date] amounted to one-tenth the total released from Chernobyl.  *** the upgraded severity reading *** suggests Japan’s evolving understanding of the damage – and the contamination that has been leaking.”  [Obviously, the adjusted rating was based on politics and/or perceptions versus new facts.]

4/13/11, A12/A13, Anti-pollution initiative targeted, Aaron Nathans – “A group of lawmakers want to remove Delaware from a regional cap-and-trade system [RGGI] intended to combat climate change that brought Delaware $7.4 million last year, most of which went to energy-saving upgrades to businesses and home.”  They are Rep. Harold Peterman (R-Milford), who introduced the bill with the support of 15 members of the 41-member House and five members of the 21-member Senate.  “They say the system raised the price of electricity at a time customers can’t afford it, and that the pollution-control measurements targeted by the program have already been met, as industrial activity slowed with the recession.

      A spokesman for Governor Jack Markell said the bill does not appear likely to pass, having picked up no Democratic sponsors except for Sens. George Bunting & Robert Venables.  However, it has been promised a hearing.

        “Citizen activist” John Nichols says “anything that adds to the cost of electricity, which RGGI does, can’t be supported.”  He predicted “a pretty big battle.”

       However, RGGI (a nonprofit group behind the initiative) says customers of Delmarva Power pay an average of only 38¢ a month to support the program.  [If such a claim were accurate, which we doubt, game over.]  And then Delaware has raised $21.3 million under the program, 65% of which goes to the Sustainable Energy Utility and the rest toward weatherization, fuel assistance and greenhouse gas reduction programs run by DNREC.  DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara is quoted: “We feel strongly that energy efficiency is the cheapest, most reliable way to address some of our energy challenges.”  Meanwhile, Representative Peterman “could not be reached for comment.”

        [Is this supposed to be an objective report on the proposal to get out of the RGGI?  Somehow, it does not seem like one – starting with the headline that the RGGI is an “anti-pollution initiative.”  The only person with real energy for getting rid of the RGGI sounds like John Nichols. We look forward to hearing his 4/15 talk to the Retired Men's Luncheon Club.]

4/13/11, A16, Mad about oil prices?  Make it known, Leonard Clapp, Wilmington – The writer says the “high price of oil is in large part due to the policy of the Obama Administration,” and cites an interesting for instance: a proposed 1.1 million barrel a day pipeline from Canada to the US, referred to the State Department in 2008, has yet to be approved.  The last time Clapp called his member of Congress (who?), he “was told that [he] was the only caller objecting to this policy.”  [Good for him, we will try to get up to speed on this issue.]

4/11/11, A8, two letters to the editor: (1) “EPA’s consistent and compulsive attempt to pass cap-and-trade legislation through Congress, or to bypass the legislative process altogether, is nothing more than another governmental grab for further control *** trains, planes and power plants can’t run on windmills or solar panels *** EPA should not forget about China when talking about pollution control *** with a mere 5 percent of the Earth’s population and land mass, why is the EPA charging [this country] with the responsibility and impossibility of cleaning the other 95 percent?” Edward Sanders, Long Neck.

(2) “The government is broke and should not waste one cent of taxpayer money on inefficient technologies like wind power *** a British environmental organization, the John Muir Trust, has just released a devastating technical report by Stuart Young Consulting *** it is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future.” Gregory Inskip, Wilmington.

4/11/11, A9, Renewables, not nuclear power, are the way forward, David McCorquodale (Green Party) – Let’s start with this statement:  "Through the Price-Anderson Act the cost of insuring nuclear power accidents falls on the American taxpayer." [Not so.  Quoting William Tucker's 2008 book, "Terrestrial Energy", page 279:  "Today the federal government is completely off the hook with Price-Anderson.  The primary coverage provided by private insurance companies now stands at $300 million.  In addition, each of the nation's 104 reactors can be assessed $100 million for accidents at other reactors.  That puts total coverage above $10 billion."  This was true before 2008, yet anti-nuclear zealots continue to refer to Price-Anderson.  Either they are not doing their homework, or they are deliberately misleading Americans.]

       # USA Today.com reported on Aug. 5, 2008 that “even if no new reactors are built, getting rid of the country’s nuclear waste will cost $96.2 billion and require a major expansion of the planned Nevada waste dump beyond limits imposed by Congress.” [Material is totally out of date, as the Yucca Mountain facility has been stopped.  Also, the allegedly huge waste disposal  problem can be cured by permitting recycling of spent nuclear material, as is done elsewhere.  Again, see Tucker’s book.]

# There is much more baloney in the column, but this is a micro-blog so we will let it go for now. 

4/11/11, B10, Saving planet requires quick action, says scientist: Author of “Earth: The Operator’s Manual” says move to alternative energy is essential, Zinta Lundborg (Bloomberg News) – The author is Richard Alley, who is described as “a member of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning U.N. climate change committee, who now teaches geo-sciences at Penn State University.”  A PBS documentary [government subsidized?] based on his work premieres Sunday.  The rest of the article spells out Alley’s answers to a series of questions as though they were obviously correct.  For instance:

ESTIMATES FOR WARMING OVER THE NEXT 100 YEARS RANGE FROM 3.2 DEGREES TO 7.2 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.  WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT SCALE?  Lets say, “we want to slow this down and switch to alternatives.”  Then, the lower end of the scale might be representative. [Even the lower end of the range is off the chart versus global warming that has actually occurred over the past century.]

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN IMPACT?  “Probably large – the difference between sea-level rise being some fraction of a meter to being 20 or 30 or even 40 feet eventually.” 

WHEN RACHEL CARSON PUBLISHED “THE SILENT SPRING,” THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CALLED HER A COMMUNIST.  WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN CALLED?  “I’ve been called a liar, a cheat, essentially a gold digger – “You’re only doing this for the grant money.”  [If the shoe fits, wear it.]

YOU SAY THE ONLY THING KEEPING US FROM SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IS THE WILL TO SPEND?  “ . . . to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere now, the numbers are usually around one percent of the world economy. When we look at the impact of climate change and run the costs into an economic model, it says start now.  Start now without panicking.”

[1% of the global economy would represent a tidy sum to be invested in projects that could not be expected to have much impact on global temperatures, on an “oh, what the heck” basis, without even considering alternatives such as geo-engineering.]

        [Previously, Alley has authored some material of juvenile quality.  Here is a sample that speaks for itself. http://bit.ly/ew7jLG].

4/10/11, F1/F9, Chicken companies feeling pinch as corn prices soar: high cost of feed ingredients also likely to hit consumers, Jonathan Starkey – Hmm, corn prices are at 3-year highs and have doubled in a matter of months.  This in turn is raising a prime cost for poultry producers, and will almost surely contribute to a worrisome spike in food prices.  Not good news for the public, and of course there is a reason corn prices are soaring – for readers patient enough to turn to the continuation page and look for it.  Purchases of ethanol, a federally subsidized biofuel, “are expected to consume 40 percent of the corn crop this year, according to the USDA [US Dept. of Agriculture].” [Congress should wake up and kill the ethanol mandates, tariffs and subsidies that are having these predictably bad results – not to mention raising costs for motorists and taxpayers alike.  The only beneficiaries are corn farmers and the ethanol producers.]

4/10/11, F8, Google, Buffett showing interest in wind power: turbines would be used for rail lines, server farms, Christopher Martin (Bloomberg News) – Why should Google and Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway be interested in buying wind turbines to supply power along railroad lines and at computer servers farms?  Possible reasons suggested in this article: (1) Would-be turbine manufacturers like Suzlon Energy (India) “are seeking to attract customers outside their traditional base of independent power producers after a drop in orders,” (2) reported interest from “carbon-conscious companies,” and (3) state renewable energy mandates that “will require about 4,800 megawatts a year through 2020.”

       As repeatedly reported before (most recently on 3/31/11), Google has said “it will help develop a $5 billion high-voltage transmission line that could connect to offshore wind turbines off the Atlantic Coast from New Jersey to Virginia.   However, Google hasn’t ordered any wind turbines to build wind farms.

       Berkshire Hathaway owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad.  It reportedly “delivers turbine parts to developers, [but] hasn’t bought any for its own use.”

4/7/11, A1/A6, Nuclear accident preparedness: residents stockpile pills, Jeff Montgomery –

“Front-page” Jeff Montgomery strikes again. The Fukushima problems sparked Delaware residents interest in Potassium Iodide (KI) pills, so the Delaware Emergency Management Agency and Division of Public Health offered “free” KI pills.  More than 700 residents showed up at Middletown's fire station to claim their prize.  Among them: new residents in the area, interviewed by Montgomery, who knew they would be within the arbitrary 10-mile radius around Salem-Hope Creek reactors, but chose to move here anyway.

4/7/11, B1/B2, Obama touts wind power: “High-end jobs” come from energy of future, Aaron Nathans – Visiting a wind turbine manufacturing plant (owned by Gamesea, a Spanish firm, it was opened four years ago at a former US Steel mill) in Fairless Hills, PA, the president pushed his “green” agenda.  His long-term goal: 80% of the nation’s energy comes from “clean sources” by 2035.  His current strategy: “enact a ‘clean-energy standard’ that requires utilities to buy a [growing] portion of their power from non-polluting or less-polluting sources.” The reporter describes this plan as “a twist on a law already enacted in states like Delaware, which requires utitlties to buy wind and solar power.”  And the rationale for the policy is to “level the playing field” because “fossil fuel enjoys no-cost pollution” [presumably classing CO2 as “pollution”]. 

