QUICK NEWS, 2-1: FOR A CLEAN ENERGY BILL; WORRIED ABOUT A CLEAN ENERGY BILL; MONEY FLOWS TO HYDROKINETICS; THOSE NAT GAS EMISSIONS

FOR A CLEAN ENERGY BILL
Analysis: Obama energy plan best chance for clean power
Timothy Gardner and Tom Doggett (w/Ayesha Rascoe andTodd Eastham), January 27, 2011 (Reuters)

"President Barack Obama's new plan to double U.S. clean power output could provide the kind of compromise needed to pass a divided Congress because it offers benefits to lawmakers who want to cut planet-warming emissions and those who want more jobs in energy-rich states…[I]ntroduced in his State of the Union speech…[the plan] would require power plants to generate 80 percent clean electricity by 2035…

"It is far broader than legislation debated last year…includes generation from nuclear power, natural gas and technologies to capture and bury carbon from coal -- a process that is not yet commercially available…[and] goes further than legislation for a clean electricity mandate introduced by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham late last year…[It represents] the best chance for developing clean energy in this Congress, especially after a broad energy bill [concentrating only on renewable electricity and ] containing a cap and trade market for emissions [met tough opposition from lawmakers representing states in the Midwest and South and] failed to pass in the Senate last year…"

click to enlarge

"Obama's new direction could gain support from lawmakers across the country, many of whom opposed last year's climate bill. A nuclear component could win support from Republican Senators like Graham, Lamar Alexander and George Voinovich, while a clean coal provision could garner votes from Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and John Rockefeller from coal-rich West Virginia.

"A clean power mandate could benefit companies that make components for wind and solar like General Electric, First Solar and SunPower Corp…Increased natural gas development could benefit producers like Chesapeake Energy Corp, Devon Energy and Anadarko Petroleum…Clean coal incentives could benefit producers like Arch Coal Inc and Massey Energy."

click to enlarge

"If Obama can work with Congress to pass the bill, he could begin to achieve his goal of cutting greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, and repair some of the political damage he suffered from failing to pass the last year's energy bill…[The proposed] plan was light on details and successful execution of it will depend on how carefully lawmakers craft a bill that would satisfy leaders in the House of Representatives, now controlled by Republicans after the midterm elections.

"Energy Secretary Steven Chu said…the plan represents roughly a doubling of electricity generation from cleaner power sources in less than 25 years…[A challenge] would be lawmakers who oppose federal regulation…Obama said his plan hinges on eliminating billions of dollars in oil, coal and natural gas subsidies. He wants the money to be shifted into clean energy research and deployment…[That] could irk some Republicans in the House…But a promising sign for Obama's plan was the power industry's cautious interest in at least considering the plan…The trick for authors of a bill will be to satisfy fossil fuel interests without completely alienating lawmakers who want to cut emissions and boost alternative energy…"


WORRIED ABOUT A CLEAN ENERGY BILL
Experts mull clean energy
Josh Stilts, January 27, 2011 (Brattleboro Reformer)

"There is no room for nuclear power and coal in a clean energy standard…three experts on the effects of non-renewable energy sources said…[and added that] Congress and the Obama Administration need to clearly define what clean energy is.

"The definition needs to be based on what the major environmental impacts are going to have in the future, Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research said…[because there is] no perfectly clean source…Wind turbines, for example, can obstruct views and various animals' flight paths, but the structures can be taken apart and the materials recycled down to nearly every bolt and screw, he said…"

click to enlarge

"Dr. Alan Lockwood, professor of nuclear medicine and neurology at the University of Buffalo in New York, and past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, called for the closing of all coal-burning plants…[because] closing the coal plants will not only save thousands of lives, it will also save millions of dollars in health care…[and clean coal is] a myth that fits nicely on billboards…[but coal] is dirty at every stage [from mining to transport to burning]…"

click to enlarge

"Scott Sklar, chairman of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and adjunct professor at George Washington University, said several studies have stated that coal plants put out more radiation than most nuclear power plants…Building a smarter, more efficient electric grid, made primarily of renewable energy sources is the only way the United States will be able to stop relying on coal and nuclear power, he added…

