Category Archives: Green Energy

The EPA Giveth and The EPA Taketh Away

Posted on by
2

The EPA giveth:

On one hand the EPA and our government has mandated (and working overtime to push) those crappy, mercury filled CFL bulbs. In the process of capitalism through mandate, the government has created a need for disposal of these nasty CFL bulbs. One company Waste Management, has stepped in to fill this “need.”

Yep, $16.95 to recycle up to 13 13-watt bulbs. What a bargain. And, as an added bonus, you get to store all those mercury filled bulbs in your home until you accumulate a sufficient number of bulbs where it makes sense to ship them for proper disposal.

Of course this ‘buisness’ wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for our government and the EPA interfering in the free market.

And the EPA Taketh away:

Waste Management LampTracker, Inc., to Pay $118,800 Penalty for Hazardous Waste Violations at Kaiser, Mo., Facility.

$118K off the bottom line is a whole lot of recycling kits.

In Canada People Are Catching on That Electric Cars Are Not The Wave Of The Future

Posted on by
2

Via The Globe and Mail:

There’s just one problem. The fantasy that electric cars are right around the corner doesn’t survive even the most cursory reality check. As Dennis DesRosiers, a leading auto consultant, points out, consumers simply won’t pay a $20,000 premium for a vehicle that doesn’t go very far, isn’t very convenient, and runs out of juice as soon as you turn on the air conditioner.

Consider hybrids. After a decade on the market, they’ve captured only 3 per cent of sales. To get to Mr. McGuinty’s 2020 target, green-minded Ontarians would have to buy at least 100,000 electric cars a year every year, starting right now. Total U.S. sales of electric vehicles are about 10,000 a year.

Of course, electric cars aren’t in mass production yet. And the technology is bound to get better and cheaper. Right?

Not so fast, says the University of Manitoba’s Vaclav Smil, who’s among the world’s foremost scholars of energy economics. Electric cars, he says, aren’t microchips, and Moore’s law doesn’t apply. “The myth that the future belongs to electric vehicles is one of the original misconceptions,” he writes in his book Energy Myths and Realities. In an interview, he notes that recent history is filled with energy breakthroughs that turned out be duds. Electric car crazes have come and gone before. Perhaps some people may remember a Canadian company called Ballard, which claimed to have developed a breakthrough fuel-cell technology. Many brainy people swore that Ballard was the future. It wasn’t.

It gets better. If all those electric vehicles are hooked up to our electric grid, with its diminished capacity (due to the adoption of the RES), electricity prices will skyrocket.

The interesting thing is if the issue truly is conservation and being efficient the real teleological winner is direct injection diesel engines. For example look at the 62 mpg Ford Fiesta (that crushes the 51 mpg Prius):

If I were a Ford dealer, I would jump at the chance to park a diesel-powered Fiesta in front of my dealership. I’d light it up with spotlights all night long. No rebates. No zero percent. I’d give every salesperson a pocket-sized job aid with a single sentence on it to counter every conceivable customer objection: “But (insert customer name here) this car gets – 62.5 miles per gallon.” And I’d have my waiting list right out front so customers could sign up.

I guess if the US government started push diesel engines, it would be even more difficult to justify handing millions of our dollars to multinational corporations to construct lithium ion battery factories. 

The EPA: Indoctrinating Our Children Since 1970

Posted on by
4

Remember, government in all forms, is overhead. It is an expense and adds no value (economically speaking) to our economy.