        [Here is our idea of “leveling the playing field.”  The government should not subsidize wind or any other kind of power, nor should it tax and regulate fossil fuel power out of existence.]

4/3/11, A1/A9, Industrial plant cooling-water overhaul urged: EPA proposes limit on the number of organisms killed, Jeff Montgomery – It is amazing what people can think of to worry about.  For example: “Forty percent of all fresh water down the Delaware River can be sucked up by the dozen largest water users between Marcus Hook PA and Salem NJ,” including – surprise, surprise – the Salem I & 2 nuclear power plants.  Intake pipes are said to be “among the deadliest of a long list of hazards for river life,” and “have been cited as threats to whole populations of some species.”  And although the EPA is now proposing new rules in this area, environmentalists are already attacking the proposed rules as too lenient and flexible.  Thus, “it leaves the door wide open to any sort of creative idea that the power companies want to throw out.”

Never mind that “the Delaware has been a river in recovery for decades – as municipal waste-water plants improve." [The progress has not been fast enough.]  Never mind that newer nuclear plants have been constructed with cooling towers to minimize the use of river water.  Whatever the cost, the older plants should be retrofitted with cooling towers too.  Under no circumstances should nuclear operators be allowed to improve marshes, and take other much cheaper measures to compensate for the fish kill.

[The struggle here is between anti-nuclear environmentalists who don't mind increasing the cost of electricity from nuclear plants, and consumers of electricity who want to keep the cost of electricity down.  Government regulators are in the middle, but have gotten in the habit of giving way to the diehard environmentalists.  It is about time that the more responsible members of the public pushed back, if we want to see reasonably priced electric power and a prosperity-creating economic base in this region’s future.]

4/3/11, Obama touts clean energy: [claims] shift will create jobs, Darlene Superville (AP) – Building on a recent speech, the president used his weekly radio and internet address to “promote his ideas for bringing down gasoline prices by decreasing US dependence on foreign oil.”  He supposedly favors “increasing domestic oil exploration and production” [this is actually not a policy of his Administration although he is not above taking credit for some increased production that resulted from actions by the previous Administration], “making cars and trucks more energy-efficient and building vehicles that run on alternative fuels or electricity.”  And on April 6, the president will travel to Philadelphia to visit a would-be producer of wind turbines.  Conflicting statements of Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were also noted in the article.

4/3/11, A14, Could “green” initiatives be responsible for US debt?  William Day, Newark – There is no doubt that global warming alarmism and "green" initiatives have cost taxpayers a lot of money, both in Europe and here, and we thank Bill for reminding readers of that.

3/31/11, A1/A9, Offshore wind line to link to Del. grid: Google-backed plan eyes Millsboro site, Aaron Nathans – We haven’t read about the windpower “backbone” line for a while, so here it is again.  See previous stories on 11/2/10, 10/14/10 (editorial), and 10/13/10. The basic idea is to come up with some sort of public subsidy for an underwater power line that would link various offshore wind power facilities.  So far, Bluewater has not said its proposed project would use the “backbone” line.  And State DNREC Colin O’Mara is now quoted that “Delaware residents [should] not be asked to foot more than their share of the transmission costs, since the [$5 billion] project would benefit the entire region.”  [Oh boy!  The advocates of renewable energy keep getting in deeper, spending more money on an uneconomical project, justified by a partial solution of a non-problem. The offshore wind power transmission line, called the "backbone" is meant as a partial solution to the intermittent nature of wind energy, but the fact remains that wind power turbines will not work when the wind isn’t blowing or is blowing too hard either. Maybe a new miniature nuclear power plant at Seaford could provide power to the "Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway".  The suggested nuclear plant, brainchild of two of Delaware's Libertarians, has not yet been embraced by the city fathers.]

3/31/11, A10, More energy suggestions, but not the right one again – The News Journal makes a valid point, which is that the president’s recent speech about how to reduce oil imports offered little that was new.  “ . . . the president trotted out some of the same solutions we have heard before: fuel-efficiency standards, refineries for biofuels, converting trucks to natural gas and more electric cars.  *** But why not a simple gas tax?”  [Sorry, but why is raising taxes the answer to the alleged problem of importing too much oil?  Why not at least try the idea of permitting more oil and gas to be produced domestically?  Our government’s continuing failure to accept the realities of supply and demand is inexplicable and wrong-headed.] 

3/30/11, A3, Japanese government: Safeguards insufficient: Officials vow to improve nuclear plant standards, Mari Yamaguchi & Yuri Kageyama (AP) – “Japan’s government admitted Tuesday that its safeguards were insufficient to protect a nuclear plant against the earthquake and tsunami that crippled the facility and caused it to spew radiation, and it vowed to overhaul safety standards.  The struggle to contain radiation . . . near-constant missteps – the latest including two workers drenched with radioactive water despite wearing supposedly waterproof suits.” [Of course, many other elements in the national infrastructure failed in the disaster, causing widespread damage, but nuclear power is somehow expected to be 100% safe. The response to the current problem is typical of the worldwide overreaction to radiation safety. "The contaminated water has been emitting four times as much radiation as the government considers safe for workers."

       However, it will make sense to review safety procedures afterwards in hopes of doing better next time.  There may be some practical improvements that can be made, short of moving nuclear plants away from the seacoast or shutting them down entirely.]

3/26/11, A1/A2, Japan's nuclear fears deepen: suspected breach could contaminate groundwater, Jeff Donn & Shino Yuasa (AP) – "Low levels of radiation have been seeping out since the March 11 quake and tsunami knocked out the plant's cooling system, but a breach could mean a much larger release of contaminants.  The most likely consequence would be contamination of the groundwater." [This does not report a problem, merely speculation about a possible problem.  And in the overall scope of a catastrophic natural disaster, the report seems needlessly alarmist.] 

"Officials have evacuated residents within 12 miles of the plant and advised those within 19 miles away to stay indoors to minimize exposure.  The US has recommended that people stay 50 miles from the plant."  [The Japanese are overreacting and US officials are over the top.  Low levels of radiation are beneficial, but a lot of money is wasted to "protect" the public from low levels of radioactivity that are actually beneficial. The level of radiation that Japanese are likely to be exposed to probably won't reach the level of maximum benefit.]

3/26/11, A9,  It's fossil fuels, not nuclear power, that are dangerous, Gwyneth Cravens (author of Power to save the world: The Truth About Nuclear Energy) –  The writer goes all out to emphasize that nuclear energy is safer than other forms of energy.  Thus, “U.S. commercial reactors have never caused a single death.”  – If nuclear fuel was recycled, as is done in France, the accumulated nuclear waste for all US nuclear plants “could fit in the TV department” of a Best Buy store.  – Nuclear power “is the only large-scale way to replace deadly, global-heating fossil fuel combustion while providing steady, reliable electricity.” – Coverage of Fukushima situation has presented a “steady stream of scary and inaccurate reports.” – A coal power plant will “expose residents within a 50-mile radius to low-level radiation that is 100 to 400 times greater than a nuclear plant.”  [Cravens is right in asserting that nuclear energy is relatively harmless, but she still manages to reach an erroneous conclusion based on the manmade global warming theory:  "We are all suffering from a health and environmental catastrophe being unleashed by hydrocarbon combustion." As for low level radiation from coal combustion, we doubt it is dangerous.  Bottom line, availability of low cost electricity is very important, and no energy source should be ruled out without clear and convincing reasons to do so.]

3/25/11, A1/A2, Del. residents at risk double, Jeff Montgomery – This front-page article includes a big photo of a man fishing at Augustine Beach with an ominous presence in the background: a coolant tower of the Salem-Hope Creek nuclear power complex across the Delaware River. The reason for the reported doubling of risk is population growth.  And note that the new residential count “excludes the still-to-be-calculated thousands who live elsewhere but regularly work or shop inside the [10-mile] circle.”  Now company officials must come up with revised evacuation plans.  They have one year to do so under draft Nuclear Regulatory Commission timetables issued last year.  [The apparent intent of demands for such planning is to promote public fears about nuclear energy and drive up costs for the plant operators.  Realistically, the risks of a truly dangerous plant mishap are very low.  Public fears have been fanned by  the "linear no-threshold"assumption.  Continual publication of "Hormesis" information should throw cold water on this erroneous idea.)

3/23/11, A3, Japan’s nuclear crisis may finally be easing: power restored; seawater cools storage pool, Eric Talmadge & Mari Yamaguchi – At this point, plant operators face the hard work of assessing and systematically cleaning up the damage.  “Tokyo Electric Power Co. warned that workers still need to check all equipment for damage before switching the cooling systems on to all the reactor units, a process that could take days or even weeks.” 

3/23/11, Japan events giving way to anti-nuclear hysteria, Dorothy Kendall, Claymont – Attacks high profile story on cooling rods at the Hope Creek and Salem plants in New Jersey, basically restating our comments in the 3/18 entry.

3/21/11, A1/A2, Analysts doubting Fisker’s projections: target of 100,000 cars “extremely challenging,” Jonathan Starkey – Despite major government subsidies, including government loans of $550 million, “eight leading auto analysts say Fisker’s plans to ram up to 115,000 [electric] cars annually in the next few years are ultra-aggressive, bordering on wildly optimistic.” [As we said months ago, Fisker is a Risker.]

