Pardon Our Disappearance

Regular readers (both of you) of the blog TEI may have recognized that we suspended operations just after Hurricane Katrina, when there was sufficient cybernoise without us. We are moving to our own site, in the hope that when we return as TEI the Web Site we'll have more content, more scoops, more energy news-- and more readers, writers, participants.

TEI regrets the inconvenience. We shall return.

An American Atlantis

As the bloated bodies float through the streets of New Orleans after the levees broke, the mainstream media is hopelessly, shamelessly mum on the incontrovertible fact that the Bush administration has systematically cut federal funding for hurricane protection projects in order to pay for the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts.
Why? Isn't it the duty of journalists to look at things objectively and report the truth?
Take a look at this article reprinted on the blog Attytood out of Philadelphia.
Read it and weep.
After a human tragedy like this, the first obligation of humans is to come to the assistance of those in need.
But we must not let this pass without demanding that Congress investigate the administration's role in neglecting the preventive measures that might have avoided our American Atlantis.

Katrina and the Dots

As I write this, Hurricane Katrina is tearing through New Orleans, and if it hits like the weathermen say it will, the question "Where Yat?" is going to take on a whole new and tragic meaning. The city of bontemps and Louis Armstrong, Mardi Gras, the Quarter and everything else that makes N'awlins the home of soul could wind up as the first American casualty of increasingly unstable weather hastened by global warming.
And here a brief word on the cliche "our prayers are with you."
Sometimes it takes a tragedy of monumental proportions for people to see their own folly and rethink their conduct and policies.
Through ancient times and the Medieval period, humans turned to deities to explain catastrophes and suffering. Then, on Nov. 1, 1755 at 9:20 a.m. an earthquake struck Lisbon, Portugal, that demolished the city and killed more than 100,000 people. As a result, Enlightenment philosophers made a convincing argument that no God would wreak such havoc, and that humanity is on its own to work out a morality and praxis to deal with natural forces. This led to the advance of reason and science and the retreat of superstitions, including religious dogmas, in explaining the phenomena of life. An awful lot of positive change followed, including the establishment of American democracy.
The science of climate change as caused by humans is so well established that all that remains is to work out the details. We know that carbon emissions cause unstable weather, increased storm activities, rising sea levels and droughts, etc. And we know what to do about it.
It does no good to pray when we ourselves refuse to act to curb greenhouse gases. Have we sacrificed New Orleans on the altar of our false god? How long can we keep pretending that we have no hand in destruction and devestation such as Katrina's?
Just connect the dots.

