[Graeme]

I’m with the Tree Huggers

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he respectable center has recognized that climate change is not only real and man-made but also a genuine emergency. The scientific evidence has become too stark to indulge denial or dithering. The earth is hotter; Arctic ice is melting at a terrifying rate; staid institutions like reinsurers and the CIA are sounding dire warnings about rising seas and extreme droughts. There’s an emerging consensus that fossil fuel apologists are on the wrong side of the battle of the century.

But there’s also an emerging consensus-among newspaper editorial boards, respectable-centrist pundits, even the magazine Nature- that the rabble-rousing activists who have tied themselves to the White House gate and clamored for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline are picking the wrong fight. Stopping Keystone, these critics point out, wouldn’t prevent catastrophic warming. It might not even prevent the extraction from Canada’s dirty tar sands. It wouldn’t cut emissions as much as new coal regulations or clean-energy subsidies or carbon pricing. Meanwhile, approving the pipeline would create jobs and reduce our dependence on petro-dictators while signaling that Obama isn’t as radical as the tree huggers protesting outside his house.

Well, I’m with the tree huggers. The pipeline isn’t the worst threat to the climate, but it’s a threat. Keystone isn’t the best fight to have over fossil fuels, but it’s the fight we’re having. Now is the time to choose sides. It’s always easy to quibble with the politics of radical protest: Did ACT UP need to be so obnoxious? Didn’t the tax evasion optics of the Boston Tea Party muddle the anti-imperial message? But if we’re in a war to stop global warming — a war TIME declared on a green-bordered cover five years ago — then we need to fight it on the beaches, the landing zones and the carbon-spewing tar sands of Alberta. If we’re serious about reducing atmospheric carbon below 350 parts per million, we need to start leaving some carbon in the ground.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'i')f we’re in a war to stop global warming — a war TIME declared on a green-bordered cover five years ago — then we need to fight it on the beaches, the landing zones and the carbon-spewing tar sands of Alberta.

[Graeme]

Er, accelerate investment into green economy - solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, electric vehicles. . .

European Climate Official Urges Keystone XL Veto

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Obama would send the world an strong signal of his seriousness on climate change if he rejects the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, Europe’s top climate change official, Connie Hedegaard of Denmark, said Thursday.

“If you had a U.S. administration that would avoid doing something that they could do, with the argument that in the time we are living in and with climate change we are faced with, we should not do everything we can do, then it would be a very, very interesting global signal,” she said.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '.')..accelerate investment into green economy - solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, electric vehicles. . .

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')r, accelerate investment into green economy - solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, electric vehicles. . .

[Graeme]

Well I'll try to give a comprehensive list: angel investors, venture capitalists, private equity firms, Institional investors, banks, state (e.g. KSA is heavily investing in solar). Even oil companies. They tried but abandoned renewables. Maybe they just simply don't know how to innovate. It's much easier to continue with a tried-and-true formula. Shell admits that solar will dominate by 2100.

Solar and wind energy can be stored. Geothermal can be utilised anywhere - ground-source heat pumps and enhanced geothermal, biomass waste can be used, biofuels can be grown on marginal lands, speciality crops can be grown, algae in sea water or vats, electric (battery & fcv) vehicles are already available on the market. Development of the latter still continues but could do with further r & d funding.

[rockdoc123]

you obviously didn't read where I said

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot saying these are problems that can't be solved but they can't be solved in the immediate future no matter how much money you throw at them.

[Graeme]

I disagree. The problem of energy storage can be solved - and quickly within a decade or two. Although you did hit the nail on the head. Obviously, I cannot convey the current state of play without a lot of research. Hence I don't know which storage technology will dominate or will be preferred (apparently in Europe it is hydro at the moment). However, I did see this valiant effort and I'd like to repost this here.

Producing Terrawatts of Economical Energy Storage in the next two decades

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Problem: Wind and solar energy sources simply can't produce power at all times. Energy storage is needed to store energy from the sun and wind when it's produced for use later. No economical, widespread energy storage method currently exists that would allow a substantial portion of the electrical grid's electricty to be supplied by these renewable sources.

Solution: An inexpensive, compressed air energy storage system with 60-70% efficiency could be widely scaled, hopefully enabling terawatts of grid energy storage in the next two decades.

[Graeme]

Venture funding shifts to power grid

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ilicon Valley investors who helped build the solar industry are shifting cash into electricity-grid technology and energy-storage developers after bets on panel manufacturers failed to pay off.