3/21/11, Japan says two stricken reactors cooled down: more vegetables, water reported contaminated, Associated Press – Little new information.  However, reporters picked up some quotes reflecting nervousness of Japanese residents about the reports of food and water contamination, even though “the government said the radiation levels were too low to pose an immediate health risk.”

       A sidebar titled “Lessons from disaster” begins a comment from US Energy Secretary

Steven Chu that it would be less likely for new nuclear reactors to be built near large American cities.  This is described as “just one of many safety changes that could be forthcoming as U.S. officials review reactor safety.”  Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “will again review how US nuclear plants store spent fuel from nuclear reactors.” 

3/20/11, A1/A5, Rising sea levels threaten Delaware: Coastal, inland areas face habitat loss, flood damage, Molly Murray – For the last century, the sea level along the Delaware coast has risen an average of 3.2 millimeters a year.  That is a little over 1/10 of an inch per year. With that slow a rise, how could anyone believe the headline? Watch closely.

(1) Murray starts with a quote from David Carter, a manager with Delaware's Coastal Programs office .  "Carter said data show that sea levels definitely have risen a total of about 1 foot over the last hundred years.  Less clear, he said, is whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing with global warming."

(2) Next, "some scientists are concerned that higher temperatures from global warming will . . . speed the melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, greatly increasing the rate of sea level rise."  [Hogwash.  Warmer temperatures increase evaporation - more vapor - more snow falling on Antarctica and Greenland, leaving less water in the ocean.]

(3) In the 1980's there were 10 to 20 times each year with consecutive tides above the mean high water level, but it happened 30 times in 2009 and 27 times in 2010.  [Whoops!  Each tide should have about a 50% chance of exceeding the average, and two consecutive a 25% chance.  With four high tides a day, or 1,460 per year, two consecutive tides should be above the mean about 365 times a year.]

       However, whether we like it or not, the public is buying some of these claims.  “On Wednesday, people will gather in Dover to discuss the implications as the League of Women Voters host Sea Level Rise – How will Delaware adapt?”

3/20/11, Japan finds radiation in spinach, milk, water: officials say it doesn’t pose immediate risk, Eric Talmadge & Shino Yuasa (AP) – Nothing really bad is going on at the Fukushima plant, indeed a replacement power line has reached the plant and company officials are hoping to switch on the plant cooling systems soon.  Testing of food and water supplies in the area revealed traces of radioactivity, but the risks sound minor.  For example: “Radioactive iodine slightly above government safety levels was found in drinking water in a sampling from Fukushima prefecture, the site of the nuclear plant, but later tests showed the level had fallen again.”  Overall consequences of the earthquake remain serious: “More than 11,000 people are still missing, and more than 452,000 are living in shelters.”

3/20/11, A2, Nuclear agency offers more details of risks at reactors: Del.-area facilities relatively low risk, Jeff Montgomery – New data (compiled for 2008) were released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on earthquake exposures for nuclear reactors in the eastern United States.  The annual probabilities for “core damage” from an earthquake reported ranged from 1 in 18,868 for Limerick 1 & 2 in PA to 1 in 357,143 for Hope Creek 1 in New Jersey.  Norm Cohen of UNPLUG Salem said “we never claimed that Salem and Hope Creek are on major fault lines, we’re concerned that the plants were built on dredge spoils.”  Reportedly, however, the NRC has concluded that both plants are solidly supported. [Given the data, we see no need for comment.]

3/20/11, A30, How many nuclear accidents will it take to wake us up?  Claris Ritter, Kennett Square, PA – Nuclear power is “the dirtiest energy source imaginable. ***  Just wait until the radioactive fallout begins to spread around the world and the fallout zone in Japan become uninhabitable.”  [Anyone who takes these claims seriously will have a long wait.]

3/20/11, B2, Solar panels represent future for students: new Delcastle Tech system will give pupils hands-on training, Edward Kenney – Students at DelCastle Technical High School are said to be learning “cutting-edge” skills by working on demonstration solar power installations.  “It’s really important for us, because time is changing and everything is going green,” said Nicholas Lewis, 17, a junior.  “It helps us adjust to the future.” [It is sad that young people are being conditioned to buy into such programs, which surely do not represent the wave of the future.] 

3/20/11, D5, General Electric’s nuclear business likely to take a hit: countries assess technology after Japanese crisis, Rachel Lane (Bloomberg) – Various governments are reported to be reassessing plans for new nuclear power plants, e.g., Germany, India, and possibly China, which could have a negative effect on GE’s prospects of providing its nuclear power technology and services.  CEO Jeff Immelt is reportedly “concentrating on building other areas within the GE Energy businesses, including solar, wind, biogas, and natural gas-fired turbines, in part because it can take a decade or more to complete a nuclear plant.”

3/19/11, A2, Japan admits slow reaction, welcomes US help: emergency crews still seeking ways to cool fuel reactors, fuel rods – In the absence of more bad news from the Fukushima plant – most notable development was that Tokyo Electric has laid a new power line to the facility, which will potentially permit plant workers to restart normal cooling systems – the story seemed to be winding down.  Still, “the entire world [remained] on alert, watching for any evidence of dangerous spikes in radioactivity spreading from the six-reactor facility, and fearing that damage to the Japanese economy might send ripple effects around the world.”  Also, the Japanese government – possibly in response to US pressure – raised the accident classification from Level 4 to Level 5 – placing it “on a par with the Three Mile Island accident in Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979, and [signifying] that its consequences went beyond the local area.” 

Detailed evidence of widespread problems continued to sound unimpressive.  Thus: “The Science Ministry said radiation levels about 19 miles northwest of the [plant] rose at one time Friday to 0.15 millisieverts per hour, about the amount absorbed in a chest X-ray.  While levels fluctuate, radiation at most points at that distance from the facility have been far below that.” 

No matter, US officials stood by their “recommendation that people stay 50 miles away from the Fukushima plant.”

3/18/11, A1/A2, Spent fuel rods piling up at nuclear plants near Del.: 5 M pounds radioactive waste held at NJ site, Jeff Montgomery – Although there was a companion story on the nuclear power situation in Japan (“Fixing Japan plant could take weeks”) and a story re UN authorization of a “no-fly zone” for Libya that might lead to US military action, this story got the biggest play (large headline plus a colored illustration of how fuel rods are being stored) in today’s edition.  The colored illustration includes this statement: "Because the spent fuel rod cooling pool is near capacity at Hope Creek and Salem unit 1 and Unit 2 nuclear plants in New Jersey, some spent rods are now being encased and stored at an above-ground area on the site."

        [High profile coverage, including quotes by nuclear activists, e.g., Norm Cohen who directs UNPLUG-Salem, is out of proportion with the risks at the New Jersey plants.  There is no cooling pool capacity problem.  Rods are stored there to let intense radiation die down, and then, by plan,

encased and stored outdoors to let lower level, longer term, radiation die down.  There is enough outdoor storage room for 60 years operation.

Federal regulators will allow nuclear plants to hold the rods outdoors for 60 years after a reactor's final shutdown, and are considering extending this period to 120 years.  Understandably, New Jersey, other states, and "a long list of environmental groups" are protesting this ruling.  Delaware Governor Markell has referred this issue to the Delaware Emergency Management Agency.  DEMA Director Jamie Turner has scheduled distribution of potassium iodide tablets in Middletown April 1.  Is the date significant?  Nothing wrong about insuring against a low probability risk, but such action seems calculated to keep unrealistic worry alive.

No mention in the article about recycling of spent nuclear fuel.  Prohibition of this practice is the main reason for the long-term retention of used fuel rods, and also artificially inflates the price of nuclear power. Other countries do recycle, but President Carter prohibited recycling here for fear that terrorists would intercept spent fuel shipments and use the plutonium in it to make a bomb.  However, that is not practical, because the spent fuel contains all four plutonium isotopes.  Only Pu239 can be used for a bomb, and separation from the other isotopes would be prohibitively difficult.  See "Terrestrial Energy", a 2008 book by William Tucker.]

3/18/11, A17, Five misconceptions about nuclear energy, Michael Levi (program on energy and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations) – A believer in the manmade global warming theory Levi sees nuclear energy, not solar and wind power, as the prime replacement for fossil fuel power.  His points: (1) Biggest problem with nuclear power is cost, not safety.  However, safety concerns do lead to demands for ever more stringent regulations, which in turn create uncertainty and drive up cost.  (2) Nuclear power plants are not sitting ducks for terrorists.  (3) Democrats have become more open to nuclear power, but “Japan’s tragedy may make many reconsider their stance.”  (4) Nuclear power is not the key to “energy independence,” as very little oil is used to produce electric power.  [Levi doesn’t discuss the potential for electric cars.]  (5) Nuclear power can be made even safer than it is now, but not 100% safe.  [If one accepts the global warming premise, which we do not, the rest of the discussion seems to follow.] 