In Vermont, Wind Power Takes Heat

By Anna Dibble
TEI correspendent

LANDGROVE, VT.-Vermont’s only nuclear power plant, Vermont Yankee, currently provides 36 percent of the state’s electricity. Its operating license expires in 2012, and may not be renewed for security, safety or environmental reasons. Shortly after Vermont Yankee’s license expiration date, contracts with Hydro-Quebec, which provides 35 percent of the state’s electric power, will expire because of Canada’s growing power needs.
Southern Vermont is experiencing unprecedented growth. With the potential loss of up to 70 percent of the state’s power generation; the development-driven increase in demand; and concerns about global warming rates, various state agencies, the Legislature, major environmental and citizen groups have all recommended adding wind power into Vermont’s energy mix.
I live in Landgrove, a small town in a resort area where a $50 million wind farm project has been proposed, consisting of 27 to 33 modern turbines that would generate 40 megawatts of clean electric power. Glebe Mountain – which is highly visible in the area—has been designated by Catamount Energy as a ridgeline suitable for the installation of the 220-foot-tall windmills (the blades will add another 110 feet).
Catamount Energy, of Rutland, will be filing an application to develop this site with the Select Board of the town of Londonderry in October 2005. Regarding the cost of wind-generated electricity, Catamount Energy’s website states, “While wind technology may require a higher initial investment than fossil-fuel generators, this can be offset over the life of the project. The ‘life-cycle’ costs of wind projects are much more competitive with other generating technologies due to a lack of fuel costs and lower operating expenses.”
But things are not cool between Greens who are advocating wind power and some landowners. Wind power has emerged as the biggest issue that has ever captivated the people who live here – from farmers to loggers to second home owners to guys pumping gas at local service stations.
This local wind farm proposal has sparked intense debate between those who fear altering gorgeous views, upsetting tourists, lowering land values and other issues associated with the installation of wind turbines and those who support pollution-free, renewable power. The fundamental dispute comes down to long term priorities. Those who oppose wind power argue that despite growth and development the bucolic atmosphere of Vermont is the main economic resource — and is never going to change. The pro-wind side say that the changes already taking place can’t be stopped, so there should be a responsible effort to develop non-polluting utility-scale energy systems. Although the viewshed on a few ridgelines will have to be sacrificed to achieve these goals, the alternative – to continue relying on nuclear and fossil-fuel power – is far worse.
Every issue of the local weekly, The Message for the Week (which does not have a Web site), is loaded with letters to the editor – mostly from people who are opposed to the project. The Glebe Mountain group, a non-profit organization dedicated to stopping the project, is making, in my view, great strides to misinform the community. They are convincing people to post rather cryptic signs on their roadside properties: “Save our Ridgeline. Learn the Facts.” Yet they often get the facts wrong.
For example, the proposed wind turbines proposed for Glebe Mountain are 220 feet tall. On the Glebe Mountain Group homepage it states 330 feet tall, which actually represents the base plus blade. Also on the Web site, the group makes the claim that “property values would probably fall.” The claim is unsubstantiated by evidence or studies.
Another example: “Tourists don’t come to Vermont to see electric generation plants,” says the Glebe Mountain Group. In fact, interested tourists visit the existing wind farm at Searsburg, Vt., on a regular basis.
Still another claim by the wind power opponents is that wind-generated electricity would have “no meaningful effect on global warming or acid rain.” This statement is simply untrue and ridiculous. The website fails to compare wind power to current forms of power with any meaningful metrics.
Another group, Fairwind Vermont, is supporting the Catamount proposal. Fairwind “seeks to create a fair and open discussion on the future of wind energy in Vermont’s working landscape,” according to its Web site. Fairwind makes a good case, but few in the Vermont media want to listen.
Several weeks ago, Fairwind sent press releases to all the local papers, announcing an informational meeting and gathering. Only one paper printed the press release, in abbreviated, edited form. All of the other papers did print a full page ad, paid for by the Glebe Mountain Group opposing the wind turbines.
The Glebe Mountain site is one of six proposed wind farm sites in Vermont. Together, these proposals would create up to 135 megawatts of independent, clean, renewable power. This would supply electricity for 48,000 Vermont households, and would stop about 54,000 cars worth of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, according to Fairwind Vermont.
Extensive, long term studies have been made of all the proposed sites. Glebe is considered one of the very best sites, because of its wind capacity and because there already exists an infrastructure of logging roads that would minimize the amount of forest clearing needed to install the turbines.
A local planning commission is proposing to amend the Town Plan to prohibit commercial wind development on Glebe Mountain.
There will be a public hearing on Aug. 24.
An interesting postscript: In 1997 the Searsburg Wind Power Facility was completed. This project, in southern Vermont, is the largest wind power facility in the eastern part of the country. In its initial phases, this project was selected by the U.S. Dept of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute for participation in their Utility Wind Turbine Verification Program.

