Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2014

Historic Amendment Moves Forward: One Step Closer to Restoring Democracy, Reversing Rise of Oligarchy

Posted in Campaign Finance, tagged , , , on June 30, 2014 |

Overturn the Citizens United ruling, urge your senator to support a constitutional amendment.

Read the following statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen to learn more about what the proposed constitutional amendment being put forward will and won’t do.

Note: The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee today approved an amended S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment proposed by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that aims to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to campaign finance.

Here’s how the world will be different after final ratification of the constitutional amendment today approved by the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:

The 28th Amendment will give Congress and the states authority to regulate and limit the raising and spending of campaign funds, eliminating various barriers and obstacles imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It will overturn Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) and McCutcheon v. FEC, among other Supreme Court decisions that have facilitated the rise of a de facto oligarchy. Specifically, Congress and the states will be able to:

  • Limit or forbid all corporate spending on elections.
  • Regulate campaign spending to advance the objectives of democratic self-government and political equality, rather than just to prevent criminal bribery.
  • Impose robust controls and strict limits on outside spending by super PACs and dark money conduits like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brothers organizations, potentially forbidding significant outside spending altogether.
  • Impose limits on the total amount any person can donate to candidates, parties and PACs.
  • Regulate the amount of spending by self-financed candidates.
  • Adopt limits on the total amounts candidates and their supporters may spend.
  • Adopt small-donor empowerment and public financing systems that provide extra funding to candidates who face heavily funded opponents who do not opt into the system.
  • Adopt mandatory public financing systems.

Following the public mobilization that will eventually obtain ratification of the 28th Amendment, we should expect Congress and the states to respond to that same public demand to restore our democracy – by enacting robust public financing systems, major curbs on outside spending and prohibitions on corporate spending in elections.

The amendment and subsequent legislation will not cure all of our nation’s ills, but it will help restore our democracy and remove key blocks to addressing the great problems facing the nation: putting people back to work, addressing deepening inequality, averting catastrophic climate change, fixing our schools, ensuring quality and affordable health care for all, and much more.

It shouldn’t need saying, but because of an intentional disinformation campaign by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other opponents of the amendment, it’s worth emphasizing what the amendment will not do: It will not “shred” or otherwise amend the First Amendment. It will not enable Congress and the states to adopt rules that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or viewpoint. It will not permit Congress to adopt a law banning campaign expenditures by just the Sierra Club, or just the National Rifle Association.

What the amendment will do is strengthen and restore the First Amendment, which has been weakened and distorted by the Supreme Court. The 28th Amendment will amplify the voices of the People, and make their speech meaningful. As Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his McCutcheon dissent, “Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action.” And, he explained, “Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”

With the 28th Amendment, we put an end to the plutocrats paying the piper, and enable the people to again call the tune.  Urge your senator to support a constitutional amendment.

Read Full Post »

Tell Obama to #PutSolarOnIt!

Posted in green jobs, Jobs, Renewables, solar, tagged , , on June 27, 2014 |

obama solar panelsBy Cameron Woolf

President Obama has made the promotion of renewable energy, particularly solar, one of the cornerstones of his energy policy. Just this April, the White House hosted a Solar Summit to announce new steps to expand the use of solar across US homes and businesses. The Department of Defense committed to installing 3 GW of renewables across its military bases, while the D.C area started engaging in the Capital Solar Challenge, which aims to facilitate adoption of solar on nearby federal buildings. Furthermore, the administration got over 300 private and public sector organizations to commit to installing solar.

These commitments totaled to over 800 MW.While the steps outlined in the Solar Summit are a step in the right direction, they are in reality fairly modest. The White House could be doing a lot more to promote solar with regards to direct deployment. In fact, the federal government manages more than 500,000 buildings. Each of these buildings adopting a 7 kW solar system would represent 35 GW of clean solar energy! An executive order mandating this type of solar deployment would cut countless tons of carbon emissions, provide an economic boost the industry, and send a very strong signal about the future of renewables. Send the White House a message and tell President Obama to #PutSolarOnIt!

Read Full Post »

A Brief (and Somewhat Nerdy) History of Solar

Posted in Energy, Renewables, solar, tagged , , , , , , on June 22, 2014 |

Solar energy has been used by humans for as long as there is recorded history. Check out some of these milestones in humanity’s use of Earth’s primary energy source.

