Major Energy Paradigm Shift: World Bank Announces It Will No Longer Fund Oil & Gas Projects

In a significant policy change, the World Bank announced that it will stop funding most of its oil and gas exploration and extraction projects after 2019.

Humanity Sealed Its Own Fate: 15,000 Scientists Sign A “Doomsday Warning”

A catastrophic warning about humanity’s impending doom was just signed by 15,000 scientists; they all agree that we’ve already sealed our fate.

The signed letter, which was apparently first written in 1992, claims all of the predictions made by scientists have come true except one. Apart from the hole in the ozone layer, which has now stabilized, every one of the major threats identified in 1992 has worsened.

The prophetic warning letter from 1992 argued human impacts on the natural world were likely to lead to “vast human misery” and a planet that was “irretrievably mutilated.” Climate change, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, animal species extinctions, and uncontrolled human population growth are all threatening mankind’s and the Earth’s future.

It’s been about 25 years since the first doomsday warning letter was signed and scientists are now saying that the Earth is in even more dire shape.  More than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries said humans had “unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years.”

The message, which was posted online and is an update to the original Warning from the Union of Concerned Scientists and around 1,700 signatories delivered in 1992.  The World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS’s board of directors. But scientists still agree that runaway consumption of natural resources by an exploding population remains the biggest danger facing humankind, say the scientists.

In the more recent doomsday warning, scientists warn that human beings should eat less meat, have fewer kids, consume less, and use green energy to save the planet. In the past 25 years, scientists have pointed out the following:

The amount of fresh water available per head of population worldwide has reduced by 26 percent.

The number of ocean “dead zones” (places where little can live because of pollution and oxygen starvation) has increased by 75 percent.

Nearly 300 million acres of forest have been lost, mostly to make way for agricultural land.

Global carbon emissions and average temperatures have shown continued significant increases.

Human population has risen by 35 percent.

Collectively the number of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fish in the world has fallen by 29 percent.

According to the letter, “We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats. By failing to adequately limit population growth, reassess the role of an economy rooted in growth, reduce greenhouse gases, incentivize renewable energy, protect habitat, restore ecosystems, curb pollution, halt defaunation, and constrain invasive alien species, humanity is not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperiled biosphere.”

Professor William Ripple at Oregon State University said:  “Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist. Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences.” He said that those who signed this second warning aren’t just raising a false alarm, they are warning of impending doom as well. “They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path,” D. Ripple said.  “We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate.”

Germany Forced To Pay Consumers To Use More Electricity

A stormy weekend led to free electricity in Germany, as Bloomberg reports wind generation reached a record, forcing power producers to pay customers the most since Christmas 2012 to use electricity.

Power prices turned negative as wind output reached 39,409 megawatts on Saturday, equivalent to the output of about 40 nuclear reactors.

 To keep the grid supply and demand in balance, negative prices encourage producers to either shut power stations or else pay consumers to take the extra electricity off the network.

The Race For The "Holy Grail" Of Renewables

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

In February, AES Energy’s Escondido battery storage facility in California was hailed as the largest one to date, with a capacity of 30 MW/120 MWh. Now, Tesla is building a bigger one—100 MW/129 MWh—in Australia.

On the face of it, it’s a race for the bigger battery storage system. But there’s much more to it than that.

The race is on for increasingly reliable, grid-scale, quick-to-install energy storage solutions that will make the shift to all-renewable power much more realistic. In this, factors such as renewable-friendly regulation and integration of storage systems with renewable power generation capacity can tip the energy transformation scales.

California is one of the places to be if you’re a renewables fan. Its authorities have ambitious plans in this regard, eventually hoping to replace all fossil-fuel generation capacity with renewables. Wholly reliable grid-scale storage systems are crucial for this strategy, and they are becoming increasingly popular in the state.

Unfortunately, the initiative to make the 100-percent renewable plan a law fell through. Unions, worried about possible job losses, pulled their support. Legislators themselves tweaked the bill, so its goal is now to produce 100-percent greenhouse-gas-free energy. The debate about the feasibility of the plan and how fast it could become a reality continues. California is a cautionary tale for other ambitious clean energy proponents. 

Meanwhile, the leaders of the battery pack are expanding. AES recently teamed up with Siemens on a joint venture, Fluence, focusing specifically on energy storage system development. Fluence will deal in AES’ Advancion and Siemens’ Siestorage platforms, the companies said, adding it will target the development of new energy storage capacity across 160 countries worldwide.

Tesla is looking in another direction. It already has the largest portfolio of completed energy storage projects globally, at 300 MWh. What it is looking for now is integrating future storage systems with wind and solar electricity producers.

When Tesla said it had won a deal for the construction of the world’s biggest lithium-ion battery storage facility in Australia, it noted that the deal involves partnering with local wind power producer, Neoen, which will supply the battery complex with electricity.