One of the most burdensome overheads of all is the EPA. They impose huge penalties for simple paperwork violations and will look high and low for a violation of some obscure regulation to use as a hammer against a business. Additionally, the EPA is in the business of indoctrinating our children to become eco-warriors. And what is worse, we are paying money for this drivel aimed at our children:

  • Choose and use a wide assortment of products made from recycled products, such as pencils made from old blue jeans; binders made from old shipping boxes; and many types of recycled paper products. You can also reuse items like refillable pens, rechargeable batteries, and scrap paper for notes. Using recycled-content and reusing supplies prevents waste and saves you money.
  • Before starting a new school year, sort through your materials. Many supplies can be reused or recycled. Notebooks, folders, and binders can be reused. Recycle unwanted papers and reuse your old folders and binders. Share your used books with friends, relatives, or younger schoolchildren.
  • Waste from packaging accounts for more than 30 percent of all the waste generated each year. Use school supplies wrapped with minimal packaging; use compact or concentrated products; or buy products that come in bulk sizes. Save packaging, colored paper, egg cartons and other items for arts and crafts projects. Look for other ways you can reduce the amount of packaging you throw away!
  • Many schools reuse text books to save money and reduce waste. Covering your textbooks with cut-up grocery or shopping bags helps reduce waste and keeps your books in good condition. Be creative—use markers or colored pencils to give your covers unique and fun designs. Paper grocery bags are also great for wrapping packages.
  • Use nontoxic products, inks and art supplies, such as batteries with less mercury, vegetable-based inks, and water-based paints.
  • Use and maintain durable products. Sturdy backpacks and notebooks can be reused for many years, which helps reduce the amount of broken items tossed away each year. Put long-lasting, high-quality tires on your car and bicycle. Be sure to keep your tires properly inflated.
  • If you bring your lunch to school, package it in reusable containers instead of disposable ones, and carry them in a reusable plastic or cloth bag, or lunch box. Bring drinks in a thermos instead of disposable bottles or cartons.
  • If you buy lunch, take and use only what you need: One napkin, one ketchup packet, one salt packet, one pepper packet, one set of flatware. And, remember to recycle your cans and bottles.
  • If you drive to school, try carpooling or take public transportation. Get your parents’ permission to try walking, biking, or skating. You can prevent wasted fuel, reduce air pollution, and decrease traffic in your community.
  • Borrow or rent your decorations and supplies for parties, dances, and proms. If you buy these supplies, try adopting a theme that can be used from year-to-year, so that you can reuse your decorations and supplies.
  • Pass it on. Share the message with your friends and schoolmates. Waste less by reducing, reusing, and recycling. Volunteer for, or start , an environmental club or recycling project in your school.
  • Work with your teachers and friends to find ways to encourage everyone in your community to make waste reduction a part of their everyday lives. You can also look for unique ways to make your school more waste-free, such as starting a school composting project.

The EPA; working overtime to create more little radical environmentalists.

Radical environmentalists are fans of no growth economy

Posted on by
3

A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain.

Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847)

I’ve been seeing many variations of the “shrinking economy is really a good thing” articles of late. It seems, since the ‘green collar’ economy really isn’t panning out, the hard-core environmentalist are trying a different tack.

Via TreeHugger.com:

While some folks argue that “sustainable growth” doesn’t have to be an oxymoron, others are adamant that it is time to take the notion of a no growth economy seriously. With the dirty fingerprint of consumerism evident on the recent London riots, and even the slightest signs of economic recovery leading to record oil use, we desperately need to seek a balance between economics and community, environment and well-being.

Right…  The only dirty fingerprints evident during the London riots were those of socialism. 

The riots in London continue to shed light on the unraveling of a once-great nation. The U.K.’s Tory government has proposed to terminate the “benefits”–some of them, anyway–of those who are convicted of participating in the riots. This applies to those who are not sentenced to prison, as inmates are cared for by the state and automatically forfeit whatever benefits they may otherwise have received.

This seems like an unobjectionable plan. For one thing, all of the rioters that we saw in photos or on video appear to be perfectly able-bodied. Why are they on “benefits” in the first place? One would think that getting a job is precisely what these yobs, as the British call them, need. But in today’s England, reducing a criminal’s benefits is no easy thing

The TreeHugger continue and cite a book from Professor Tim Jackson that outlines all the supposed negative issues associated with economic growth. Issues ranging from income inequality to a rise in mental heath problems.