Lighthouse of Alexandria (280 B.C.)

Lighthouse of Alexandria

Ancient Solar: The world’s first societies knew the importance of the sun. It provided them with food, warmth, as well as some more creative uses.

● Early societies bake adobe bricks with the sun – 5000 BC
● Greeks start fires with a magnifying glass – 450 BC
● The Lighthouse of Alexandria projects a beam of light 30 miles out to sea – 280 BC
● Romans design bathhouses to be passively heated by the sun – 100 AD
● Roman Emperor Justinian declares people have “sunrights”- 600 AD

Early Solar Tech: After a lapse of solar development in the Dark Ages (get it? No sun?), Enlightenment era inventors started to harness solar rays to do real work.

● World’s first solar cookers cook at 230 degrees Fahrenheit – 1750
● The photovoltaic effect is discovered by Edmond Becquerel – 1840
● Charles Fritts creates first solar cell at <1% efficiency – 1883
● First solar hot water heater sold commercially, is a huge hit in California – 1891
● Single crystal silicon, the main material in solar panels, is lab grown – 1918

Modern Solar Emerges: In an era of big oil and combustion, solar carves out a niche as a useful energy source for the space race, and remote applications.

1st Solar Panels - developed in Bell Labs - photo from Green Energy Times

1st Solar Panels – developed in Bell Labs – photo from Green Energy Times

● Energy shortage from WWII causes passive solar homes in the U.S to go mainstream – 1945
● The first modern silicon photovoltaic (PV) solar cell is created in Bell Labs – 1954
● The Vanguard I space satellite uses PV cells as its primary energy source – 1958
● World’s largest PV array, at 242 Watts, is installed on a Japanese lighthouse – 1963
● Solar PV drops from $100 to $20 per Watt, terrestrial use becomes common – 1970’s
● First solar powered car crosses Australia in 20 days – 1983
● Silicon solar cells break 20% efficiency – 1985

Present Day and Future: Rapidly declining costs create a boom in solar, as the world strives for a clean energy future.

solar plane● Solar PV drops to an average of $0.74 per Watt – 2013
● Total worldwide installed capacity reaches 100GW – 2013
● Top solar cell efficiency breaks 43%, eclipsing coal & nuclear – 2014
● Solar powered plane aims for non-stop trans global flight – 2015
● Solar PV expected to meet 17% of the world’s energy demand – 2030

Read Full Post »

How to Fight Vampire Power and Save Money

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, tagged , , , , , , on June 19, 2014 |

Image from Lyn Tec

Image from Lyn Tec

There is something lurking in households all over the US that is costing its residents an average of $220 or 5-10% of their annual electric bill. The culprit is called vampire power, or phantom load. It’s the power that electronic devices consume even while in standby mode. Kilowatt hours of electricity are being used just by being plugged into the wall.

Vampire power costs the US 100 billion kWh of electricity and over $10 billion in annual energy costs according to energystar.gov. That means, based off a 500 MW coal power plant which can produce up to 2.2 billion kWh of electricity per year, it would take 45.5 coal power plants to produce the amount of electricity vampire power consumes each year!

 

Image from Bentley University

Image from Bentley University

The top 5 vampire electronics per typical household are:

1. TVs- Rear projection and plasmas are the highest electricity consumers.

2. Video game consoles- Xbox and PS3 gaming consoles can cost around $25 per year.

3. Computers- Keeping your laptop plugged into the wall 24/7 can degrade the battery along with costing you money to keep it at a max charge.

4. Cable/satellite TV box- Along with a monthly payment, these services also come with a hidden fee in wasted electricity.

5. Phone chargers- Although they are small, if left in an outlet these vampire suckers just add to the lost power.

 

Image from Sierra Club

Image from Sierra Club

Things you could do to lessen vampire power and save money:

Lessening the impact of vampire power on your electricity bill doesn’t have to be unplugging every power hungry item every time you aren’t using it.There are many ways you can lessen the bill. Buying electronics that have the Energy Star emblem on the box guarantees that product lies within the EPA’s efficiency guidelines and consumes less energy while it’s in standby mode.