3/17/11, A1/A2, Race to avoid meltdown at plant: US officials warn of high radiation danger from exposed fuel rods, Eric Talmadge & Mari Yamaguchi (AP) – Helicopters from Japan's Self-defense Forces drop water on an overheating reactor, and there may be progress in restoring electric power to run the normal cooling systems.  Hopefully, a massive release of radioactive materials can be averted [not so much for its actual dangers as for the psychological effects.]  But hysteria continues to build, and the US government reaction has not been helpful.  Thus “the White House recommended Wednesday that US citizens stay 50 miles (80 kilometers) away from the stricken nuclear plant, not the 20-mile (32 kilometer) radius recommended by the Japanese.”  And the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is being asked for blow-by-blow reports on the Fukushima situation at Congressional hearings. [Let’s hope the public will see through this hype, and to that end we will continue to point out that nuclear power is low risk in comparison to other power sources, not to mention hazards like driving a car or slips and falls in the home.]

3/17/11, A10, EPA posts rules for coal-fired plants, AP – “For the first time,” the EPA would “regulate toxic air emissions from coal-fired power plants, including limiting mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gas pollution."  Environmental and medical groups praised the move, made in response to a court-ordered deadline, on grounds that the air toxins in question contribute to respiratory illnesses, birth defects and developmental problems in children. However, “the EPA said it would cost nearly $11 billion a year for the industry to comply with the new rule." See also the 2/24/11 story re proposed EPA regulation of industrial boilers, heaters and incinerators.

        [Don’t be fooled by “for the first time,” because the EPA has been regulating pollution from coal-fired power plants for decades.  Previously, the prime thrust was to reduce the amount of SO2 and ash emissions, which are genuinely harmful pollutants.  Now, in addition to trying to curb CO2 emissions, the EPA is going after trace pollution based on health claims that are probably exaggerated.  At a minimum, the proposed rules illustrate the law of diminishing returns – and they may well be unjustified.  Heap enough regulatory burdens on fossil fuel power and on nuclear power (the only logical alternative to fossil fuel power for now), and the results are predictable.  Skyrocketing energy costs will tank the US economy.  Time for some common sense about these issues, folks, or we will all have cause to regret it.]

3/16/11, A1/A6, Japan abandons nuke plant: Rising radiation may signal breach of reactor core, Brian Vastag (Washington Post) – The situation at the Fukushima plant continues to develop, and the news is not good.  The biggest danger may not be the reactors themselves, but rather spent fuel pools where loss of water can expose fuel rods to the air and result in overheating and the release of radiation.  And if workers are not allowed on site due to radiation exposure risks, it will be hard to prevent such results.  [The ultimate severity of the risk remains to be seen, and it would probably be best to withhold judgment until it is known how things turn out.  However, there are already reports of warnings of the International Atomic Energy Agency about vulnerability to a severe quake of http://bit.ly/gcNeco and the resignation 35 years ago by a GE scientist concerned about the reactor design http://abcn.ws/haieYy.  Such reports should obviously be considered in future policy decisions if they turn out to be well founded.]

3/16/11, A14, Japanese disaster demands a re-examination of nuclear power, Eugene Robinson – The writer is ready to jump to a conclusion right now.  “It seems unlikely that the Fukushima crisis will turn into another Chernobyl” and “Japanese authorities seem to be making all the right decisions.”  Possibly, “Japanese engineers will eventually get the plant under control.”  And “as President Obama and Congress move forward with a new generation of nuclear plants, designs will be vetted and perhaps altered.”  But so what, “because the one inescapable lesson of Fukushima is that improbable does not mean impossible.”  And in the case of fission reactors, “the worst-case scenario is so dreadful as to be unthinkable.” [Ultimately, a zero risk mentality can justify rejecting any technology – starting with the discovery of fire, since it is impossible to guarantee that fires will not get out of control and inflict catastrophic damage.]

3/15/11, A1/A2, Nuclear plant spews radioactivity: Crisis in Japan escalates with new blasts: Elaine Kurtenbach & Eric Talmadge (AP) – Reports that Japanese citizens were advised to stay indoors, while a few workers try to cool fuel rods, using seawater mixed with boron [?].  Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan advised the public in a TV address that “the level [of radioactivity in the vicinity of one of the reactors] seems very high, and there is still a very high risk of more radiation coming out.”  It is further stated by the reporters that “this is the worst nuclear crisis Japan has faced since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.” [The two situations simply are not comparable.] 

An interesting Q&A list accompanies the article.  Sample: “Any indication of radiation exposure to humans?  “Of the more than 180,000 people evacuated, up to 160 may have been exposed.  And at one point, officials said the radiation detected outside [how far?] one unit in a one-hour period represented the allowed rate for an entire year.”

3/15/11, A1/A2, Reactor safety big issue for Delaware residents, Jeff Montgomery – “As images of smoking Japanese nuclear reactor buildings flashed repeatedly across the world’s viewing scenes, pressure rose Monday for a closer look both at aging reactors and plans for new plants around the mid-Atlantic and across the country.”  Several European countries are also concerned, and “a minister in Austria suggested a European Union ‘stress test’ to gauge the safety of reactors.”  And as shown by a diagram on page 2, Delaware is blanketed by the overlapping, arbitrary 50-mile circular emergency evacuation zones around the nuclear plants in NJ, PA, and MD.  Sen. Tom Carper’s office is reportedly “in constant contact with a 24-hour operations center established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after the disaster in Japan.”  

[Already subject to intensive scrutiny, the nuclear power industry will clearly be subjected to even more scrutiny now – both in terms of extending the operating permits of existing plants and approving new ones.  We hope it will be kept in mind that the earthquake-tsunami disaster in Japan is extremely unlikely in this area (California is more exposed).  Also, there needs to be a decision about recycling of spent nuclear materials (versus the bad idea of a central national depository for nuclear waste, which no one wants in their state), as is done in other countries, which would resolve the leading objection to building new nuclear plants.]

3/15/11, A8, Base nuclear power safety on science, not politics – So far experts have rated the Japanese nuclear situation as less serious than the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and far less serious than the Chernobyl disaster in Russia.  It is correctly stated that the Three Mile Island accident “halted the American nuclear power industry [building of new plants] for a generation.”

This time, says the editorial, “anti-nuclear hysteria shouldn’t dominate the discussion, as it did in 1979.  At the same time, the genuine risks should be honestly aired . . . based on the science, not the politics.” [The only problem is that science can and does get politicized at times, as has most certainly happened in the debate about manmade global warming.  A zero risk mentality must not be allowed to prevail, or the outcome will inevitably be to shut down the nuclear power industry . . . and maybe all other practical forms of energy production.]

3/14/11, A1/A5, Japan expects toll past 10,000: second blast rocks nuclear power plant, Jay Alabaster & Todd Pitman (AP) – Mainstream press coverage continues to conflate devastation from the overall earthquake/tsunami disaster with problems at Japanese nuclear plants that involve little threat to the public safety.  [The big losers will be the power company owners and consumers, as reactors flooded with seawater may never be restarted.  For a more balanced view, see the Wall Street Journal editorial today, “Nuclear Overreactions,” and the accompanying column by William Tucker, “Japan does not face another Chernobyl.” 

3/14/11, A10, Science doesn’t back stand taken by global warmers, John Greer (CCS) – In a recent letter, “Climate change denier ignores the science”, Chad Tolman is the one who ignores science.  Tolman criticized a previous letter writer who said that “man-made global warming” is political, not scientific.

        Tolman gives no scientific evidence to support the man-made global warming theory but instead makes three fallacious arguments.

        First is the “ad hominem” personal attack.  Saying someone is a “denier” is just name calling and does not address the evidence or argument.  So is saying someone is a lawyer not a scientist.  A lawyer may be well informed and objective while a scientist may be uninformed, biased, and advocating a position.

        Second is the “appeal to authority”.  Just because eighteen scientists signed a letter to Congress doesn’t mean they are right.  Over 700 prominent scientists have written Congress that man-made climate change is not a danger.

        Finally, climate is known to have changed constantly from natural causes, long before man could have had any influence.  Change alone is not evidence that it is man-made, harmful, or other than natural. A good scientific review with many references is “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” http://bit.ly/i2Y30i

        [Full letter as published, link added by us.  We commend the News Journal for publishing this rebuttal of Tolman’s unsubstantiated pronouncement, see 3/1/11.  However, they could have chosen a better title, given that Greer went out of his way not to call our intellectual opponents names.]

3/13/11, A1/A11, Japan officials: Partial meltdown likely under way: 170,000 told to leave area near plant, Eric Talmadge & Yuri Kayeyama (AP) – Overheating has occurred at a Japanese nuclear plant (Fukishima) after the earthquake/tsunami disabled the cooling systems for fuel rods; partial meltdowns are possible in three reactors.  Some 170,000 people within a 12-mile radius have been ordered to evacuate.  This decision is understandable under the circumstances, but it may represent an overreaction.  Although “radiation levels briefly rose above the legal limits,” they have “since declined significantly.”  The explosion that occurred due to venting of gases that contained hydrogen did not affect the reactor, only a surrounding structure.  Seawater has been let in to speed the cooling of the reactor, an unorthodox procedure that will probably not cause a lot of problems.  No deaths due to this situation have been reported, while thousands of people are dead from other causes, although the reporters say “virtually any increase in dispersed radiation can raise the risk of cancer."  [This statement is based on an assumed linear extrapolation of damage to from radiation levels above zero, which has been shown to be incorrect.  Indeed, low levels of radiation may actually be beneficial, a phenomenon called "Hormesis."]