Return of the King

And I don’t mean Elvis, Jesus or (Alec) Guiness.
The energy picture in the past two weeks has filled TEI with Huck Finn’s yearning to light out for the woods:
In the week after George W. Bush got off the couch at the Texas ranch to sign the National Energy Act, crude oil reached, not one, but four new price records.
Fill ’er up?
The new energy law promises drillin and fillin and livin on good ole King Earl far, far into the future. Well, at least till the Day After Tomorrow.
At these prices, you had better count the King in when you do your retirement investment planning. Just the way Texas Congressman and House Majority Leader Tom De Lay done (The Wall Street Journal reported that DeLay owns $100,000 worth of stock in Exxon Mobil). The way Texas Congressman Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy Committee, done (his oil stocks have risen 800 percent, according to the Journal). The way Mississippi Congressman and House Energy Committee vice chair Chip Pickering done ($500,000 in oil stocks: the Journal).
Barton has become my new guru on energy. Sorry Amory Lovins. Regrets Rene Dubos. You gotta like Barton, a guy who takes campaign money from King Earl, then leads the fight in Congress for the energy legislation that lets the House of Earl keep its crown for another, oh, 10, 20 years. You gotta hold in awe an oil industry lackey, who is investigating climate scientists’ data, and where they get their research funding. Like he’s an impartial expert, right? Really good. And the media of fools buys it with a straight face.
Furthermore, I like Barton because, of all the palaver and ridiculous uber-speak about the energy package from the president on down to newspaper editorial pages, the Congressman from Ennis, Texas, alone came up with the one incisive way to inform public discourse on the whole deal: He called it “a darn good bill.”
Then there was King Fahd’s funeral in Saudi Arabia. A sad affair. A day of mourning. A time to, well…suck up.
Saudi Arabia: kingdom of the King. Kingdom of wacky Islam. Birthplace of Osama and the 9/11 martyrs. Home of the whoppin Jihad.
The funeral doings produced the photo flashed round the world: a grip and grin of the Saudi successor, Abdullah, and the American pretender, Prince Dick. And Cheney is gazing over with sly longing at Abdullah, with the slightly open, possibly drooling lips that reminded me of the crocodile glancing at Capt. Hook.
We need you, oil man, he seemed to be saying. We depend on your oil more than ever. And we’ll respect you in the morning, too.
Then there’s dirty King Coal. He’s a merry old soul, again.
Got the remake he needed in the energy legislation—now known as Clean King Coal—along with a blank check to keep on doin what he do do best: rootin and tootin, pollutin and shootin them carbon mollykules into the air. The coughing eagle has landed.
While the Bush regime touted a rosy future for developing Clean King Coal, they went behind Old Europe’s back and negotiated an anti-Kyoto treaty among the world’s top coal producers and users. Take that, France and Germany, and you green wusses in Denmark and Britain. According to this deal with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia, we’ll ramp up the King to ramp down climate change. No targets or restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. No need for any of that junk.Anyway, who's countin? We don’t need your stinkin carbon permits. We’ll see carbon—it’s the real thing!
Don’t forget little King Nuke.
He got plucked from his sick bed, and dusted off to the tune of $2 billion in the energy law to develop a new generation of nuclear power stations the markets won’t invest in, because they don’t believe in them. King Nuke will have cradle-to-grave subsidies, including streamlined permitting, power generation tax breaks, no cares about radioactive waste and full government indemnification in the event of a contretemps, such as a nuclear power station actually going nuclear or Osama and Co. blowin one up and wipin out a city or two. The government backing will prevent those greedy, unscrupulous,litigatin attorneys, mostly Democrats, from suing King Nuke.
No lawsuits, no problem.
So King Nuke is alive and well. And King Coal is back. And King Oil.
The Three Kings. Together again.
Their Kingdom come.