At the same time, AES is working mainly with traditional utilities to supply them with energy storage capacity, focusing on constantly improving the energy density and efficiency of its arrays. Tesla’s all-renewables focus is well documented, and now it could give it the lead in the energy storage race.

Earlier this month, Tesla closed another partnership, with wind power leader Vestas, to develop integrated wind power-energy storage solutions. The Danish company announced earlier this year that it has big plans for energy storage, with Chairman Bert Nordberg telling Reuters that the company had 3.2 billion euro (US$3.84 billion) in cash and no debt, so it could afford some good investments. So far this year, Vestas has invested in almost a dozen battery storage makers.

Energy storage, according to AES’ CEO Andres Gluski, is “the Holy Grail for renewables.” It is the key to the renewables kingdom of the future, eliminating the adverse effects of renewable power’s intermittency. Integrating this Holy Grail with the clean energy producers is the next step. Tesla and other battery makers have already made it. Yet staying with traditional utilities might not be a bad strategy either: it will be some time before renewables become the predominant energy source in the world.

So You Wanted To Be "Long Electricity" Into The Eclipse?

Energy traders who had hoped to make an easy profit by betting that spot electricity prices would climb around midday on Monday – an idea they may have found on this website - were bitterly disappointed when, instead of spiking, prices tumbled because of an unexpectedly large drop in demand.

Utilities and grid operators had contingency plans ready to compensate for the expected drop in solar. But even with utilities’ backup grids humming, supplies were still widely expected to drop. Instead, energy providers encountered something that they hadn’t anticipated – what one trader called “an irregular human behavior pattern.”

Basically, more Americans than anticipated were outdoors during the middle of the day Monday, around the time when electricity demand typically peaks, than grid operators had expected. Therefore, while supplies took a slight dip, it was amplified by a dramatic pullback in demand, which exhibited a weird U-shaped dip over a two-hour period across the country,” according to Bloomberg. Ironically, if traders hadn’t been so distracted by the eclipse, maybe they would’ve realized that millions of Americans standing outside together staring up at the sun for an hour would have a marked impact on demand, and adjusted their positions accordingly.

“This was a bummer for traders who’d bet prices would jump as a whole load of solar-produced megawatts faded to black. “If anything, it was bearish from a trading perspective because people were more busy looking at the eclipse and talking about the eclipse,” said Tom Hahn, vice president of U.S. power derivatives at brokerage ICAP Energy LLC in Durham, North Carolina.

Spot power in California fell to negative levels as the eclipse wiped out and restarted thousands of megawatts of solar power, and they also dipped from Texas to New York. While natural gas demand rose to a one-month high on Monday, spot prices at several hubs weakened versus the U.S. benchmark.”

The dip in Northern California was particularly vicious.

“Spot electricity at Northern California’s NP15 hub averaged $21.50 a megawatt-hour at 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., less than half the price for supply secured in advance for the hour in the day-ahead market, according to grid data compiled by Bloomberg. Then at 11:50 a.m. local time - as the sun started to reappear from behind the moon -- the ramp-up in solar power sent prices to a low of minus $15.97.”

Tech firms like Alphabet Inc. helped conserve energy usage during the eclipse, part of a partnership with the state utility commission that helped it cut consumption by about 1,500 megawatts.

“Alphabet Inc.’s Nest Labs unit, which deploys thermostats and other smart home technologies, drew more than 750,000 customers into its Solar Eclipse Rush Hour experiment to cut consumption. They reduced power use by about 700 megawatts nationwide, helping to offset a 10,000-megawatt drop in solar power. In California, Nest and other partners worked with the state utility commission to cut consumption by about 1,500 megawatts.

In hubs from Texas to New Jersey, spot electricity prices slumped. Though in several cases, unexpected cloud cover helped mitigate the drop.

“While that was the most dramatic case of a power-price retreat, there were noticeable dips elsewhere. Cloud coverage in places like North Carolina, Texas and New Jersey had reduced solar output before the eclipse anyway, limiting the magnitude of the loss. The moon’s shadow also reduced temperatures a bit. And then there were all those people playing hooky from work and school.”

There were also “very evident” dips in New England, New York and the nearby 13-state grid managed by PJM Interconnection LLC, said Tom DiCapua, managing director at Con Edison Energy in Valhalla, New York, according to Bloomberg. Con Edison, which manages the largest grid in the US with 65 million people, said demand fell by 5,000 megawatts, or as much as 3.8%, during the event.

“People drove up the day-ahead price thinking that prices would settle higher in real time,” DiCapua said. That was the wrong way to go. “The people who tended to be short tended to make money. You wanted to be short.”

Luckily for traders on the east coast, they will get another shot to clinch the eclipse trade in seven years, when the eclipse"s path of totality is expected to stretch from Texas to Maine.

Damning Study Shows Govts Rob Taxpayers $5 Trillion a Year to Keep Fossil Fuel Industry Going

As the global energy paradigm is undergoing the next great transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, a new report shows that fossil fuels continue to be propped up by governments with staggering amounts of subsidies.