3/12/11, A6, Most nuke plants near Del. shielded: river locations far from ocean, Aaron Nathans – In the wake of a massive earthquake in Japan, with the damage still being assessed including risks of a core meltdown at one or more nuclear plants, it is perhaps natural to see coverage about the possibility of tsunamis along the Atlantic coast and the safety of nuclear power plants in our region of the world.  The conclusion of this article is relatively reassuring (and in our view sensible): “If a tsunami were to ever hit the East Coast, it would have little impact on this region’s nuclear power plants, emergency planning officials said.” [Based on past experience, we have a hunch the environmentalists will reach different conclusions – be prepared to read about the vulnerability of nuclear plants to earthquakes, etc. for a long time to come.  Indeed, a suggestion that the earthquake in Japan should be taken as a sign to redouble our efforts to fight global warming has already been posted. http://bit.ly/gFGLWH  Such thinking is akin to the superstitious beliefs of primitive civilizations.]

3/11/11, A8, US sees surge in new solar capacity: Installations doubled last year, Ehren Goossens (Bloomberg News) – “The amount of new solar energy capacity in the US doubled last year and may double again in 2011 because of government incentives, stronger demand and falling prices, a trade group said.”  The “total capacity” data (2010 additions shown parenthetically) are comprised of (1) photovoltaic systems (878 megawatts) that convert sunlight to electricity, and (2) solar thermal power projects (78 megawatts) that are used to heat water, etc. The cost of the capacity added in 2010 was $6B.  The cumulative total capacity is 2.6 gigawatts of installed capacity, which can power more than 500 thousand households.

Re government subsidies, there is a 30% federal grant to defray the cost of installing solar systems.  [Also, there are state and proposed-federal requirements for utilities to pay increasing amounts of “renewable energy,” plus increasingly draconian regulation of fossil fuel power plants aimed at driving them out of business.]  As for “falling prices,” the big factor is that some of the European countries are cutting their subsidies for solar power, which has been resulting in an oversupply of solar panels and heightened interest in doing business in the US.

 [It will be interesting to watch this boondoggle crash when the assumption of human-caused global warming is dropped in the face of accumulating scientific evidence that it is either flat wrong or wildly exaggerated.]

3/8/11, A6, Possible supply disruption ruffles traders, keeps driving oil higher: OPEC ramps up production, Chris Kahn – US average gas price at the pump hit $3.51 per gallon on Monday, and may well go higher.  Yet in this story, the Administration has only one idea of how to respond to the situation: tap the US strategic oil reserve (currently 727 million barrels, enough to supply the nation for 37 days).  [How about relaxing the absurd restrictions on domestic oil and gas exploration, both onshore and offshore?  These policies have not only driven up energy prices but cost many US jobs as well.]

3/6/11, A25, Valuable environmental measures of past 40 years deserve protection, Jonathan H. Sharp (professor of oceanography at UD) – The first part of this “Delaware voice” column expresses satisfaction with progress made in the past 40 years on achieving water quality improvements in the Delaware estuary, curbing sulfur dioxide emissions (“most cost-benefit analyses show much higher benefits than costs”), etc.  [We have no particular problem with these points, aside from the EPA’s tendency to keep proposing ever-stricter standards despite rising compliance cost and diminishing benefits.]  Then the writer attempts to apply the same logic to the restriction of CO2 emissions.

        “There is overwhelming evidence that increased [CO2] from burning of fossil fuels is leading to changes in climate and hydrology on a global scale with multiple ill effects for human health, environmental stability and global security – surface waters of the entire world are becoming more acidic – deleterious effects on marine resources – attempts to legislate controls on carbon emissions are under severe attack with claims that any such restraint will destroy the U.S. economy – some lost their seats in the fall election – [dire] level of anti-government negativity – carbon control is economically feasible and an absolute necessity – [also] the basic goals of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are under attack again.  I do not want to return to the filthy air and fouled waters of my childhood because of anti-government opposition to environmental protection.”  [The point is to strike a balance in regulation, not eliminate it entirely.  That is not anti-government bias, it is just common sense.  Professor Sharp provides no support for his claims about CO2 emissions, and his emotional rant against them does not deserve to be taken seriously.]

3/6/11, C1, New Hampshire leaving RGGI ? Aaron Nathans – Nathans notes in this brief item that the lower house of the New Hampshire legislature has passed a measure to withdraw from RGGI by a large margin and the Senate is expected to do the same with a margin big enough to "override Democrat Governor John Lynch's possible veto."  He characterizes the RGGI as “a previously unexciting bit of tinkering in the effort to defeat global warming” that “has become a lightning rod for tea partiers who believe it’s meddling in the free market.”

        [The Regional Greenhouse Initiative is a state-organized cap-and-trade system that was once seen as precursor for national action, but may be fated to become a doomed appendage.  Most of the Northeastern states joined, with the exception of coal states PA and WV, and it will be hard to kill the deal now because promises have been made to renewable energy interests and politicians are typically reluctant to admit they made a mistake.  Still, the apparent NH decision is encouraging, and we hope that John Nichols et al. will enjoy similar success in trying to get DE to withdraw from what is obviously “meddling in the free market.”] 

3/6/11, C1/C5, Sun could be sinking on state rebates: as refunds shrink, new subsidy may be on the way, Aaron Nathans – Rebates for buying solar panels are being decreased as the cost of panels decreases.  The rebates may be replaced with "renewable energy credits" supplied by the government.  Those credits can be purchased by Delmarva Power, et al. and used to help reach the government-mandated percentage of "renewable energy."

[This is a way to keep the cost of "renewable energy" off of the Delaware government's books, shifting it to the energy bills of consumers.  Instead of this fancy footwork, the government should eliminate subsidies for solar power entirely and permit market forces to decide whether it should be adopted.]

3/3/11, A10, Pa. gas wells still pollute rivers: water recycling lags behind drilling boom, David Caruso (AP) – The article is headed by a big picture of workers moving a section into place at a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well.  Per the accompanying text, “Pennsylvania’s gas drillers are still flushing vast quantities of contaminated wastewater into rivers.”

        Using newly developed techniques (“fracking”), energy companies are extracting growing quantities of natural gas from shale oil formations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  The practice has greatly reduced natural gas prices, and led to the substitution of natural gas for coal in many power plants with resulting environmental benefits.  Sounds like a “win-win” for everyone, but environmentalists complain that the resulting “chemically tainted and sometimes radioactive” wastewater has in many cases been discharged into rivers “after only partial treatment.” 

3/1/11, A6, Firm: Fixing oil crisis is as easy as growing grass: company says genetically engineered organism secretes diesel, ethanol, Jay Lindsay (AP) – Joule Unlimited, a Massachusetts biotechnology company, claims to have achieved a technological breakthrough that would create diesel and ethanol far more cheaply than conventional biomass processes.  According to a company spokesman: “If we’re half right, this revolutionizes the world’s largest industry, which is the oil and gas industry.  And if we’re [100%] right, there’s no reason why this technology can’t change the world.”  The organisms would take in sunlight and carbon dioxide and create hydrocarbons as a by-product of photosynthesis.  However, some experts question whether the process could be scaled-up as economically as claimed, e.g., fuel created would be a “sheen” on large volumes of water and extraction could be expensive.  [So long as Joule’s efforts are not subsidized by the government, “go for it.”]

3/1/11, A8, Climate change denier ignores the science, Chad Tolman, Energy Chair, Delaware Chapter, Sierra Club – The writer (whose climate alarmist views have been repeatedly published by the News Journal, most recently on 1/23/11) attacks Greg Inskip’s 2/24/11 letter (which said manmade global warming claims are political vs. scientific).  Tolman’s points: (1) A January report by NOAA says the past decade has been the warmest in the instrument record, with 2010 tied with 2005 for the warmest year. http://bit.ly/he8cm4 [These are surface temperature data vs. the satellite data referenced by Inskip.  Also, 2010/2005 temperatures were only .04 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1998 according to the NOAA table.] (2) 18 climate scientists from various universities and national laboratories sent a letter to the members of Congress on Jan. [28] stating, in part, that “the science [supporting climate change fears] is strong and there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation.” http://bit.ly/gfVwnc (click “letter asks” in second paragraph). [The obvious intent of this letter is to wangle an invitation to testify before Congress with ground rules that would exclude “climate deniers” or questioning based on alternative theories of the causes of climate change.] (3) “Greg” is a lawyer, not a scientist, and therefore not entitled to have an opinion on these matters. [Tolman is a chemist – not a climatologist.]

[Tolman does not mention the most important issue - "Is global warming caused by burning fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide?"  Instead he ends his letter with:  " - burning of fossil fuels is increasing risks to our health, national security and economy."  Climate alarmists generally have changed focus to such issues.  National security and economy arguments are baloney.  The health argument comes down to emission of sulfur dioxide when burning coal.

Coal is the cheapest source of electricity, and might well remain the cheapest even with sulfur dioxide emissions lowered greatly.  We need economical electricity, and cannot afford to drop coal.  Climate alarmists should be promoting nuclear power, which does not emit carbon dioxide, but most continue to be superstitious about radiation, and nervous about the storage of used nuclear materials.  We should always ask whether they support recycling of spent nuclear materials as is done in other countries.]

