QUICK NEWS, 7-8: REVIEW CLEARS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS; SHARE NEW ENERGY COSTS, BENEFITS; ANOTHER BIG IDAHO WIND BUY; THE TROUBLE WITH CCS IS LEAKS

REVIEW CLEARS CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty
Hilary Whiteman, July 7, 2010 (CNN)

["…The Independent Climate Change Emails Review of] the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the 'rigor and honesty' of scientists involved.

"The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming…The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…[It] did however find that the CRU scientists had failed to display [proper openness] when it came to dealing with public requests for information…"

From greenman3610 via YouTube

"In November 2009, the integrity of the CRU and its research were called into question after the publication of more than 1,000 emails, dating back to 1996, to and from scientists employed there…Particular attention focused on one e-mail from the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, which referred to a "trick" being used on data submitted to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1999…

"The review found the figure supplied for the WMO was in fact misleading…[but only in that] procedures should have been made plain…Of the language used by the CRU scientists, the report said that it was generally…[informal and slang and] the word 'trick’ was not intended to imply any deception…"

click to enlarge

"In a statement after the report's release, Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, expressed hope that report would put an end to the ‘wilder assertions’ about the climate science community…[and] announced that Professor Phil Jones, who had stood down as head of the CRU during the review, had accepted a new post of Director of Research at the unit…"

[Michael Mann, climate scientist:] "Human-caused climate change is a reality, and it's about time we get on to a meaningful discussion about what to do about it…"


SHARE NEW ENERGY COSTS, BENEFITS
Share costs of entering new era
Editorial, July 6, 2010 (Boston Globe)

"…[A]ll energy consumers must share in the transition costs [of increased reliance on renewable energy] — even those big enough to negotiate their own electrical rates.

"Giant retailer Walmart is challenging the deal National Grid has struck to buy premium-priced power from Cape Wind, because the utility intends to spread the costs of buying that power from the wind farm across all its customers. That includes Walmart, which buys its electricity from a different supplier and only uses National Grid for transmission."

Consumers have to subsidize the New Energies because taxpayers subsidize the Old Energies. (click to enlarge)

"But neither principle nor the law is on Walmart’s side…[B]ig electricity customers often buy their power from companies other than utilities such as National Grid. The Green Communities Act of 2008 specifically requires the utilities to bill all their customers, including those that use a utility only as a delivery service, for the cost of renewable energy. Without such a requirement, a utility’s residential and small-business customers would bear too much of the cost of renewable projects…

"…Walmart and all power consumers in the state will benefit in the long run as renewable sources like wind help hold down the highly volatile price of natural gas, which generates much of the state’s electricity. Fluctuations in the price of natural gas have been responsible for a tripling of utility bills in the past decade…[T]he fuel for the 130-turbine Cape Wind project comes at no cost at all — forever."

When costs are levelized, wind is among the cheapest sources of electricity generation. (click to enlarge)

"As a corporation, Walmart is famous for pinching pennies, and its efforts to express that philosophy through a more deliberate approach to lighting, ventilation, and packaging have won praise from environmental groups.

"…[N]ot all worthwhile environmental initiatives will save money in the short term. Bringing alternative sources of power into operation will involve some expense on the front end. Over time, everyone will benefit from the change, so its costs must be divided up accordingly."


ANOTHER BIG IDAHO WIND BUY
Atlantic Power Invests $40 Million in Idaho Wind-Energy Project
Andrew Herndon (w/James Langford and Cecile Daurat), July 6, 2010 (Bloomberg BusinessWeek)

"Atlantic Power Corp., the independent electricity producer, bought a minority stake in 11 wind farms under construction in Idaho for about $40 million.

"Atlantic Power used cash and $20 million from a senior credit facility to pay for a 27 percent interest in joint venture Idaho Wind Partners 1…The power-generating sites will have a capacity of 183 megawatts."

Idaho's modest wind assets are attracting big money. (click to enlarge)

"Atlantic Power’s investment follows General Electric Co.’s acquisition of a majority stake in Idaho Wind last week. Project manager Reunion Power LLC of New Jersey and Montana-based developer Exergy Development Group own minority stakes.

"Fagen Inc. began building the project this month…Commercial operations are slated to start by the end of this year, and utility Idaho Power Co. has agreed to purchase the output from the wind farms under a 20-year contract...The wind-farm cluster will use 122 of GE’s 1.5-megawatt turbines, and…[GE] will provide operational and maintenance services for seven years."


THE TROUBLE WITH CCS IS LEAKS
Carbon sequestration too leaky to stop global warming
Casey Johnston, July 6, 2010 (ars technical)

The author of this post contacted NewEnergyNews and requested his material be removed. The link has also been removed.

The gist of the brief post is that Long-term effectiveness and consequences of carbon dioxide sequestration, by Dr. Gary Shaffer, reports that sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions is problematic.

click to enlarge

Dr. Gary Shaffer's study reportedly modeled sequestration underground and in the ocean and combinations of the two.

The challenge with such storage, Shaffer reportedly found, is that it would have to be permanent and leakage of even 1% every thousand years could be a challenge to the atmosphere and aggravate climate change.

click to enlarge

Dr. Shaffer reportedly noted in his piece that it would be possible to sequester emissions if the storage sites are regularly monitored. This would obviously add to the cost of the technology.