A study published in the World Development journal, by researchers from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), found that fossil fuel subsidies amounted to $5.3 trillion dollars in 2015, rising from $4.9 trillion in 2013. This amounts to 6.5 percent of global GDP.

The authors use an expanded view of subsidies, not only “direct financial cost that result in consumers paying a price that is below the opportunity cost of the product” but also externalized, hidden costs. These hidden costs include environmental damage from air and water pollution, and damage to human health from the burning of fossil fuels, as well as “taxes applied to consumer goods in general.”

The cost of fossil fuels to human health is estimated at $74.6 billion a year; the environmental costs are more difficult to quantify but no less important, as human health depends on healthy ecosystems. The cost of U.S. military protection of overseas oil sources amounts to as much as $1 per gallon at the pump.

Advertisment

It is absolutely justifiable to include these hidden costs of fossil fuels as subsidies. Every economist knows that externalized costs matter, and in the case of fossil fuels these are not shouldered by the coal and oil industries profiting from their extraction. These costs are placed on consumers via the state, and they must be quantified to achieve a true picture.

READ MORE:  Congress Approves Measure for Crusade Against “Fake News” -- Using DoD Funding

According to The Guardian:

“[T]he authors discuss both consumer subsidies (when the price paid by a consumer is below a benchmark price) and producer subsidies (when producers receive direct or indirect support which increases their profitability). The authors then quantify what benefits would be achieved if the fossil fuel subsidies were reformed…

Pre-tax (the narrow view of subsidies) subsidies amount to 0.7% of global GDP in 2011 and 2013. But the more appropriate definition of subsidies is much larger (8 times larger than the pre-tax subsidies). We are talking enormous values of 5.8% of global GDP in 2011, rising to 6.5% in 2013.”

The authors also note that, unsurprisingly, coal and oil receive the most subsidies, and that China, USA and Russia are the top three subsidizers of fossil fuels.

For some in the U.S. coal industry, this is not enough. West Virginia governor and long-time coal baron, Jim Justice, is in discussions with President Trump about having the federal government (taxpayers) pay a direct subsidy of $15/ton to Appalachian coal. Justice cites bogus “national security” threats for his proposal, but it’s really about using government to prop up the dying eastern U.S. coal industry. Workers in that region would be far better served diversifying into renewable energy, which provides five times more jobs than coal.

It’s important to note that coal is going down due to market forces, not a fictitious “war on coal.” The rapid fall of natural gas prices that came with the fracking boom is the primary threat to coal. In addition, wind and solar energy prices are crashing due to leaps in technology.

READ MORE:  REPORT: IRS Continues SWAT Raids for Evasion While Hundreds of Agents Avoid Paying Any Taxes at All

A third factor is flattening energy demand due to rising efficiency. No new regulations were put on coal since the 1970s — including during the rapid 5-year decline of coal — until Obama-era rules began going into effect in 2016.

On the subject of subsidies, it is certainly true that renewable energies have received subsidies as well, although the aforementioned study shows that they are dwarfed by fossil fuel subsidies. The externalized costs of fossil fuels in terms of damage to human and environmental health, military protection of overseas oil sources must be factored into the equation.

The fact is, renewable energy is now competitive or even cheaper than fossil fuels due to market forces – not subsidies. And this trend will continue as renewable prices keep falling due to rapid technology advances, despite the best efforts of administrations allied with the fossil fuel industry. Renewable energy is also an incredible economic machine, as solar and wind jobs are now growing 12 times faster than the U.S. economy.

To make the right choices concerning our energy paradigm, we must have accurate information, as study author Dr. David Coady notes.

“A key motivation for the paper was to increase awareness among policy makers and the public of the large subsidies that arise from pricing fossil fuels below their true social costs—this broader definition of subsidies accounts for the many negative side effects associated with the consumption of these fuels. By estimating these costs on a global scale, we hope to stimulate an informed policy debate and provide renewed impetus for policy reforms to reap the large potential benefits from more efficient pricing of fossil fuels in terms of improved public finances, improved population health and lower carbon emissions.”

READ MORE:  Secret Saudi Trade Deal Exposes How the Terrorist Nation Holds the US Govt and Economy Hostage

It is past time to break fossil fuel’s grip on government, which appears to be the primary reason why fossil fuels are being sustained as top energy sources. If the true price of coal and oil were known to consumers – instead of being hidden through subsidies, taxes, military costs, and health and environmental costs – we would be much farther into the transition to renewable energy.

It’s Here – Geoengineering Now Normalized as Scientists Spray Chemicals to Dim the Sun, Soak Up CO2

Undeterred by steep cost and the interminable controversy on the very concept of global warming, scientists will again experiment with geoengineering — as a means to bolster the effect of cloud cover by seeding the atmosphere with chemicals meant to dim the light of the sun — in a concerted effort to cool the planet.