These findings lead our intrepid TreeHugger to this:

Tim Jackson’s prognosis for exploring a different path is unlikely to be popular among advocates for smaller government, slashed taxes, or cowboy capitalism. From shifting the balance of spending from private to public, to increasing taxation on resource use and pollution, there are plenty of examples of policies that (on this side of the pond at least) will be decried as nothing short of socialism. But shorter working weeks and more time for family, leisure and community sure sound good right now. And given that business-as-usual is in dire trouble, with few options for traditional economic fixes left, it gets increasingly hard to argue that we need an alternative path.

As pointed out previously here at MCT, economic growth has lead to increases in productivity that have created shorter, not longer, work weeks.

Our TreeHugger finishes his article with this thought:

[T]he notion that growth may no longer be good for us in the West suggests that we should further shift the focus of that plan onto non-monetary means to ensure well-being.

From tool libraries to tiny houses to connected, resilient communities, there are plenty of ways that we can recalibrate our notions of what really makes us happy, safe and in control of our lives.

After reading the above paragraph, re-read the Karl Marx quote at the open of this post.

The Gail Windpower Project in Western Michigan Project Makes No Economic Sense

Posted on by
13

I’ve been on the west side of Michigan for a little R & R for the past week While on vacation, we took a drive up US 31, between Scottsville and Crystal Lake through beautiful rolling hills, picturesque farms and blue lakes.

While driving through the countryside, I noticed giant billboards and hundreds of yard signs for and against the Gail Windpower project.

The Duke energy Gail Windpower project is a wind farm in development that will consist of 108 wind turbines each 538 feet tall. The wind farm will cover 12,000 acres (18.75 square miles) of scenic lake Michigan shoreline. Supporters of the project claim, optimistically, that the wind farm will provide power for 60,000 homes. (When the wind is blowing).

According to Duke Energy:

Duke Energy is currently developing a new commercial wind power project in Benzie and Manistee counties, Michigan. The Gail Windpower Project will consist of wind turbines capable of generating 200 megawatts of clean, renewable electricity – enough to power up to approximately 60,000 homes. The project will encompass approximately 12,000 acres of land.

Duke Energy is working closely with landowners, government officials and other stakeholder groups to make the Gail Windpower Project a reality. As is our standard practice, we are also in contact with all appropriate state, county and local agencies to thoroughly evaluate the potential impacts of construction and windpower operations.

Landowner benefits include steady income from land-lease agreements, wind turbine fees and revenue sharing. In addition, landowners can still use their property for other purposes, including farming, ranching and recreation.

Community benefits include a new source of tax revenue that the community can count on year after year, a large number of construction jobs (and a smaller number of operations jobs), and emissions-free electricity generated locally. Communities with wind energy projects also see an increase in direct and indirect economic activity, particularly during the construction phase, when hotels, restaurants, groceries, pharmacies, parts suppliers, service providers and various other vendors benefit from additional business.

The Gail Windprower project will consume 19.75 square miles of land to provide electricity for 60,000 homes. Compare the Gail Windpower project to a natural gas power plant, such as the Zeeland ‘peaker’ station that occupies a total of 30 acres. Within that 30 acres, the station generates enough electricity to power over 800,000 homes on demand. Rain or shine. Wind or no wind.

Here is a map of the project from Arcadia Wind Study Group:

Advocates for the Gail Windpower project tout the fact that the project will create jobs. Hundreds during the construction phase and 25 permanent turbine maintenance and operation jobs. Advocates also point out that the project will contribute approximately $3.2 million in annual property tax revenue. The Zeeland power station permanently employs 22 people and pays $7.6 million in property taxes to the local government.

There is no comparison between a wind farm and a traditional electric generating facility. A natural gas power-plant (or any traditional generating facility) will generate orders of magnitude more electrical power, more reliably while using a fraction of the real estate while creating the same number of jobs and contributing more to the local tax base.