"If the term clean energy isn't clearly defined, any business can use it for their financial gains, Makhijani said…He warned that if nuclear power is utilized as the main source of energy, other countries will follow and radioactive waste disposal will be an insolvable global problem…Nuclear power, which is often referred to as a source of clean energy, creates large amounts of radioactive waste that no one knows how to deal with, Makhijani said…[which is] dumping the consequences on our children…"


MONEY FLOWS TO HYDROKINETICS
Hydrovolts Gets New Funding, Partners for Hydrokinetic Energy Development
January 28, 2011 (Hydrovolts via APCO Worldwide)

"Hydrovolts Inc., producer of innovative hydrokinetic turbines for renewable energy generation, has successfully closed its first investment funding round and established strategic partnerships with three other Washington companies to develop hydrokinetic turbines that generate clean energy from water currents in canals and channels.

"Hydrovolts closed its over-subscribed Series A funding round in December 2010. Including other investments and cash prizes won, the company has raised over $1 million since winning the National Sustainability Award at the Clean Tech Open in late 2009. Two of the company’s investors are large engineering corporations who will be strategic partners. Hydrovolts has since been invited to present at three prominent energy investment conferences this year."

click to enlarge

"Washington State is the home of the four companies in the new clean energy partnership. Hydroovolts will partner with MERA Technologies, Inc. (MTI)…to develop a new submersible generator that enables the efficient harvesting of water energy at low revolutions per minute (RPM) without the need for gear boxes and with very reliable operation. MTI designs and produces Permanent Magnet Generators in China for customers around the world. The generators use neodymium ‘super magnets’ over which China has global supply domination. MTI supplies marine power generators to the boating industry and has recently become a supplier of generators to the Chinese government…"

click to enlarge

"A Seattle consulting firm with deep roots in China, Sierra Asia Inc. will advise Hydrovolts on its China market development…Hydrovolts will also partner with the Ershigs Corporation…Ershigs manufactures fiberglass pipe and large components for industrial applications and currently is designing and building fiberglass composite components for various wind and wave energy companies. Ershigs has made an investment in Hydrovolts and will provide turbine engineering and prototype assistance and parts such as rotor blades and floatation tanks for the production models.

"Hydrovolts has collaborations with the U.S. Department of Energy, the University of Washington, the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems…"


THOSE NAT GAS EMISSIONS
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated
Abraham Lustgarten, January 25, 2011 (ProPublica)

"…[N]ew research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing understanding of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change…Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.

"The EPA’s new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation’s emissions…Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported…When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less."

click thru for a high resolution version

"Even accounting for the new analysis, natural gas—which also emits less toxic and particulate pollution—offers a significant environmental advantage. But the narrower the margins get, the weaker the political arguments become and the more power utilities flinch at investing billions to switch to a fuel that may someday lose the government’s long-term support…The EPA now reports that emissions from conventional hydraulic fracturing are 35 times higher than the agency had previously estimated. It also reports that emissions from the type of hydraulic fracturing being used in the nation’s bountiful new shale gas reserves, like the Marcellus, are almost 9,000 times higher than it had previously calculated…

"Getting a solid estimate of the total lifecycle emissions from natural gas is critical not only to President Obama’s—and Congress’–decisions about the nation’s energy and climate strategy, but also to future planning for the nation’s utilities…Even small changes in the lifecycle emissions figures for gas would eventually affect policy and incentives for the utility industry, and ultimately make a big difference in how gas stacks up against its alternatives."

click thru for a high resolution version

"…[T]he country’s large promised reserves of natural gas must also hold up for gas to prove beneficial, in terms of both cost and climate. If domestic reserves turn out to be smaller than predicted, or the nation runs out of gas and turns to liquefied gas imported from overseas, then the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas would be almost equal to coal…because the additional processing and shipping of liquefied gas would put even more greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere…

"The utilities are in a bind because they have to build new power plants to meet the nation’s demand for energy, while anticipating an as-yet-undefined set of federal climate and emissions regulations that they believe are inevitable. Do they build new gas-fired plants, which can cost $2 billion and take three years to bring online? Or do they wait for proven systems that can capture carbon from coal-fired plants and sequester it underground? …If carbon sequestration works, coal-based power emissions could drop by 90 percent…[and] natural gas may not be the solution to the nation’s energy needs, but rather the transitional fuel that bridges the gap to cleaner technologies…"