While the project will undoubtedly stir distrust among those already doubtful pumping the air full of chemicals could ever end well, ‘chemtrail’ theories have seemingly been proven recently, particularly as a growing number of projects aim to align with strictures from the laden Paris Climate Accord.

Unsurprisingly — considering the arrogance of meddling with nature — praise of its methods and even of its goal has been anything but unanimous.

Swiss company Climeworks coughed up $23 million and constructed a facility to begin collecting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the air in May using sizable fans and filters — billing itself the planet’s first “commercial carbon dioxide capture plant.”

Reuters reports,

Advertisment

“Climeworks reckons it now costs about $600 to extract a tonne of carbon dioxide from the air and the plant’s full capacity due by the end of 2017 is only 900 tonnes a year. That’s equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 Americans.”

Another, “Carbon Engineering, set up in 2009 with support from Gates and Murray Edwards, chairman of oil and gas group Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, has raised about $40 million and extracts about a tonne of carbon dioxide a day with turbines and filters.”

Image: Reuters.

Several additional companies have similar projects underway in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands — but nascent technology and lack of cost-benefit efficacy mean carbon scrubbing, alone, won’t be sufficient.

Obviously, even that effort sees the world falling behind in guidelines agreed upon by major world powers in Paris in April 2016 — a grave concern for scientist-adherents who laud the cooperative attempt to stave off what many believe will be untenably hot conditions (a global average rise from the birth of industry of over 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 2 degree Celsius), should dense gases and particulates, like methane and carbon, continue filling the atmosphere, unhindered.

Considering renewable energy has only recently begun dethroning fossil fuels as the go-to source for power generation, emissions from manufacturing, vehicle exhaust, and innumerable other polluters should be expected to continue for decades — a dire concern, according to U.N. data — meaning additional solutions may have to take up the slack to make the goals of the Paris accord attainable, particularly now that President Trump announced the U.S.’ withdrawal.

“We’re in trouble,” Janos Pasztor, head of newly-created Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, told Reuters of Earth’s putatively perilous warming. “The question is not whether or not there will be an overshoot [of the post-industrial maximum tenable temperature rise] but by how many degrees and for how many decades.”

“If you want to be confident to get to 1.5 degrees you need to have solar geo-engineering,” David Keith, of Harvard University, explained, referencing the preferred maximum 1.5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, compared to what is considered the 2-degree point of no return.

Harvard will conduct a geoengineering experiment of its own in Arizona next year, for which private donors have already contributed some $7.5 million, as Reuters adds,

“Keith’s team aims to release about 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) of sun dimming material, perhaps calcium carbonate, from a high-altitude balloon above Arizona next year in a tiny experiment to see how it affects the microphysics of the stratosphere.”

Perhaps in response to popular but unproven allegations aircraft have been spraying the atmosphere with chemicals for years — a burgeoning theory called “chemtrails,” whose adherents believe aerosols are being sprayed from planes to fend off global warming (or for more nefarious purposes) — Keith asserted,

“I don’t think it’s science fiction … to me it’s normal atmospheric science.”

READ MORE:  Conspiracy Theory No More, Harvard Reveals Big Oil-Approved "Stratospheric Injection" Geoengineering

In this race to ostensibly undo damage inflicted upon the planet by human activity, some scientists would rather slam on the brakes. How the manipulation of weather and dimming of the sun’s rays at surface level will affect intricately-related planetary weather patterns — for example, monsoons — remains the subject of, pun intended, heated dispute.

Critics peg carbon scrubbing and other geoengineering tactics as only slightly palliative smokescreens masking the monumental task of actually cutting industrial and personal greenhouse emissions — and generally ending reliance and fealty to fossil fuels and polluting power-generation methods.

Instead of foisting tens or hundreds of millions on projects to compensate for greenhouse gas pollution stemming from dirtier energy, detractors imagine the money put to better use improving and implementing wind, solar, and other green energy sources. Curbing the amount of contaminants spewed into the atmosphere — rather than removing them after the mess has been made — seems infinitely more prudent and cost effective.

Even pro-geoengineering scientists haven’t aligned entirely behind a method to cool the earth — while some believe reflectant chemical additives may be necessary for adequate dimming effect, others admonish against the use of anything other than water vapor.

Whether geoengineering in any form — from simple cloud seeding to capturing, filtering, and using carbon from the air for other uses — will ultimately have any measurable effect on the Earth’s temperatures and climate is a question long from an answer.

Considering the topic of global warming has been itself fraught with unending contention, any plans to manipulate nature further as compensation for the stunning failures in foresight humankind has displayed over the decades since the birth of industry won’t necessarily find welcoming ears in the public.

After all, the same governments sanctimoniously warning of grievous consequences from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases reach deep into their coffers to subsidize the exact oil and gas industry — as well as other notorious environmental villains — largely responsible for the presence of such pollutants in the first place.