Continue reading →

The Nannies in Washington Working Overtime Pushing ‘Energy Saving’ Light Bulbs

Posted on by
10

Have you heard of the Department of Energy’s “L” prize?

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced that Philips Lighting North America has won the 60-watt replacement bulb category of the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) competition. The Department of Energy’s L Prize challenged the lighting industry to develop high performance, energy-saving replacements for conventional light bulbs that will save American consumers and businesses money.

Yep, you read that blurb correctly. Our very broke Federal Government handed Phillips Lighting North America (a subsidiary of Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands) a cool $10 million for developing a LED light bulb with the equivalent light output of a 60 watt incandescent.

The DOE press release goes on to discuss the performance of Phillips new LED bulbs’ performance with respect to its lifetime hours, performance at temperature extremes, performance in humidity. One aspect the DOE’s press release does not cover is light quality. This is because the ‘harsh’ and slightly blueish light emitted from LED’s that are great for the piercing daytime running lights used on newer cars create unpleasing lighting in your living room.

The reason LED lighting in a home, or any interior application, is unpleasing is because LED light is monochromatic, meaning an LED only emits a narrow wavelength of light (color). Unlike a traditional incandescent bulb that emits a true white light (made up of the entire visible spectrum of light) a white LED is either a combination of red, green and blue LED’s or a blue LED coated with yellow phosphorus.

Did you know there is no such thing as a white LED chip? “White” LEDs (packaged devices) start with a blue LED chip, also referred to in the LED industry as a blue “pump”. Then a yellow-based phosphor is applied over the blue chip – refer back to Figure 1. This combination of colors makes use of a phenomenon known as metamerism which occurs when our eyes and brain perceive two different but complementary colors as “mixing” to “create” a third complementary color. When the blue light shines through the yellow phosphor it is down-converted into what we see as white light. Blue LED chip + yellow-based phosphor = white light.

This tricking of the eye into seeing white light creating the harshness and blueish tint of the light emitted from white LED’s. White light from incandescent bulbs don’t have this problem. I’ll let Bill Nye explain…

The DOE is handing out a $10 million prize to the electronics giant Phillips Co. for creating a light bulb consumers aren’t asking for and don’t want. And, when consumers do purchase them, they will be unhappy with the light provided.

One final point. If white LED’s can perform in an automotive application (vibration, environmental extremes, voltage fluctuations, humidity, life testing etc.) why is the DOE retesting the LED’s?

The winning Philips product excelled through rigorous short-term and long-term performance testing carried out by independent laboratories and field assessments conducted with utilities and other partners. The product also performed well through a series of stress tests, in which the product was subjected to extreme conditions such as high and low temperatures, humidity, vibration, high and low voltage, and various electrical waveform distortions. The Philips L Prize winning product was also required to have a useful lifetime of more than 25,000 hours, compared with 1,000 to 3,000 hours for the products these highly efficient bulbs are intended to replace.

Just wondering.

The Brookings Institution Is Now Hyping Green Energy

Posted on by
2

Remember when your dad said “If Bobby jumped off a bridge…” when you were being a follower?

Well, it seems like the big brains at The Brookings Institution are employing the same reasoning with green energy.

Via Michigan CapCon:

The Brookings Institution study is titled “National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment, Sizing the Green Economy.” It has been most noted for its claim that there are 2.7 million “clean economy” jobs in the United States. The 2.7 million jobs figure was tabulated in part because the report classified waste management jobs (such as garbage truck drivers) and mass transit jobs (such as city bus drivers) as “clean economy” jobs. This was the subject of yesterday’s analysis in Capitol Confidential: Media Loves ‘Green Jobs’ Report; Fine Print Shows ‘Green’ Means the Garbage Man

The report also develops the following theme: “China now leads the world in clean economy deployment. By the end of 2010 its 103 gigawatts of installed renewable energy generation capacity was more than double that of U.S. installations.”