Leave It To Beaver

Don’t get me wrong: I like Daylight Savings Time as much as the next guy. Long, wistful evenings. Slow, fusion twilights. Fireflies.
But by extending daylight hours as a way to save energy, from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November, Congress has delivered us the perfect metaphor for the “comprehensive, bipartisan” energy legislation sent to President Bush last week: turning back the clock.
As petroleum leaves the $60 per barrel benchmark behind; as our dependence on foreign—and especially Middle Eastern—oil grows unabated; as our soldiers continue to fight and die to protect our access to petroleum in Iraq and the Near East; as the climate warms into the danger zone for the natural systems life depends upon, our elected representatives have sought recourse in the energy policies of the 1950s, 60s and 70s—precisely those policies that brought us to this wasteful, profligate and irresponsibly sorry state in the first place.
Here are some, but by no means all, of the backward-looking measures contained in the massive legislation:
 Subsidies for oil drilling
 Subsidies for coal
● An inventory of coastline oil resources, a first step in reopening the long-settled issue of whether to sacrifice or endanger mature real estate, tourism, insurance and fishing industries to open up offshore California and the East Coast to oil development.
 Cradle-to-grave subsidies for nuclear power, in a bold handover of taxpayers’ money to an industry that has proven itself incapable, for half a century, of producing economic, safe electric power on its own.
And here are some, but not all, of the progressive measures either ditched by Congress, as the House and Senate coordinated their versions of the energy bill, or simply never figured in:
 Demand management, potentially the biggest bang for the energy buck and the kindest policy for the human environment
 Stricter fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks
 Creation of a global carbon market, based on the Kyoto Treaty’s emissions trading scheme, which would provide a start to what must eventually become a united effort by all nations, industrialized and developing, to slow and finally stop greenhouse gas emissions
 A renewable energy standard for wind-to-electric, solar power, co-generation, smallscale hydropower, etc., which would help investors and markets to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels without spending a red cent of taxpayers’ taxes
 A commitment in law and regulations to distributive generation, or micropower, which does not require large grid investments and has the potential to create major jobs growth
 Any hint of smart growth, directing development in an energy-efficient direction by expanding rapid mass transit and focusing economic growth around transit hubs
 Any statement whatsoever concerning explicit goals of 1) reducing gas prices in the short, middle or long term; and 2) reducing reliance on foreign oil, now at 60 percent of U.S. consumption and probably going higher as demand for inefficient vehicles and electric power grows.
 A serious policy to make our buildings and appliances energy efficient.
Behind these individual measures stands the fossilized mindset of the petroleum culture. It is the inflexible thinking of black and white, winners and losers, profits and losses, us v. them, power and weakness, ego against collaboration. In other words, the best energy policy the oil-coal-nuclear-electric power-car industries could buy. Mostly, it is the antideluvian and obsessive idea that only compulsive growth, technology and the corporate profits they render can guide us in making public policy.
The post-World War II notion that we can develop our way out of any predicament, from dirty coal plants spoiling the earth’s atmosphere to highway congestion, has gained new circulation. Only now, the Congress has taken the additional giant step backward of denying all the scientific knowledge developed over a generation that points toward the conclusion that the current energy system can neither last much longer nor be changed quickly. The message that we should not trust climate science and geology, to name the prime example, but trust Texas Republican Rep. Joe “It’s a darn good bill” Barton, takes us back not just to faith-based policies, but to Medieval church dogma. And Mr. Bush, whose political allegiances to the fossil fuel-driven industries are not about to change at the dusk of his career, has been going around in the past month mindlessly repeating his new and bogus energy mantra: new technology, new technology, new technology.
If you Google the hundreds of American news reports on the energy legislation, you will see why the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress are able to foist such grotesque oversimplifications on the public. While dutifully reporting the $14.5 billion in corporate welfare in the package, the media, almost universally, adopted the language of “new technology” and “clean coal technology,” without bothering to ask what that means, or if it means anything tangible at all.
(TEI will ask—try to find out, and report back anon.)
The energy legislation shows that the president and both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have yet to accept the idea that there is an urgent, or any, time element in the twin issues of oil supplies and climate change. Rather, they have invited American industry and finance, as well as the American media and public, to join together in the fantasy that everything will be okey-dokey if we just drill and mine every nook and cranny in the world. That we can buy our way out of global warming with new product development and happy news. That we’ve got all the time in the world.
An invitation to America to step back in time and leave everything to Beaver.
In the face of such senility, those in the public and private sectors, and the press, who understand the high stakes riding on energy issues for world peace, security and sustainable development must not despair.
Rather, the job to transform the world’s energy system moves now to the cities, states and regions. It will continue and evolve with strategic partnerships, global alliances, protean markets, new thinking and, yes, scientific and technical breakthroughs. Everyone may join in—progressive companies with ideas and knowledge to sell and activist shareholders; technical academies and institutes; civic societies and non-governmental players.
With or without another hour of daylight, the American people will find our way toward energy independence.