2/27/11, D1, Auto magazines shower praise on Fisker’s first car, the sporty Karma, Jonathan Starkey – Automotive journalists were finally allowed behind the wheel of Fisker’s first car – the $96,000 [!] Karma sports sedan – and they liked what they saw.  Fisker plans to build its second line, the Project Nina, at an old GM plant near Newark, with it purchased for $20 million last summer.  The first production Karmas are scheduled to roll off the line in Finland next month.  Reportedly, $1B has been invested in Fisker’s electric car thus far [no mention of how much of the funds were provided by governments].

2/26/11, A6/A7, Cape Wind left out of Mass. deals: Big utility signs with three other firms, Jay Lindsay (AP) – NStar (the second biggest utility in Massachusetts) has bypassed Cape Wind and agreed to meet its government-mandated requirements to buy renewable energy power from other offshore wind power firms offering lower (albeit still expensive) prices.  Instead of offering to lower its price or admitting that its costs are too high, a Cape Wind spokesman predicted that everything would come out fine because “today’s announcement represents only a modest portion of the total quantity of clean power that will need to be purchased.” [But what if the government wakes up and stops propping up this and other renewable energy projects that could never survive in a free market?]

2/24/11, A5/A7, More pain at pump coming: oil prices seen going nowhere but higher, Aaron Nathans – Oil prices are rising – in part due to problems in Libya – and they could soar if the chaos spreads to Saudi Arabia et al.  Gasoline consumers are paying rising prices at the pump, and the resulting cost could undermine consumer confidence and abort the current economic recovery.  [Might be a good time to start granting offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico again and remove many other government restrictions on domestic oil production that have led to ever-rising oil imports.  Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, a strategy of promoting renewable energy and plug-in electric cars offers little hope of insulating this country from international oil shocks in the foreseeable future.]

2/24/11, A5, EPA says it has found cheaper way to control boiler pollution: 50 percent savings still fail to satisfy companies affected by rule, Dina Cappiello (AP) – Faced with stiff Congressional opposition, the EPA now claims that it has made proposed regulations for more than 200,000 thousand industrial boilers, heaters and incinerators cheaper to comply with.  The revised proposal would supposedly “cost $1.8 billion less each year than the original proposal and avert thousands of heart attacks and asthma cases a year.”  The reduction in the annual compliance cost estimate (from $3.9B a year to $2.1B a year) is labeled as a cost savings. “An updated jobs analysis completed by the agency shows the changes will create 2,200 jobs, and that doesn’t include employment stemming from purchases of pollution-control technology.”  Industry critics say the rule is still inflexible and “would have an immediate, negative impact on manufacturers’ bottom lines.” [We do not trust the EPA health claims.  As for creating jobs, not implementing the regulation at all would probably be even more beneficial.]

2/24/11, A12, Stop buying the man-made spin about global warming, Gregory A. Inskip, Wilmington [CCS member] – In response to 2/17 article re “Scientists connect warming to extreme weather, the writer observes that “climate activists” keep shifting their arguments as the facts change rather than acknowledging error.  For example, a few years ago they blamed “global warming” for a drought in Australia and the supposed end of snow in London & Washington, D.C.  “Now we are told new scientific studies show ‘global warming’ is causing” heavy snow in the northern hemisphere and rain in Australia.  Ergo, the claim of man-made global warming is political, not scientific.  By the way, satellite measurements show no net global warming since 1998, and it was warmer 1,000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period, than it is now.

2/24/11, A13, On deficit reduction, House Republicans are being irrational, Saul Hoffman (UD economics professor and department chair) – In this column about the budget brawl in Washington, Professor Hoffman accuses would-be Republican budget cutters of attempting to “raise ideology over science.”  His evidence: proposed cuts that would prohibit the EPA from regulating the emission of CO2, etc. in the name of stopping global warming.  These cuts supposedly have “nothing to do with the budget or the deficit.” [Some common sense economics: (1) EPA funding is part of the budget, and (2) the proposed EPA regulations would contribute to slower economic growth and continuing high unemployment, thereby reducing tax revenues.]

2/21/11, B3, NRG would route power through Bethany: underground cable planned for wind farm’s electricity: Alyson Cunningham (Salisbury, MD Daily Times) – Since NRG Bluewater is planning an offshore wind power project, they will need to bring the resulting electricity to users on land.  NRG representatives have been meeting with town officials to explain exactly what they propose to do.  The plan is to build an underground transmission line that will be about six feet under the ocean floor and 15 feet under the Bethany beach.  The onshore cable would run through conduit about 4 feet under Wellington Parkway and Kent Avenue.  [Thirteen column inches for this story, unreal!]

2/20/11, E1, Atlantic City wind farm takes big step to jump-start industry, Aaron Nathans – Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey has filed a petition with the NJ Board of Public Utilities to approve the sale of offshore wind renewable energy credits (ORECs) to finance a pilot offshore wind power project.  This is likely to be the first use of New Jersey’s new program requiring utilities to buy either offshore wind power or ORECs. Offshore wind power producers get the ORECs for free and can then sell them to the utilities required to purchase them.  Daniel Cohen, president of Fishermen’s, says “this is a bargain for New Jersey and its ratepayers as a societal and energy cost hedge and to start a new industry.”  [If it’s such a bargain, why is the coercive power of the state required to support it?  Shame on you, Governor Christie, for supporting this legislation.]

2/20/11, E1/E5, Weary residents can speed up rebates with two extra steps, Aaron Nathans – Oh, dear, some of the people getting state rebate checks for installing solar power have been kept waiting for months or even years due to the shortage of funds to cover the checks.  Fortunately, $2M in federal stimulus money was provided to break the logjam, of which $1M has been spent to date.  To get paid fast, (a) sign up for a home energy efficiency audit (cost $500), and (b) spend at least $500 on the improvements recommended.  [Here’s a better idea.  Cancel the solar power subsidies, and then people will not be kept waiting for rebate checks.]

2/20/11, E5, Windmills not welcome in one Netherlands town: Residents are threatening to take the fight over the project to court, Arthur Max (AP) – The traditional Dutch windmills are rather quaint, but modern wind turbines are not (especially the type that are up to 650 feet tall, and would be the tallest manmade structures in Holland).  As a result, some local residents are mounting legal challenges.  However, according to the writer, “with oil prices again toying with $100 a barrel and global concerns mounting over climate change, electricity from wind, solar, biogas and other renewables is seen by many as the long-term answer to energy security, pollution and curbing greenhouse gases.” The Dutch government has set a 12,000-megawatt national target for wind power for 2020 vs. the currently installed capacity of 2,237 megawatts.  [A good reminder that wind power is not only expensive and unreliable, it also has a big environmental footprint.]

2/17/11, A7, Scientists connecting warming to extreme weather, Seth Borenstein (AP) – Two studies in Wednesday’s issue of “Nature” link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases, supposedly finding for the first time “the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.”  The evidence?  One study of worst-of-each-year events from all over the Northern Hemisphere concluded that more recent storms were 7% wetter.  The second study (coauthored by Myles Allen of the University of Oxford) connected flooding (particularly a bad flood in 2000) and climate change in the UK. Flooding has killed more than 2.3 million people since 1950 according to the World Health Organization’s disaster database.  Running the data for these events through computer models supposedly show that the effects of greenhouse gases must be factored in to account for the results observed.

       Most of the 10 outside climate experts who reviewed the papers for the AP called the research sound and strong.  However, climate scientist Jerry North of Texas A&M University said he worried that the studies were making too firm a connection based on weather data that could be poor in some locations.

2/14/11, A5, Under a different light: New law phases out old-fashioned bulbs for fluorescents, Jonathan Starkey – “Federal energy legislation passed in 2007 begins to phase out 100-watt bulbs at the start of next year – incandescent light bulbs will be replaced by compact fluorescents bulbs (CFLs) that supposedly save energy but “can be more expensive on the front end” – about 30% of consumers reportedly disapprove of the ban on standard light bulbs – reports of “hoarding” the old bulbs.  There is a “Delaware discount program” (of the nonprofit Delaware Sustainable Energy Utility”), which is in effect attempting to bribe reluctant consumers into buying CFLs.  And when CFLs burn out, drop them “in a sandwich bag and safely recycle them at these locations offered by DNREC: http://bit.ly/MGLRu.”  [There is still time to stop this nonsense.  What part of “let the market decide” doesn’t Congress understand?]

214/11, A10, Wind power is expensive and unnecessary, Gerry Lucht, Newark – Offshore wind power costs more than coal, natural gas, nuclear, or even onshore wind power.  So tell us, why do these projects keep getting pushed?  “Will global warming cause serious problems?  I doubt it.  Is carbon dioxide the major cause of global warming?  I don’t think so.” [Amen.]

2/10/11, A10, Protection for birds proposed: voluntary federal guidelines don’t satisfy some advocates, Frederick Frommer (AP) – "The American Bird Conservancy said that the wind industry's goal of providing 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 would lead to a million bird deaths or more."  [Delaware's requirement of 25% "renewable" much sooner exceeds the above goal, suggesting that renewable energy proponents may be stronger here than elsewhere.]

A 2005 Forest Service report estimated 550 million birds killed yearly by collisions with buildings [wonder how this was determined, talk about useless government reports], vs. only 28,000 killed by wind turbines.  A 2009 Fish & Wildlife report put the wind turbine toll at 440,000 birds per year.

        [This is pretty silly stuff, but if the bird kill concern slows the installation of expensive, unreliable offshore wind power facilities – great!]