Companies including VantagePoint Capital Partners and Khosla Ventures are stepping up funding for systems to manage electricity, which are typically less capital intensive than solar-panel factories. Venture capital and private-equity financing for renewables dropped to its lowest in at least six years in 2012.

Chrysalix invested in energy-management firms Enbala Power Networks and AlertMe Ltd. Khosla funded LightSail Energy, which is developing energy-storage devices.
"Our specialty is with large technology risk, where if the technology works there's a big economic breakthrough," said Vinod Khosla, the billionaire founder of Khosla Ventures in Menlo Park. "That's what we keep looking for in all areas."

[Graeme]

State Department Keystone XL Pipeline Analysis Disspirits Climate Change Community

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')nvironmentalists are fuming over the conclusion from the State Department that the Keystone XL pipeline -- a fiercely-debated proposal to transport heavy crude from Alberta's oil sands deposits 1,700 miles to the U.S. Gulf Coast -- would be "environmentally sound."

The government claims in the report released on Friday that the pipeline project wouldn't significantly alter climate change. Such an assessment is at odds with the warnings of experts and advocates -- more than 40,000 of whom recently convened in Washington to rally against Keystone. The report also is inconsistent with President Barack Obama's renewed pledge to tackle global warming, environmentalists said.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')hortly before 1 p.m. West Coast time Wednesday, 48 environmental activists — including ...Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune ...— were arrested after chaining themselves to a fence outside the White House to protest the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

... Obama’s liberal base is increasingly ticked off at him about his inaction on climate change. ]

[Graeme]

An environmental crime in progress

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')irty tar sands oil
Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil. During tar sands oil production alone, levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three times higher than those of conventional oil, due to more energy-intensive extraction and refining processes. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 900,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the United States daily, doubling our country's reliance on it and resulting in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than six million new cars to U.S. roads.

Water waste
During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

Indigenous populations
Northern Alberta, the region where tar sands oil is extracted, is home to many indigenous populations. Important parts of their cultural traditions and livelihood are coming under attack because of tar sands operations. Communities living downstream from tailing ponds have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism. In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, 100 of the town’s 1,200 residents have died from cancer.

These problems will only get worse, unless tar sands production is halted. Unfortunately, an area the size of Florida is already set for extraction. Investing in a new pipeline would increase the rate of production, while decreasing the quality of life for indigenous populations.

Pipeline spills
TransCanada already attempted to cut corners by seeking a safety waiver to build the pipeline with thinner-than-normal steel and to pump oil at higher-than-normal pressures. Thanks to the pressure exerted by Friends of the Earth and allies, the company withdrew its safety waiver application in August 2010.

The threat of spills remains. In summer 2010, a million gallons of tar sands oil poured into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan from a pipeline run by another Canadian company, Enbridge. The spill exposed residents to toxic chemicals, coated wildlife and has caused long-term damage to the local economy and ecosystem.

Heightening concerns, TransCanada's Keystone I pipeline has spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation, prompting a corrective action order from the Department of Transportation. Experts warn that the more acidic and corrosive consistency of the type of tar sands oil being piped into the U.S. makes spills more likely, and have joined the EPA in calling on the State Department to conduct a thorough study of these risks.

The Keystone XL pipeline would traverse six U.S. states and cross major rivers, including the Missouri River, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers, as well as key sources of drinking and agricultural water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies two million Americans.

Refining tar sands oil
After traveling through the Keystone XL pipeline, tar sands oil would be brought to facilities in Texas to be further refined. Refining tar sands oil is dirtier than refining conventional oil, and results in higher emissions of toxic sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. These emissions cause smog and acid rain and contribute to respiratory diseases like asthma. Communities near the refineries where the Keystone XL pipeline would terminate, many of them low-income and communities of color, already live with dangerously high levels of air pollution. The Keystone XL pipeline would further exacerbate the heavy burden of pollution and environmental injustices these communities confront.

[Graeme]

Another flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') draft environmental review just released by the U.S. State Department for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline ignores mounting evidence the pipeline is not in the national interest.  NRDC has completed a preliminary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and concludes that the State Department failed to account for the pipeline’s impact to water and climate.  There is now significant evidence the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would help trigger a major expansion to tar sands development leading to a sizeable increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And we know that a spill of tar sands oil from Keystone XL would pose much greater risks to precious waterways across America’s heartland.   Despite this evidence, the State Department found there would be no significant impact to the environment if the pipeline were approved.  We disagree.  President Obama should reject this draft environmental review and tell the State Department to re-examine the evidence that shows the pipeline isn’t good for the climate, or water protection, or energy security.