Timetable Debate Running on Empty

Timetables, schedules and deadlines are all ingenious devices that help make life efficient, manageable and predictable to a certain extent. But the recent debate in Washington over whether to set goals and dates for withdrawing American forces from Iraq has about it the artificial air of a theatrical skirmish that takes place stage front, while the real scene is set behind closed curtains.
For it denies the most strategic factor of all: Iraqi oil, and our vital national interest to protect our access to it, in lieu of a real timetable to make America more energy independent through efficiency measures, demand management and renewables.
Critics of the Bush administration’s war policy argue that an open-ended commitment to keep American military forces in Iraq are rapidly losing the support of an American public dubious of the war’s origins and skeptical that continuing the sacrifice of American troops contributes to our security against terrorism.
The president and his circle have responded that to set dates for troop withdrawals, before Iraqi security forces are fully prepared to defend themselves against the insurgency, would alert the insurgents to lie low until the Americans are gone. The president’s current pitch is to keep our military forces in Iraq “as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”
Neither side even mentions the geopolitics of energy.
While crude oil prices have soared to record levels, threatening the global economy, all signs point to our continued and growing dependence on Middle East oil. The United States consumes over 25 percent of the oil produced worldwide, slightly more than half of which it imports. Even the 2001 National Energy Policy Development Group chaired by Vice President Cheney acknowledged that by 2020 Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world’s oil and “the global economy will almost certainly continue to depend on the supply of oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members, particularly in the Gulf. This region will remain vital to U.S. interests.”
Despite this, the Bush administration has persuaded the American media that control of Iraqi oil had nothing to do with the war. But Iraqis know different. A senior petroleum geologist from the Iraq Ministry of Oil I met in Baghdad just after the downfall of the tyrant Hussein said he had spent 30 years doing seismic studies of Iraqi geology. Wherever he tested there were signs of oil. He estimated that Iraq sits atop a vast underground lake of petroleum— perhaps the largest reserves in the world, even larger than Saudi Arabia, whose reserve calculations have long been suspect.
Thanks to UN sanctions and Saddam Hussein’s incompetent management, Iraqi oil production has never reached a fraction of its potential. That would change, once a pro-American Iraqi government installs a liberalized investment regime favorable to American oil producers—and if Iraq is sufficiently secure for development to move forward. Vijay Vaitheeswaran of “The Economist” argued in his book “Power to the People” that if Iraq turned its back on OPEC and threw open its taps to the world market, it could undermine Saudi Arabia and the oil cartel to become “America’s filling station.”
The Bush administration is counting on Iraqi oil to help get our unsustainable culture of oil consumption past the bottleneck in energy supplies that is already starting to bite Americans at the gas pumps. The bipartisan Energy Bill that just passed the Senate, with its billions for subsidizing oil, gas, coal and nuclear power, rejected a serious national effort to tame energy demand, make cars more fuel efficient and rev up renewable energy sources like biomass fuels, wind, solar, tidal and small-scale hydro power.
Iraq’s potential to bring more oil to the world market will be slowed by the Jihadists’ oft-stated intention to damage the American economy. If and when Iraqi oil development does take place, we will have to protect those investments, wells, pipelines, ports and other assets. To tell the American people otherwise is not the kind of straight talk we need from our leaders.
Though Cheney thinks the Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes, America’s thirst for Iraqi oil will guarantee that our military sacrifices there go on and on.