“C’mon dad, China is doing it…” is not exactly a reason to sink billions of tax dollars we don’t have in a pipe dream that doesn’t work.

CapCon also points out:

China is also a totalitarian state when it comes to many forms of large capital spending on energy. Whereas private money in an open society may (and often does) shy away from risky and unproven investments such as large-scale power generation from windmills and solar panels, a government playing with somebody else’s money is less likely to be so careful — particularly when there is no voting electorate that talks back.

The report somewhat acknowledges this, but portrays absolute government control over a nation’s financial sector as an asset:

What is China’s secret in ensuring deployment finance? China has been inordinately successful in mobilizing large volumes of low-cost capital through its state-owned banks and other financial institutions. Clean energy projects have received preferential access to bank loans at interest rates far below what is available in other countries. Moreover, state-owned enterprises, especially the “Big Five” power companies, have been major investors …

However, as pointed out previously here at MCT, even in China they can’t make green energy work economically:

While Granholm is bullish on wind power, Energy companies in China are finding that even with their significantly lower cost structures, lax environmental regulations, free land and nearly perfect wind conditions, they can’t turn a profit:

The only opportunity to turn a profit is when electricity is sold to the grid. Even then, say industry insiders, the ability to make money depends on national tariff-setting policies and subsidies: “If there’s no subsidy, there’s no hope of a profit,” one says.

This creates conflict. The high costs of wind power have long held back growth of the sector. But the grid operators, for their own reasons, are also unwilling to buy wind power.

Electricity generated by wind in Jiuquan is currently sold to the grid for about 0.53 yuan (US$0.08) per kilowatt hour, higher than the 0.20 yuan (US$0.03) and 0.35 yuan (US$0.05) paid for coal and hydropower respectively. In Inner Mongolia, Hebei and the north east of China, the wind-power tariff has risen to about 0.60 yuan (US$0.08) per kilowatt hour and, in Jilin, to about 0.70 yuan (US$0.10), creating an even bigger gulf between the price of wind and that of coal and hydropower.

Green energy doesn’t work there and following their lead isn’t going to help us here.

An extra big tip O’ the hat to the Michigan View

Green Energy Fail: Rolling Blackouts in South East Michigan

Posted on by
7

Remember Democrat Jennifer Granholm’s (former governor of Michigan) 2009 State of the State address? Here in an excerpt:

So tonight, I am announcing the next phase of our plan.

The demand for wind and solar power in this country is about to explode. President Obama has announced ambitious plans to double our nation’s use of these renewable energy sources in just three years. As the nation’s demand for renewable energy goes up, so, too, does the demand for the technologies and products that are critical to the new energy industry. We will seize upon this surging demand for renewable energy to increase the supply of good-paying jobs in Michigan.

So here’s our next aggressive goal: By the year 2020, Michigan will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity by 45 percent. We will do it through increased renewable energy, gains in energy efficiency and other new technologies. You heard me right: a 45 percent reduction by 2020.

How will we reach this 45-by-20 goal and get the jobs that come with it? Instead of spending nearly $2 billion a year importing coal or natural gas from other states we’ll be spending our energy dollars on Michigan wind turbines, Michigan solar panels, Michigan energy-efficiency devices, all designed, manufactured and installed by. . .Michigan workers.

Part of Granholm’s plan wasn’t clearly outlined in her 2009 State of the State address. She issued an Executive Order that effectively slowed or prevented additional coal generation capacity in Michigan. Via the industry journal Power:

Granholm, a Democrat, said in her address that Michigan would pursue an “aggressive” goal to increase the availability of green jobs to reduce the state’s reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity 45% by 2020.

“How will we reach this 45-by-20 goal and get the jobs that come with it? Instead of spending nearly $2 billion a year importing coal or natural gas from other states we’ll be spending our energy dollars on Michigan wind turbines, Michigan solar panels, Michigan energy-efficiency devices, all designed, manufactured and installed by Michigan workers,” she said.