In this latest review, the State Department’s ignored  evidence that the pipeline would lead to a significant increase in carbon pollution that would be equivalent to adding 6 million new cars on the road.  And that doesn’t even account for additional carbon emissions that weren’t accounted for by the State Department from petroleum coke which would increase the climate impacts from Keystone XL by another 13 percent. 

Keystone XL would help to expand the dirtiest fuel on the planet because it is a fundamental element in the oil industry’s plan to triple production of tar sands oil from 2 to 6 million barrels per day by 2030, and in the longer term to hike production to more than 9 million bpd. Keystone XL would enable a significant amount of tar sands expansion that otherwise would not occur.  In other words, if we are serious about fighting climate change then you need to take actions that stop making things worse.

President Obama in his recent State of the Union address has said the United States will make tackling climate change a major goal of his second term.  In fact, a sizeable majority of Americans want the President to take action on climate.  To fight climate change, we need to be taking measures that reduce climate pollution that brings dangerous and costly extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy. Building Keystone XL which helps to expand the tar sands industry takes the U.S. in the wrong direction. It is not in our best interest to expanding America’s dependency on tar sands which undermines our efforts to move to clean energy. 

The review also failed to recognize the dangerous nature of tar sands spills.  This isn’t an ordinary oil pipeline.  The Keystone XL pipeline will carry tar sands, a uniquely corrosive and acidic mixture, more risky than most of the pipelines across the country.    Tar sands spills are difficult to impossible to clean up.  After more than two years and nearly a billion dollars in cleanup cost, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have found that nearly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo river is still contaminated by submerged tar sands.

The State Department’s environmental review of the pipeline safety risk of Keystone XL now recognizes the unique risks associated with diluted bitumen tar sands spills and  that spill responders have yet to develop methods to address those risks.   But despite recognizing those risks, the environmental review did not find the pipeline would have a significant impact on the environment.  Additionally, the review did not adequately consider the demonstrated higher risk of pipeline failure due to external corrosion in high temperature pipelines like Keystone XL.

The environmental review also failed to take into account TransCanada’s poor operating record. TransCanada is currently under a sweeping audit for systematic violations of minimum safety regulations in the construction of its pipelines.  The two pipelines TransCanada constructed in the United States in recent years have been plagued with problems. The first Keystone pipeline, already operating, has spilled 14 times and had to be shut down twice due to safety concerns and another one of its pipeline exploded. 

Finally, the environmental review document fails to acknowledge that Keystone XL is an export pipeline going through the United States for the delivery of oil to Gulf Coast refineries that are shipping most of their oil for export.  Keystone XL is designed to export tar sands out of United States.  What the tar sands industry doesn’t want Americans to know is that Keystone XL will not bring additional oil into the United States. Industry has made it clear that Keystone XL is a part of a larger plan to send tar sands oil offshore. Unfortunately the State Department’s analysis did not consider this reality.

If the Obama Administration considers all the environmental issues associated with the pipeline including the climate impacts the risks that tar sands pipelines pose to the land and water they traverse, it will be clear that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline should be rejected as not in the national interest.  The State Department under the new leadership of Secretary John Kerry can rectify these major flaws and there will certainly be a major response from the millions of people from across the country to revisit these fundamental issues. Once all of the evidence is taken into account, it will be clear to the Obama administration that Keystone XL is bad for the climate, bad for protecting water, bad for promoting U.S. energy security, and not in America’s national interest.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')If the Obama Administration considers all the environmental issues associated with the pipeline including the climate impacts the risks that tar sands pipelines pose to the land and water they traverse, it will be clear that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline should be rejected as not in the national interest. 

[Graeme]

Obama is likely to reject Keystone XL pipeline: Republican congressman

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause of the influence of environmental groups, the Obama administration will likely reject the Keystone XL pipeline, a Republican member of Congress said Tuesday in Washington.

"Some think it is a 50-50 proposition," US Representative Lee Terry said. "But the environmental movement has made it their No. 1 issue and has put the White House in a predicament. I just don't think the administration will approve it."

Speaking before the Natural Gas Roundtable, the Nebraska Republican said Secretary of State John Kerry had opposed the pipeline when he was a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Now it is Kerry's responsibility to present recommendations to the president, Terry said. The State Department is required by law to make a national interest determination on the pipeline.