Saving energy and money can also be as simple as switching to power strips specifically designed to reduce vampire power. 3 different types of power strips- the timer, occupancy sensing, and current sensing strip- are designs that cater to different people and settings.

1. Timer strip allows user to set timers for when the current can flow within the strips. In an office setting this design could work best by turning power on and off in sync with hours of operation.

2. Occupancy sensing strip turns on power flow when it senses motion in the room, cater towards homes and home offices.

3. Current sensing strip detects the energy mode of an electronic, such as a computer monitor, which is plugged into the master outlet. If the monitor of a computer is in sleep mode, the current sensing strip will cut the electrical current to the rest of the electronic plugged in such as a printer, speakers, or other computer related device.

Small simple changes can be made to reduce the vampire power of each home or office, reducing not only the cost of your electric bill but also its environmental impact.

Read Full Post »

How to Keep a Good Thing from Getting Better: Austin Energy Cuts Solar Incentives Again

Posted in Austin Energy, Budget, Renewables, solar, tagged , , , on June 16, 2014 |

Once again, Austin Energy has reduced solar incentives with less than 2 hours notice. This time, the changes will impact both residential and commercial customers.

As of 3pm today, the rebate for a residential solar installation is $1.10 per watt (down from $1.25) and the commercial performance based incentive (PBI) is $0.09 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (down from $0.10).

You might well be asking why Austin Energy made these changes and why so suddenly.

The memo released by Austin Energy indicates that the decrease in the residential rebate was made because Austin Energy wanted to make sure that it didn’t exceed it’s budget for such rebates (the fiscal year ends in September). On the face, that sounds like a responsible move, but there was another option.  Austin Energy could have reasonably anticipated this budget shortfall because the same thing happened last year. It could have requested a larger solar rebate budget instead of trying to cut that budget by about 42% (a proposal that was changed due to public outcry).

The reason stated for reducing the commercial PBI is that Austin Energy doesn’t want to make commitments now that would force it to exceed it’s planned FY2015 budget. PBI incentives are paid for each kWh for 10 years, so this kind of foresight is needed, but, again, another option would be to ask for a larger budget for commercial solar in FY2015.

Before you get to thinking that our answer to everything is just “spend more,” let’s clarify that spending more now could be offset with spending less later and we’d get more solar for every dollar spent.

Here’s why – Right now, and through the end of 2016, the federal government offers a 30% solar investment tax credit. So, for anyone or any business with tax liability, the federal government basically pays you back for 30% of the cost of your solar installation. In essence, Austin Energy is getting a match (about 82%, assuming installations are $3.40/watt, which is what Austin Energy has been reporting as average) for its rebate expenses.  When the federal solar tax credit ends after 2016, Austin Energy may find that its solar rebate program isn’t quite as popular and it may need to spend more per watt to keep solar adoption growing, at least for a few years.

Spending more on solar rebates and the commercial PBI now could provide a buffer that will allow us to spend less in those post solar tax credit years.

Austin Energy says that it must make announcements about solar rebate and PBI levels without much notice because there would be a mad rush to get projects in under the higher incentive levels if solar contractors and customers knew ahead of time.  There is some logic in that, but what has suffered is any opportunity for public input on changes being made.  There is no set formula for reducing rebates, so Austin Energy simply adjusts the levels when and how it see fit.  This leaves no room for ensuring that these changes align with the priorities of of the city.

It was less than 2 years ago that payback times for residential solar installations in Austin were bouncing around in the 5 to 6 year range.  Now they’re at about 10 years and Austin Energy seems quite content with that change.

One option would be to establish a formulas that could be based on the capacity of residential and commercial solar installations or the average payback time, or some combination that would determine when and how Austin Energy’s incentives would be adjusted.

More importantly though, this problem of adjusting solar incentives to meet artificial budget targets, instead of trying to maximize solar adoption while federal rebates are still available would be minimized if Austin Energy had strong residential and commercial solar goals to achieve.  Austin Energy’s overall solar goal should be doubled to 400 megawatts (MW) by 2020.  Even more importantly, the local solar goal should be doubled to 200 MW and the residential and commercial solar goal to 100 MW.  Only with more ambitious goals will Austin Energy be forced to prioritize the expansion of solar.