Tesla is Building the World’s Biggest Lithium-Ion Battery for Australia

---

Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced July 7, 2017 that his company will use its giant battery, the Powerpack, to build a 100 megawatt (MW) lithium-ion battery system in South Australia. When it is completed, it will be the largest battery storage product in the world. [1]

The batteries will store energy produced by a local wind farm in Jamestown, South Australia. The battery system will have the ability to power tens of thousands of homes.

Tesla wrote in a statement:

“The Tesla Powerpack system will further transform the state’s movement towards renewable energy and see an advancement of a resilient and modern grid.

Upon completion by December 2017, this system will be the largest lithium-ion storage project in the world and will provide enough power for more than 30,000 homes, approximately equal to the amount of homes that lost power during the blackout period.” [2]

By storing energy during off-peak hours and then recharging that energy during peak hours, utility companies will be able to cut costs and reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

The Powerpack and Tesla’s at-home battery, the Powerwall, have been commercially available since 2015. The company released upgraded versions of both systems and unveiled a solar roof product. Tesla began accepting orders for the solar roof in March 2017.

Read: The New Home Battery: Is Off Grid Living About to Become Mainstream?

Tesla beat out 91 international bidders for the project to build a 100 MW lithium-ion storage solution, most likely due to Musk’s clout and proven track record, not to mention his promise to waive the installation fee.

Hawaiian island of Kaua’i powered by 54,000 solar panels and Tesla’s Powerpack batteries.

The Hawaiian island of Kauai is currently powered by Tesla’s Powerpack technology. Medium-sized businesses, too, are starting to rely on Tesla for energy storage, including the Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Additionally, Los Angeles now uses a Powerpack storage facility Tesla built into Southern California Edison’s Mira Loma substation in Ontario, California, to power 15,000 homes.

Sources:

[1] Business Insider

[2] The Verge

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Oklahoma Claims it Owns the Wind, Caves to Oil Lobby to Tax Energy from the Air

Oklahoma — In a slavish display of fealty to the oil and gas industry, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin put forward a plan in the executive budget proposal to tax the state’s wind industry out of existence.

By ending tax credits — ahead of schedule — and imposing the nation’s highest tax on wind power, this Oklahoma law would make renewable wind energy cost-prohibitive while enriching the fossil fuel industry.

EcoWatch reports, “The budget proposes a .5 cent per kilowatt-hour on wind energy—five times the wind tax in Wyoming, which along with South Dakota are the only states that tax wind energy—and accelerates the end of a tax credit, currently set to expire in 2021.”

The governor’s budget mirrors another bill working its way through state legislature.

Separate legislation proposed by Rep. Earl Sears would end “accumulation of new credits for zero-emission electric generation July 1 and caps annual payments for existing credits at $15 million a year,” reports Tulsa World.

“There’s no question wind has a place in this great state, and has a place in the energy sector,” Sears noted. “What is at hand, we absolutely have to have serious discussion about credits for wind.”

Perhaps the most acceptable avenue would be to end taxpayer-funded government welfare for all profiteering industries and corporations, including for wind and Big Oil. But tax credits — given the growth of wind-generated energy — provide fertile ground for oil and gas to go to war against renewables, in general.

“I believe the wind industry has done much better than we thought they could do, maybe than even they thought they could do,” explained Rep. Weldon Watson.

Sears said he’s “sure” ending tax credits would “impact” planned wind farms, but “When I get that call from them, I’ll tell them we’re having the same issue in state government.”

Politicians aren’t alone in seeking to get wind power off the government teat.

A group of Big Oil executives — including President Trump’s advisor, Harold Hamm, of Continental Resources — comprise the Windfall Coalition, which believes Oklahoma shouldn’t subsidize wind energy when the state should be turning more toward natural gas and has pushed lawmakers to make the appropriate changes.

Windfall and both the Oklahoma Property Rights Association and WindWaste have worked for years to tightly restrict the locations of turbines and end state tax credits.

Fossil fuels have faced quite a challenge from the wind industry, as NewsOK reported last year, “Oklahoma added more than 1,400 megawatts of wind capacity in 2015. The state remained in fourth place among states for wind capacity, with 5,184 megawatts. Almost 700 megawatts are under construction in Oklahoma, the American Wind Energy Association said in its latest market report. Oklahoma now gets about 17 percent of its electricity from wind.”

But, as Hamm explained, “We believe now is the time to end wind subsidies in Oklahoma, due to the federal production tax credit that has been extended.”

“Hamm’s group said the wind industry’s state incentives — which include a five-year property tax exemption and a 10-year, zero-emissions tax credit worth 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour of generation — are too generous and aren’t needed anymore,” NewsOK explained. “The group also said increased use of wind generation by utilities comes at the expense of them using natural gas, dampening the collection of gross production taxes.”

In other words, wind energy should be done away with because it isn’t profitable for the oil and gas industry — renewables simply pad the wrong pockets.

Proposals to, in essence, penalize the wind industry financially — taxing it beyond viability — constitute an attempt to own the wind.