2/10/11, A10/A11, USDA says world crop supplies will fall: Weather problems worldwide hurt output, Jeff Wilson & Whitney McFerron (Bloomberg News) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture cut its forecasts for grain inventories, in part due to a drought in Russia, flooding in Australia, etc., and grain prices are soaring. Corn prices have nearly doubled in the past year, and the subsidized use of ethanol for motor fuel has a lot to do with it.  “US ethanol production will consume an estimated 4.95 billion bushes of corn this year, up from 4.9 billion estimated in January and up 8.4 percent from a record of 4.568 billion last year.” [Great for farmers, not such a good deal for consumers – including people in other areas of the world who are living on less than $1.25 a day.]

2/9/11, A14, Offshore wind farms get boost for vital research  - News Journal editorial supports the $50.5M pledge of federal funds for offshore wind research (see 2/8/11 story) as (a) a partial fulfillment of the president’s SOTU pledge to “win the future,” and (b) “a short in the arm, indeed.”  At the same time, the actual cost of energy “remains important” and “we have to be realistic and develop a mix of clean energy sources.”  [Wind and solar power are not the only alternatives to coal power, there is also nuclear power and natural gas (which has become viable because new technology is bringing down the price of this clean fuel).  And there is no reason for the government to attempt to decide what energy sources should it be used; it should level the playing field and get out of the way, letting the free market decide.]

2/8/11, A1/A2, $50.5M pledge from US a shot in industry’s arm: Research could help reduce costs, Aaron Nathans – Announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu: (1) federal grants of $50.5M for offshore wind power R&D “aimed at driving down costs and making it more appealing for developers to build wind farms in the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere,” and (2) identify new ocean areas for expedited environmental review for offshore wind projects. 

The R&D grants will be bid by proposing research projects, in effect making the government the decision-maker as to what research gets done.  “University of Delaware officials said they are well-positioned to bid for some of the research dollars.”  All sources interviewed for the article [academic researchers, wind power lobbyists, etc.] praised the announcements.  [Big surprise!]

2/7/11, A12, For jobs’ sake, end extremist environmental policies, Al Rogers (Wilmington) – Re creating jobs in Delaware, the writer suggests: (1) amend the Coastal Zone Act “to make exceptions for projects that may be valuable for state commerce;” (2) negotiate with large employers like DuPont who are outsourcing more and more jobs offshore and “shamefully refuse to build new manufacturing plants statewide;” (3) repeal the ban on biomass incinerators, principally need for poultry waste; (4) “repeal renewable energy credits and other subsidies for inefficient and intermittent wind and solar energy.  Why are wind farms exempted from the Coastal Zone Act?  Subsidizing inefficiency is the surest prescription for job destruction.”

       As for the manmade global warming theory, notice that the warmists do not “eagerly seek and reveal data that negate their theories.”  Why?  They simply are not interested in learning the truth, and the theory is “a ruse to reduce population through the coercion of ‘sustainable lifestyles,’” which do not necessarily include manufacturing jobs.

2/6/11, F1, Oil customers hit with skyrocketing bills: Culprits are colder winter, rising fuel costs, Aaron Nathans – With a colder winter, higher prices, and a weaker dollar, heating oil users are getting a triple whammy.  And if they try to limit oil consumption by using electric space heaters, the Public Service Commission has approved higher electricity prices.  Prices are down for natural gas, however, which is the only bright spot in the energy price picture.

        [Look for electricity prices to increase further, if government-mandated use of expensive wind power continues to be increased.  When will our political leaders get the message that CO2 is not harmful, in fact it is beneficial.

       As for natural gas, let's use it as a long bridge to a revitalized nuclear future.  Even though nuclear doesn't produce CO2, most knee-jerk environmentalists are stuck in their nuclear opposition of the last century. That opposition should decrease greatly if recycling of used nuclear material is accepted, as is done elsewhere.  Only 3% is left, to be stored until the remaining elements are needed.  -  See 'Terrestrial Energy, a 2008 book by William Tucker.]

1/30/11, A32. Despite growing national debt, liberals’ solution is to spend more, George Will –

This column links electric car subsidies to the larger picture of fiscal irresponsibility that was on display in the president’s State of the Union address.  “The day after Obama told the nation the key to prosperity is creativity defined by the government and propelled by more government spending (‘investment’), the Congressional Budget Office said this year’s budget gap is widening to $1.5 trillion . . .”.  And clearly, “Obama’s goal of getting 1 million [electric] cars cannot be met unless innovative government rigs the market.” 

        Introduced in 2008, the “$7,500 bribe was limited to the first 250,000 electric cars.  In 2009, it was expanded to 200,000 electric cars per manufacturer.  Now Michigan’s Levin brothers want the tax credit to apply for 500,000 electric cars per manufacturer, which could result in a cost of $19 billion over 10 years. [See 1/28/11 entry.]  If so, says one backer of the idea, this would mean “the program worked.” [Enough already, the government cannot afford this kind of folly.]

1/28/11, A12, Electric car sales may get help: Plan would expand incentives to buy them, Peter Whoriskey (Washington Post) – The president wants a million plug-in electric cars by 2015, and two Senate Democrats from Michigan (Senator Carl Levin and his older brother, Rep. Sander Levin) propose to more than double the funding available for consumer tax incentives (previously expected to be $7,500 per vehicle).  The expanded program could provide up to $19 billion in tax credits for consumers over the next ten years.  [Note: $19B divided by 1 million electric cars = $19K per car.] "Proponents say that providing incentives to buy electric vehicles would reduce greenhouse gases and other pollution and diminish the nation's dependence on foreign oil."

1/28/11, editorial section, letter rebutting 1/23 (A) letter deriding climate change “deniers” – There have been many cooling/warming cycles in the earth’s history, notes SAFE member Jose Alvarez, and the present warming cycle – which began at the end of the Little Ice Age – cannot logically be attributed to CO2 emissions.

1/27/11, A10, Energy goals will take new definition of “clean" – In his State of the Union speech, the president proposed a goal of 80% of electricity from “clean” sources by 2035 – including not only wind and solar power, but also nuclear power, natural gas, and “clean” coal.  Here are his exact words: “Some folks want wind and solar.  Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.  To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.” 

        [Coal power currently accounts for 45% of the nation’s electricity, but 81% of CO2 emissions.  So CO2 emissions could be reduced considerably by shooting for the proposed goal, not to mention reducing SO2 emissions.  Whether the president’s intentions will match his inclusive rhetoric, however, remains to be seen.  So far, we haven’t seen much government support for any kind of energy except wind, solar, ethanol (in motor fuel), and electric cars.

Better, toss wind and solar off the table because they are expensive, unreliable, and cannot expand without an umbrella of government mandates and subsidies.  As for nuclear power, we have zero tolerance for subsidies, loan guarantees, etc., but believe the industry should be permitted to recycle nuclear "waste" (as is done everywhere else).  It would also help to be more realistic about nuclear safety, thereby speeding the approval process and lowering operating costs.

        Best of all, reject the idea that CO2 emissions are causing global warming – the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.  As for SO2 emissions, enormous progress in curbing them has already been made, and the declining benefits of further reductions should be carefully weighed against the rising costs that would be involved. Please, no draconian SO2 standards that risk my winter heat, or even my summer air conditioning.]

1/24/11, A15, Governor is guardian when the unelected bureaucracy fails, Barrett Kidner (CEO of Caesar Rodney Institute) – Using "excessive federal agency regulations, from ethanol to CO2 emissions to unfunded education mandates" as examples, Kidner references the 10th Amendment, and ends: "It is the responsibility of the governors of each state to act as the people's guardian against overreaching government agencies."  [We like it, and wish that some governors would "opt out" of regulations such as ethanol and CO2.  If it ends up in the Supreme Court, that’s fine.]

1/23/11, A32/33, A double whammy from two climate alarmists [our title]:

       (A) Letter to the editor (A32) from Jerry Northington, Wilmington, under title of “Congress shouldn’t listen to the climate-change deniers.” The writer seems primarily interested in denigrating his intellectual opponents, who supposedly “refuse to look at facts and continue to spout their unscientific babble.”  He goes on that “nearly every scientific organization of any stature recognizes the fact that climate change is upon us.”  [We have pointed out repeatedly that the climate is always changing and will continue to do so.  But we can't expect to convince the climate alarmists who wear blinders.  Our job is to continue showing that there is nothing unusual or threatening about this warm period, and man-made CO2 is not the primary driver.]

       (B) Eight writers offer “some ideas for Tuesday’s State of the Union address” on page A33, including former Delaware governor Pete du Pont (a serious deficit-reduction program -- down from 9% of GDP to 2% of GDP -- which would be an improvement, but the real goal should be to balance the budget and start paying off the debt); Wilmington Mayor James Baker (jobs, innovation, and more federal funds for cities, etc.); former Republican nominee for U.S. House Glen Urquhart (stop proposing more government programs, roll back “czarist” bureaucracy). 