[kublikhan]

I also disagree with the Huffington article. Energy storage is not the only option for addressing the intermittantancy of solar/wind. There are others:
1. overhaul the transmission grid to increase the ability to redirect surplus power from one region of the nation to another part of the nation, and/or neighboring nations. We need a truly national grid instead of the various regional grids we have now. That way when one region of the grid has a power sag because of intermittant solar/wind, another region can step up and fill the gap.
2. use conventional power plants as peaker/backup plants. Keep a few natural gas/quick start coal plants in mothballs and power 'em up when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shinning. It's actually cheaper to keep a few of these plants around for backup power than it is to build a giant national grid battery. You don't need a 1-1 GW for GW backup for renewable either. Just make sure you can reroute the power to the part of the country that needs it.
3. power demand fluctuates and is not uniform. Yet the power grid must be able to supply the maximum amount of energy demanded. This leads to so called "peaker plants" that operate only when demand is highest and are idled the rest of the time. Because solar produces electricity when demand is highest(midday), it reduces the need for building new new peaker plants.
4. Implement a smart grid with a high degree of demand response. Ex: staggering ac use when the grid starts to peak, run appliances at night when power is cheap, program EVs to charge only during demand sags when power is cheap, reduce energy intensive industries during peak loads, etc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uring one 24-hour period, Germany’s PV accounted for nearly a third of the nation’s energy needs on midday Friday when the nation’s factories and offices were humming along, and then it approached 50 percent midday Saturday as residents enjoyed a sun-filled weekend.

According to the International Economic Platform for Renewable Energies in Muenster, the power produced at its weekend peak was greater than the capacity of 20 nuclear power plants. The timing of the peak is particularly important since it comes during times when energy use is at its highest.

"It is often underestimated that the sun brings significant power if and when it is needed most. In the peak time for lunch," said institute director Norbert Allnoch. Because of this, the group says that expensive peak load power plants are increasingly rare or no longer used.

[Graeme]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '
')If the Obama Administration considers all the environmental issues associated with the pipeline including the climate impacts the risks that tar sands pipelines pose to the land and water they traverse, it will be clear that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline should be rejected as not in the national interest. 

[Graeme]

Keystone XL: Not the Jobs Plan the Oil Industry Pretends

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he State Department draft environmental review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline shows how TransCanada, the American Petroleum Institute and other proponents of the pipeline have been vastly overstating the number of jobs that will be created by this dirty energy project. This creates unfair expectations among workers who need jobs, not empty promises from the oil industry. The State Department, based on TransCanada’s own numbers, shows that at the most 3,900 construction jobs will be created in building the pipeline with only 10 percent of the total workforce hired locally. Only 35 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline.

Keystone XL will run from Canada, across America’s breadbasket, to the Gulf Coast where tar sands will be refined and much of it will be exported so that the oil companies can enjoy the higher prices of international markets. The State Department’s draft review does not take the economic well-being of farmers and communities along the pipeline path into account, neglecting to assess the potentially negative impacts of pipeline spills, spills into freshwater supplies or increases in climate and other pollution on employment and the economy, as was done by the Cornell Global Labor Institute. Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline's proposed route - approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the states along the Keystone XL corridor. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL tar sands spill, or the cumulative impact of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs.


A new report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, an organization that represents over 800 business leaders, shows that companies and communities announced more than 300 clean energy and clean transportation projects in 2012 that are expected to create 110,000 jobs. These jobs are helping to revive manufacturing in states like North Carolina and Ohio, cutting energy costs for homeowners and businesses, and scaling up new industries like clean vehicle manufacturing.

[Graeme]

Rail Is Not an Alternative to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n its recently released draft environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring tar sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast for export, the State Department attempts to make the case that rail could be a viable alternative. The State Department argued that Keystone XL would have little effect on tar sands production because rail could provide an equally feasible and economic transportation option for tar sands. This is a critical element of the draft environmental review because while State determined that tar sands is dirtier than conventional oil, it concludes that Keystone XL would have little impact on the expansion of tar sands and therefore policymakers and the public needn’t consider the impacts of that expansion. However, State’s assumptions are on the wrong track. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will drive tar sands expansion. Expansion depends on tar sands being able to reach the high prices of overseas markets. But pipelines to the east and west are stalled and rail – as we will show here – is not an economically viable alternative to Keystone XL. And without Keystone XL, financial analysts are already saying that the tar sands industry’s expansion plan will go off the rails.