She instructed the state’s environmental quality department and the PSC to first consider whether the new generation is needed and then to consider technologies that “prevent coal plants from spewing dirty carbon emissions into the air” before approving them—specifically technologies that reduced or sequestered emissions, according to a directive issued soon after her speech. Granholm added, “That breakthrough technology, and others like it, can create jobs [in Michigan], too.”

Michigan is currently home to 19 coal-fired plants, which produce about 60% of the state’s electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration. Most of the coal it uses is shipped in from Wyoming and Montana.

The new coal policy will significantly slow down—but not necessarily halt—construction of coal plants proposed for Bay City, Holland, Midland, and Rogers City. Three other coal plants are also in the works, though they haven’t yet been submitted for state approval.

Today, in South East Michigan, temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees F with plenty of sun. Perfect for that great solar energy Granholm was extolling in 2009. We also have had a steady breeze (15mph), right in the butter zone for wind power generation.

The State Government in Michigan, on governor Granholm’s orders, slowed construction of additional coal powered electrical generating capacity in favor of solar and wind power.

So, how is the plan working?

click for larger image

Rolling blackouts.

“It assures that one batch of customers isn’t burdened with a power outage for the entire period of time,” he said.

Singer said DTE has notified customers in Ferndale that they will rotate outages, with power out for two hours and then on for two hours for customers in problem areas.

Singer said they are also keeping their eye on electrical demand in Warren to determine if rolling blackouts will be necessary there as well.

There were about 25,000 DTE customers without electricity, Thursday afternoon, as temperatures were set to hit the triple digits in Metro Detroit. The biggest outages right now are in Redford Township, Detroit’s westside, Ferndale and Plymouth Township.

Even with perfect conditions for wind and solar power we are experiencing rolling blackouts.

EV Manufacturer Folds and City Of Salinas Loses $500K Of Tax Payer Money

Posted on by
5

Passing out tax payer money to fund all those ‘green collar’ jobs through PPP’s (Public / Private Partnerships)… What could go wrong:

A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.

The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.

All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.

The city of Salinas, California lost $500,000 and not one green EV rolled off the assembly line. Their mistake was not consulting with Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat- MI) who has this whole green collar jobs thing figured out:

The Battery Innovation Act is the first coordinated plan that incorporates all aspects of advanced battery production, from research and development, to the availability of raw materials, to the manufacturing of these high-tech products. The Act will build off of initiatives authored by Senator Stabenow in 2009, which helped A123 Systems ramp up advanced batteries manufacturing and create jobs in Michigan.

Here in Michigan, we don’t have to worry… We have Debbie Stabnow to spend our money.

Going Green Without Thinking: Back Up Generation Capacity For Wind Power Is Very Expensive

Posted on by
2

Remind me again what is so great about those stupid windmills that Obama and the left are so obsessed with?

Via The Telegraph (UK):

Centrica and other energy companies last week told DECC that, if Britain is to spend £100 billion on building thousands of wind turbines, it will require the building of 17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops and the windmills produce even less power than usual.

We will thus be landed in the ludicrous position of having to spend an additional £10 billion on those 17 dedicated power stations, which will be kept running on “spinning reserve”, 24 hours a day, just to make up for the fundamental problem of wind turbines. This is that their power continually fluctuates anywhere between full capacity to zero (where it often stood last winter, when national electricity demand was at a peak). So unless back-up power is instantly available to match any shortfall, the lights will go out.

It gets better…

While the gas turbines in “spinning reserve” mode, waiting to compensate for wind fluctuations, the turbines will consume natural gas and emit CO2 while not generating any electricity. And, in an ironic twist that will send environmentalists over the edge, it turns out that while the gas standby units are in “spinning reserve” mode they are less efficient and emit MORE CO2 than when they running at normal capacity.

Isn’t the supposed “global warming” caused by CO2 emission the reason for the windmills in the first place?

H/T Ace