Paradigm Shift — Solar & Wind Jobs Growing 12 Times Faster Than US Economy

In yet another indication that the clean energy revolution is well underway, a new report finds that solar and wind jobs are growing 12 times as fast as rest of the U.S. economy. These jobs have grown by about 20 percent annually in recent years.

The report from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) notes that renewable energy jobs, totaling about 769,000 by the end of 2015, experienced “a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of nearly 6% since 2012,” while “fossil fuel extraction and support services slumped, with a -4.25% CAGR over the same period.”

Market forces are driving this phenomenon, due to dramatic reductions in manufacturing and installation costs, coupled with stagnant demand for oil and coal. Unsubsidized solar is now as cheap as coal and natural gas and even wind in emerging markets, and solar prices will continue to rapidly fall.

What’s more, these renewable energy jobs cannot be outsourced due to their on-site nature and they pay above average wages.

“Many jobs in the solar and energy efficiency space are in installation, maintenance and construction, making these jobs inherently local and contributing to the growth of local economies. Average wages for energy efficiency jobs are almost $5,000 above the national median, and wages for solar workers are above the national median of $17.04 per hour.”

Sustainability jobs – meaning those in energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as in waste reduction, natural resources conservation and environmental education – now total 4-4.5 million in the U.S., up from 3.4 million in 2011.

READ MORE:  Dog Rescuer Visited By Homeland Security for Making Facebook Posts About Cops Shooting Dogs

Energy efficiency jobs represent about half of these jobs at 2.2 million, the majority of which are in small businesses with 10 employees or fewer. Investing in this sector is wise, as “energy efficiency investments create more jobs than those in fossil fuel industries: estimated at approximately 8 jobs (direct and indirect) per $1M invested compared to about 3 jobs in fossil fuels.”

As we reported in January, the solar industry employed more people in electricity generation than gas, coal and oil combined. Cheap solar and natural gas prices – not government policy – have been driving coal out of the market since 2006.

Trillions of dollars will be invested worldwide in clean energy over the coming decades, and utility companies in the U.S. have already focused on clean energy due to a variety of factors including the predicted continual drop in prices.

All of this means that any efforts by the Trump administration and new Congress to prop up fossil fuels and stymie clean energy would bring a severe detriment to economic and job growth. Trump has been harping on ‘bringing back coal jobs,’ but as Bloomberg News points out, “renewable energy provides five times more jobs than coal mines.”

Not to mention the fact that mountaintop removal – the preferred method of coal companies – obliterates vast swaths of forested habitat and fills streams and valleys with toxic waste. The pollution from coal mining degrades the health of nearby communities where coal miners live. The health impact of fossil fuel burning is estimated at $74.6 billion every year.

READ MORE:  What I Don’t Like About Life in the American Police State

Bloomberg notes that solar and wind jobs, totaling more than 300,000 in the U.S. in 2016, are “a significant source of employment in many of the rural red states that supported Donald Trump’s campaign.”

“We’re hiring workers in the rust belt,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “We’re helping families keep farms they’ve held for generations. The lifeblood of our industry is in rural America.”

Most indications at the moment are that Trump and his cadre of fossil fuel advocates set to run federal agencies plan to cut clean energy research and development programs. While the free market will continue pushing our energy paradigm toward renewable energy, a federal government working against the tide could mean that the U.S. misses out on the economic opportunity of the clean energy revolution.

In 2016, Solar Employed More People in Electricity Generation Than Gas, Coal, & Oil COMBINED

A new U.S. Energy and Employment Report is providing yet another indication that our energy paradigm is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels. The most promise for jobs lies in clean energy, with solar jobs in particular rising at a tremendous rate.

The U.S. Dept. of Energy’s second annual report found that, in 2016, solar employment was almost double that of fossil fuel employment in the Electric Power Generation sector.

“Proportionally, solar employment accounts for the largest share of workers in the Electric Power Generation sector. This is largely due to the construction related to the significant buildout of new solar generation capacity. Solar technologies, both photovoltaic and concentrating, employ almost 374,000 workers, or 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation workforce. This is followed by fossil fuel generation employment, which accounts for 22 percent of total Electric Power Generation employment and supports 187,117 workers across coal, oil, and natural gas generation technologies.

Rising employment in solar, wind, and natural gas coincides with the shift in energy generation by source, especially given recent large-scale distributed and utility-scale solar capacity additions.”

The total number of jobs in the Traditional Energy and Efficiency sectors was 6.4 million for 2016, which includes: 1) electric power generation and fuels, 2) transmission, distribution and storage, 3) energy efficiency, and 4) motor vehicles.

More than 300,000 new jobs were added across the entire spectrum, making up about 14 percent of total jobs created in the country. The report notes that the “solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while wind employment increased by 32%.”

READ MORE:  First of Its Kind Study Shows that Change in Diet Alone — Not Drugs — is Curing Diseases

These revealing job numbers mirror dramatic shifts going on in the sources for electricity generation, driven by crashing solar prices and the fracking boom which led to a glut of natural gas. Cheap solar and natural gas prices – not government policy – have been driving coal out of the market since 2006.