You can help make this change happen: 

The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force, which has the job of making recommendations about Austin Energy’s energy plan for the coming 10 years, has 2 more meetings scheduled – 2:30 pm this Wednesday, June 18, and 2:30 pm next Monday, June 23, both in the bull pen at City Hall.  If you care about expanding Austin Energy’s solar goals as a way of keeping its solar programs robust, show up and speak at citizen communication at the start of the meeting.  Arrive a few minutes early to sign up because only the first 5 to sign up get to speak.  You will be limited to 3 minutes.  It won’t take you long and the task force really does want to hear from the public.

Read Full Post »

Reducing Solar Soft Costs Could Result in More Hard Cash for Customers

Posted in Energy, Renewables, solar, tagged , , , , on June 10, 2014 |

declining cost of solar panels 1977-2013 graph- BloombergAll over the U.S, the price of going solar has been falling dramatically. The price for one watt of photovoltaic panels has fallen from $76.67 in 1977 to as low as $0.50 in 2013. Other items such as inverters and wiring make the rest of the so called hard costs of going solar, which according to the National Renewable Energy laboratory, come to a total of $1.76 per watt. The rest of the average $5.00/watt that residential customers in the U.S pay for solar comes from “soft costs”.

While hard costs have been consistently falling, soft costs have not undergone such a radically change. In fact, soft costs now make up over 64% of the total price for a residential solar system. Rebates programs in some areas help to offset these soft costs and to make solar affordable enough for the average home owner, but that isn’t a sustainable model. Controlling these soft costs is key to creating a competitive and thriving solar market in the United States.

US vs Germany Solar Soft Costs - CleanTechnica

Graph from CleanTechnica

Solar is already cheaper in places like Germany, where the average total cost per watt is as low as $2.56. An average U.S system costs nearly twice as much, even though hardware costs are the same in both countries. So what are the areas that the U.S solar industry can improve upon?

The largest solar soft costs in the U.S come from supply chain management, both physical and financial. Supply chain issues represent 11.7% of the total cost of solar, or about $0.61/watt. Transportation and storage costs in the U.S tend to be higher than in Germany. This has a lot to do with the fact that the U.S is a large country with a fairly spread out population, compared to Germany. Solar companies often cover large geographic markets, which requires them to ship their hardware across equally long distances.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

Abandoned Oil Wells and the Dangers They Pose

Posted in natural gas, Safety, tagged , , , , on June 4, 2014 |

Abandoned oil wells and oil extraction equipment are common problems that plague Texas residents. One of the largest concerns about this problem is that many oil wells have been left poorly maintained and not sealed. Some linger from the early- to mid-20th century, before current standards were set in place. More recently, regulators have worked to plug and seal the old wells, so they do not act as a channel for liquid pollutants to enter groundwater. But some fear that the recent surge in oil drilling, brought about by the modern practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), will catalyze troublesome encounters with the old wells.

Abandoned oil well in Texas - photo by Callie Richmond for The Texas Tribune

Abandoned oil well in Texas – photo by Callie Richmond for The Texas Tribune

Abandoned oil and gas wells are all over the United States in areas such as Texas, New York and Pennsylvania that were prominent regions for oil drilling. An abandoned or “orphaned” well is a well that is no longer in use or that is in such an unusable state that oil and gas can no longer be obtained from it. While there have been great efforts to remedy this problem, in Texas alone there are still more than 8,400 known uncapped wells all over the state.

Uncapped wells pose dangers environmentally and physically. There is the possibility of children or small animals falling into them and seriously harming and potentially killing themselves. They serve as potential groundwater contamination routes and allow poor quality/contaminated water to move between aquifers, further polluting them.