1/22/11, A6, EPA OKs higher-ethanol blend for more cars: Expands on decision made in October, Mary Claire Jalonick (AP) – Yesterday the report was that this decision would be issued.  Now [Drum roll please!] the EPA is on record that 15% ethanol blended gas is safe for cars and light duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006.  Drivers of older cars will have to figure out which service station pump to use, and some retailers may opt not to sell the 15% blend because of the expense of adding new pumps and signs.  “It seems like corn growers and the ethanol industry are the only real winners here,” said Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that opposes use of the fuel.  And the EPA managed to blame its action on Congress, saying the congressional mandate [this was in the 2007 energy bill, see 12/24/07 blog entry] for increased use of ethanol “can’t be achieved without allowing higher percentage blends.”  [See our comments on the 1/21/11 story.  We do not simply oppose the new 15% blend, we think that ethanol mandates and subsidies should be scrapped entirely.  Time for Congress to get its act together.]

1/21/11, A11, EPA expected to approve new 15% ethanol blend for 2001-2006 cars, AP –

Announcement of action expected today. [Once again, we see the EPA is a political, not scientific, organization.  The use of ethanol in motor fuel is a bad idea, and now the EPA is poised to compound the error by increasing the concentration that will be subsidized.  Even Al Gore has admitted that his former support of the ethanol program was simply to win farm belt support for his run for president in 2000.

Automakers say 15% ethanol could cause damage to cars, so the error is compounded even further.  And if the switch was made only for later model cars, would service stations be required to offer two different ethanol blends – or would I be forced to scrap my 1995 Oldsmobile?

Another political move was declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, when it is actually beneficial.  Also, DDT was banned despite an EPA study that confirmed its safety, which resulted in the deaths of millions of African children.

An immediate fix would be to rescind the DDT ban, the CO2 finding, and subsidies for using ethanol in gasoline.  A longer term solution - replace the toadying EPA bureaucrats with scientists who are not beholden to extreme environmental organizations.]

1/18/11, A1/A2, Bluewater launches aggressive campaign: Maryland bid shows eagerness to expand, Aaron Nathans – After “years of pollution battles with regulators” at the Indian River Power Plant in Delaware, NRG has “turned its attention” to renewable energy.  The company bought Bluewater in 2009 “after Bluewater’s highly leveraged Australian parent company collapsed.”  [If you can’t lick them, join them.]  In addition to pursuing a wind power project off the Delaware coast, NRG Bluewater has expressed interest in areas proposed for wind power development off the coasts of Maryland, New Jersey, etc.  NRG spokesman Dave Gaier says the company “sees tremendous potential” for offshore wind and “we intend to participate where we can make a difference.” 

However, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is now distancing itself from a story in the Baltimore Sun that he will introduce legislation requiring utilities in that state – and by extension, Maryland ratepayers – to buy offshore wind power.  Although some kind of legislation would be introduced, said a spokesman, “we’re still working out what it will look like.” [Offshore wind projects are not economic without government support, which drives up the cost of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants while subsidizing the wind projects.  And maybe, just maybe, the public is waking up to this fact – as the backpedalling of Governor O’Malley’s office might suggest.]

1/18/11, B1/B3, Upgrades proposed for coastal preserve: Thompson Island would get better access, Molly Murray – Thompson Island Preserve, near Bethany Beach is hard to find, so state park officials are considering widening the access trail and other improvements.  Murray weaves in the fact that the shoreline has been receding, stating that 12,000 years ago, "Thompson Island was 35 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean." Over time, as the sea level rose, Rehoboth Bay formed, along with resource-rich wetlands. [Although Murray does not say so, the sea level rise was presumably the result of global warming – quite unrelated to the human use of fossil fuels.]

1/16/11, A33, One of a series of letters re what Governor Markell should say in his State of the State Address: Help revive free-market energy, David Stevenson (Center for Energy Competiveness) and John Stapleford (Caesar Rodney Institute) – Fewer jobs in Delaware today than in the year 2000 – economy has been in a “slow fade” – electricity industry deregulation has failed to reduce electricity prices  -- DE industry now pays 50% more than regulated states and “aggressive environmental regulations in Delaware are exacerbating this cost disadvantage – the “green” premium for regional cap and trade, offshore wind and solar power is poised to double the penalty – following CA emission standards will add $1,000 to new car prices.  “In New Jersey and New Hampshire, legislation has been introduced to withdraw from regional cap and trade.  Delaware should join them.” [Amen!]

1/16/11, E7, Vt. Nuclear plant may not receive new license in 2012: Leaks, misstatements hurt Yankee’s chances, Davie Gram (AP) – Update on a story reported by the Wall Street Journal on 2/25/10.  The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s initial 40-year license expires in March 2012, and Vermont has a statute on the books requiring that both houses of its legislature give their approval before Vermont regulators can issue a state license for the plant to continue operating.  From this article, it sounds as if state legislators want to force the facility to close based on relatively minor tritium leaks from the plant, even though “thirty-seven of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors have had [similar] leaks” and the Vermont Yankee plant has “a safety and performance record no worse than many of the other 61 reactors that have won 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”  No comments in the article on the cost penalty of replacing the inexpensive power from this plant. 

[The apparent problem is anti-nuclear sentiment in Vermont, and ineffective public relations by New Orleans based Entergy Corp., owner of the "Vermont Yankee" plant.  Let’s hope there is enough time to turn this unfortunate situation around.  If not, the plant should be mothballed, because its output may be critical when electricity demand increases.]

1/13/11, A12, "Solar panel manufacturer to close Mass. plant,” Steve LeBlanc (AP) –

Evergreen Solar Inc. is closing their Massachusetts solar panel manufacturing plant and laying off 800 workers after benefiting from $58 million state aid.  And Governor Deval Patrick had touted the project “as key to the state’s economic future in clean energy.”  Evergreen blames its decision on dropping prices and competition from heavily subsidized solar manufacturers in China.  The company will continue to run facilities in China and Midland, Michigan.

[What ever happened to the free market?  When the government is handing out money, people will exert a lot of effort to get their hands on it.  As owner of a tiny and unprofitable corporation (me), I get calls offering to help me get "free money” from the government.  Here is an industry that would depend on unearned money!

Economists call this "Rent-Seeking".  It comes under "Public Choice Theory" which deals with the fact that both politicians and those seeking money and advantages from the government act from their own interest.  This seems obvious, but there are still those who make the assumption that those in the government work for the "Common Good."  Actually, everyone has mixed motives, working at least in part to promote their own interests.]

1/13/11, A10, “A car just for show: Hybrid arrives at dealerships but won’t be sold in Del. for a year, Jonathan Starkey – Nucar Automotive Group has purchased two Chevrolet Volts, to be displayed in its show rooms in New Castle and Lewes.  But if you want to buy one (base price: $40,380) you will have to wait a year, the cars are just being displayed in hopes of building show room traffic.  [We can wait!]

1/13/11, Delaware government decides to follow California emission standards, boosting cost of cars purchased locally – The decision was made by DNREC Secretary Colin O’Mara back in December, but has yet to be reported by the News Journal.  Don’t they want the public to know that state leaders are even more zealous than regulators in Washington, who are planning to aggressively tighten federal standards?  Congrats to John Nichols for breaking this story!  

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2974

1/10/11, A12, Reader finds coverage of state’s energy news lacking, Doug Brunner, Wilmington - The writer complains of Aaron Nathans recent coverage of the Delaware energy market.  Focuses on a few vocal critics of decoupling and the “slight increase” to electric bills of customers “who use little energy but still depend on the expensive wires and transformers of Delmarva’s distribution network.”  Nathans should emphasize “why it’s critical to remove Delmarva’s disincentive to avoid energy-efficiency programs” so “Delaware can do without more fossil-fueled power generation or transmission lines.” [Makes sense that electric bills should be geared to usage, which rewards energy efficiency.  Brunner apparently favors decoupling, although his logic is unclear to us.]

1/4/11, A3, 13 oil producers to resume deepwater drilling: Action “grandfathers” projects begun before BP blowout in Gulf, Matthew Daly (AP) – The Administration announced that “it will allow 13 companies to resume deepwater drilling without any additional environmental scrutiny, just months after saying it would require strict reviews for new drilling in the wake of the BP oil spill.”  The stated rationale: the companies had started drilling the wells without detailed environmental studies, so they might as well be allowed to continue.  There had been “heavy pressure from the oil industry, Gulf state leaders, and congressional Republicans” to allow deep water drilling to get going in the Gulf again, [reflecting the resulting job losses, pressure on gasoline prices, and economic losses for oil companies with billions of dollars of idled equipment]. 

1/1/11, A4/A5, Offshore wind industry: Advocates applaud interest requests: Process should end with leased, Aaron Nathans – [Extra, extra,] Delaware offshore wind advocates cheered the federal government’s decision to open up swaths of ocean (3,000 square mile area off Massachusetts) for bidding by developers.  Similar announcements were made earlier about areas off the Delaware and Maryland coasts. The process is intended to end with the Department of Interior awarding leases to developers to install wind turbines in particular ocean blocks.  And then there is the Cape Wind project, a 468-megawatt, 130-turbine project that was grandfathered under previous rules.

        The story reports the plaudits of Jeremy Firestone, an associate professor at UD, and Chad Tolman of Delaware’s chapter of the Sierra Club.  NRG Bluewater Wind will reportedly take a serious look at doing a project in the Massachusetts offshore area.

       However, the U.S. Senate declined to endorse a “cap and trade” proposal, which is consistent with declining public acceptance of climate change propaganda.  Also, wind power (especially from offshore installations) is expensive and undependable.  We hope the new Congress will put a stop to this nonsense.

top     close