“…net generation from coal sources declined by 53 percent between 2006 and September 2016, while electricity generation from natural gas increased by 33 percent and solar by over 5,000 percent—from 508,000 MWh to just over 28,000,000 MWH.”

The report comes on the heels of news that unsubsidized solar is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many countries for large-scale electricity generation. Solar prices will continue dropping, and within a decade or two solar energy will be half the cost of coal or natural gas.

This transition is being driven by market forces, as Bloomberg highlighted in late 2015. Their analysis shows that within 25 years, solar will be the primary electricity source as it outcompetes natural gas and coal on every level.

Speaking of subsidies, the U.S. fossil fuels receive about $37 billion a year in subsidies. The only industry that will be reliant on government to prop it up in the near future is the fossil fuel industry. The cost of fossil fuels also does not include the cost to human health from pollution, estimated at $75 billion per year, and the cost of military protection of overseas oil, which amounts to about $30 billion per year.

According to the DOE report, three sources of energy made up 93 percent of new additions to the energy grid in 2016, with solar coming first at 9.5 GW. Natural gas added 8 GW and wind energy added 6.8 GW).

“In fact, between September 2015 and September 2016 alone, distributed solar photovoltaic generation increased 35 percent nationwide, while estimated total solar—both utility-scale and distributed generation—increased by 52 percent across the country.”

While market forces are driving a remarkable shift toward clean energy in the power grid, transportation remains firmly dependent on oil. But transportation too will be experiencing a remarkable shift in coming years, as automakers such as Ford Motor Company are set to invest billions in electric vehicles. A breakthrough technology called an ‘artificial leaf’ – which turns sunlight into hydrocarbon fuel – will further revolutionize our transportation paradigm.

READ MORE:  Drug War is Crumbling -- Town Converts Prison into Cannabis Grow Facility

World markets have firmly indicated that the future is clean energy, with trillions of dollars in investments coming over the next few decades. The new jobs report tells us that solar and wind energy provide the best opportunity for job growth in the U.S.

China got the message, and just announced it will invest $361 billion over the next three years in clean energy, marking a major turn away from coal.

President Trump has repeatedly called for using his power to ‘bring back the coal industry,’ but doing so would be in complete contravention of market forces and would be a great disservice to Americans looking for jobs.

If the new administration and Congress continue with their obsession over fossil fuels – and the antipathy toward clean energy – it could mean America loses out in the massive economic opportunity that is clean energy.

After Leaking Radiation in New York For DECADES, Indian Point ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ to Finally Close

Buchanan, NY — Intensely controversial Indian Point nuclear power plant will completely cease operations by 2021, but the move to shutter operations on the facility — located just 25 miles north of New York City — has itself stirred contention.

Legal and environmental battles have raged for years over Indian Point, which supplies nearly one-third of the energy generation for the metropolis and has — in recent times, at least, officially — one of the best track records of any nuclear plant in the U.S.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has for years fought to shut down Indian Point — which he has called a “ticking time bomb” — both for its proximity to a sprawling urban populace and for the plant’s disputable safety record. Announcing the coming closure, Cuomo stated this week,

“For 15 years, I have been deeply concerned by the continuing safety violations at Indian Point, especially given its location in the largest and most densely populated metropolitan region in the country. I am proud to have secured this agreement with Entergy to responsibly close the facility 14 years ahead of schedule to protect the safety of all New Yorkers. This administration has been aggressively pursuing and incentivizing the development of clean, reliable energy, and the state is fully prepared to replace the power generated by the plant at a negligible cost to ratepayers.”

Wind power will be the governor’s primary focus, but that sufficient clean energy infrastructure to replace the two gigawatts of power produced at Indian Point isn’t yet in place has brought the eminent shuttering of the nuclear facility into question by both the industry and, surprisingly, even some environmental advocates.

Entergy, which operates Indian Point, will now be able to renew expired licenses to keep the plant functioning until the two remaining reactors — the original Unit 1 ceased operation in 1974 — go offline for good. Indian Point Unit 2 is slated to shut down as early as April 2020 and Unit 3, April 2021 — but Entergy plans to seek license renewals through 2024 and 2025, respectively, in case the electrical grid operator feels the system can’t handle the loss that soon.

In a press release concerning its agreement to shutter the facility, Entergy stated:

“The two operating units at the Indian Point Energy Center will close in 2020-2021 after powering New York for more than four decades with clean, safe, and reliable electricity. The early and orderly shutdown is part of a settlement under which New York State has agreed to drop legal challenges and support renewal of the operating licenses for Indian Point, located in the Village of Buchanan in northern Westchester County. The shutdown will complete Entergy’s exit from its merchant power business because of sustained low wholesale energy prices.”

Indian Point, despite claims the plant has one of the best operating records in the U.S., has had its share of mishaps and close calls — rattling the nerves of residents nearby and in the New York metroplex.