A geyser of methane and gas sprays out of the ground near a Shell drilling site in Tioga County. - photo from StateImpact Pennsylvania

A geyser of methane and gas sprays out of the ground near a Shell drilling site in Tioga County. – photo from StateImpact Pennsylvania

Aside from the general risks abandoned oil wells pose, drilling near them causes even greater dangers. There are still many undocumented wells throughout the U.S. that pose potential hazards. By drilling near abandoned and unknown wells, methane gas becomes more pressurized and works to find a way to the surface. If a high volume of methane gas comes together it creates an explosion, something we would definitely want to avoid. When drilling near wells the potential for an excess of methane to come together and explode becomes exponentially greater. A well in Tioga County, Pennsylvania that was 5,385 feet deep, and lined with four layers of metal casing, is an excellent example of the potential dangers. Eighty years and four months after being dug and used, the well was part of an unfortunate incident — even though it had been inactive for generations. The well played a key role in a methane gas leak that led to a 30-foot geyser of gas and water spraying out of the ground for more than a week. Since there are so many unknown wells all over the state you can see how this could be a problem.

Even wells that have been inactive for extremely long periods of time can still pose a threat. Abandoned oil and natural gas wells can serve as conduits for injected oil and natural gas drilling waste fluids to migrate from underground to an area near the surface where the fluids can break out of the abandoned wells and contaminate groundwater, raising the possibility that abandoned wells can serve as similar conduits for injected hydraulic fracturing fluids.Ed Walker, the general manager of the Wintergarden Groundwater Conservation District in South Texas, said that a few years ago, water came up out of an abandoned 1940s-era well that lay slightly more than a quarter-mile from a disposal well.

Currently the Texas Railroad Commission regulates and oversees any and all drilling in Texas and there are measures in place to make sure these wells are taken care of, however there are still thousands of known wells that have not been suitably covered and filled. In order to ensure that our water supplies and air is not being contaminated we need to push to make sure these wells are properly sealed and all unknown wells are found and dealt with accordingly.

Read Full Post »

EPA’s Clean Power Plan to Reduce Climate Change Impacts from Power Plants

Posted in Air Quality, Coal, Coal Plants, Efficiency, Energy, green jobs, tagged , , , , on June 3, 2014 |

Big Brown coal plant in Texas

Big Brown coal plant in Texas is one of the largest CO2 emitters

Yesterday, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy announced stage two of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to reduce power plant greenhouse gas pollution and increase energy efficiency. The plan is to create a flexible environment for each state by allowing cooperation between multiple states along with individual state plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan guidelines. The proposal aims to encourage states, companies and private individuals to get involved in the reduction of greenhouse gasses that come from domestic power plants that burn fossil fuels, especially coal. Its flexibility and benefits are what’s going to drive this environmental plan to its final goal.

The plan requires that states have their proposals submitted by June of 2016 and started by 2020, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. In addition to reducing our impact on climate change, the plan is projected have many other benefits as well.  It is projected to cut electric bills by 8%, cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25%, and have tremendous health benefits. This regulation has the potential to prevent 6,600 premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks in children who are all exposed to the toxins coal plants emit into the environment. According to the EPA, a projected increase of 104,000 jobs will be created in power production, fuel extraction and the demand side energy sector, and up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits could be made by making the changes this plan guides us to do.

Texas is home to 18 coal plants

Texas is home to 18 coal plants

Coal plants alone count for one third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, with Texas being the largest producer from its 18 coal fired power plants located mostly in east Texas. Currently, there is no restriction on carbon pollution from existing power plants and a steady increase of carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration has gone from 387 parts per million in 2009, to a record 401 parts per million as of April 2014 which, according to ice core records, hasn’t been reached in over 800,000 years. With over 40% of US power generated from coal plants, adjustment of environmental regulations has been needed for a long while.

The goals of the Clean Power Plan are outlined with specific requirements of greenhouse gas emissions that will serve as another step forward towards low-carbon technologies and a cleaner planet. The Clean Power Plan will require a change in each state for the better of the environment, fueling new technologies and businesses that support low carbon economy. By requiring action from the states, the plan will hopefully encourage action from the citizens as well.

In addition to making changes here in the United States, the plan is also hoped to spur greater international action to address climate change. The announcement that the worlds largest carbon emitter, China, will place a cap on carbon emissions in 2016, seems to indicate that the strategy might already be working.

This announcement isn’t the end of the process.  EPA is now collecting feedback from the public on this proposal.  You can help ensure that this proposed regulation to address the urgent problem of climate change is adopted and put into action as quickly as possible by letting EPA know that you support limited carbon pollution from power plants.

Read Full Post »