In early February 2016, a spike in radioactivity in three monitoring wells — one measuring 65,000 percent above normal — induced a small panic, as Cuomo released a statement asserting, “radioactive tritium-contaminated water leaked into groundwater.” Then, the following month, Unit 3 shut down because of excessive bird poop — seriously. In 2015, the plant stopped operations after a balloon became entangled in electrical wires. Though both shutdowns occurred precisely as designed, for area residents, in particular, they evince the tenuous nature of nuclear power.

But the spike in radioactivity in the wells and the seemingly humorous nature of those shutdowns add to, as Anti-Media reported, “a list of many issues over the years — in 1979, alone, there were 14 ‘incidents’ at Indian Point 2, and nine at Indian Point 3. But even cursory research reveals numerous leaks at the plant, including a ‘serious’ 100,000 gallon leak in 1980, an 8,000 gallon leak in 1981, and a leak of an unspecified amount in 1995. Tritium-and nickel-63-tainted water leached into the groundwater supply in 2006. In 1982, Indian Point was the target of the first hearing in history by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine whether a nuclear plant should simply be closed down due to its safety record.”

On the banks of the Hudson River in Buchanan, Indian Point Unit 1 was the first nuclear plant designated for civilian use upon construction in 1962 — but that location, itself, has stoked fears in the past few years. While not as storied as the notorious San Andreas fault in California, the long-dormant Ramapo Fault Zone — comprising the region where the plant is located — has begun to stir once again, earning the attention of geologists and scientists concerned for New York City and the proximity of Indian Point.

“A study by a group of prominent seismologists suggests that a pattern of active but subtle faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed,” Columbia University’s Earth Institute found in 2008. “Among other things, they say the controversial Indian Point nuclear power plants, 24 miles north of the city, sit astride the previously unidentified intersection of two active seismic zones.”

Then in 2011, the NRC studied and rated the nation’s nuclear plants on the potential for core damage in relation to seismic risk — Indian Point Unit 3 landed conspicuously at the top, its risk having risen 72 percent over previous evaluations.

“The chance of an earthquake causing core damage at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year,” investigative reporter Bill Dedman explained. “Under NRC guidelines, that’s right on the verge of requiring ‘immediate concern requiring adequate protection’ of the public … The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance for serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.”

Victor Gilinsky — an energy consultant and former member of the NRC — penned an op-ed for the New York Times in December 2011, with the telling title, “Indian Point: The Next Fukushima?” which stated,

“A severe accident at Indian Point, whose two reactors [that remain in operation] opened in 1974 and 1976, is a remote but real possibility. We’ve had two severe accidents with large releases of radioactivity in the past. The Chernobyl accident was dismissed by Western countries on the grounds that it was the product of Soviet sloppiness and ‘couldn’t happen here.’ But the Fukushima accident involved reactors built to American designs.

READ MORE:  State Now Claims It Owns the Wind -- Taxing Renewable Energy "Out of Existence"

“The essential characteristic of this technology is that the reactor’s uranium fuel — about 100 tons in a typical plant — melts quickly without cooling water. The containment structures surrounding the reactors — even the formidable-looking domes at Indian Point — were not designed to hold melted fuel because safety regulators 40 years ago considered a meltdown impossible.

“They were wrong, and now we know that radioactive material in the melted fuel can escape and contaminate a very large area for decades or more. It doesn’t make sense to allow such a threat to persist a half-hour’s drive from our nation’s largest city.”

Now, fortunately for millions in what would be the fallout zone if catastrophe struck, Indian Point nuclear plant has a shut down date in sight.

However, closing a nuclear facility is anything but instantaneous — decommissioning can take years, and involves the delicate task of dismantling reactors’ cores, removing spent fuel, storage, and then transport to a designated safe containment cask. Material from the unit shuttered in 1974 remains on the premises to this day.

Entergy stated it would assist the nearly 1,000 full-time Indian Point workers in finding gainful employment. Around 190 will stay after the final shutdown to assist in the decommissioning process.

Tiny Homes Banned in U.S. at Increasing Rate as Govt Criminalizes Sustainable Living

As the corporatocracy tightens its grip on the masses – finding ever more ways to funnel wealth to the top – humanity responds in a number of ways, including the rising popularity of tiny houses.

These dwellings, typically defined as less than 500 square feet, are a way for people to break free of mortgages, taxes, utility bills and the general trappings of “stuff.” They’re especially attractive to millennials and retirees, or those seeking to live off-grid.

But government and corporations depend on rampant consumerism and people being connected to the grid.

Seeking actual freedom through minimalist living should seem like a natural fit for the American dream, but the reality is that many governments around the country either ban tiny homes or force them to be connected to the utility grid.

“As of now, few cities allow stand-alone tiny houses. Most communities have minimum square footage requirements for single-family homes mandating that smaller dwellings be an “accessory” to a larger, traditional house. Many also have rules requiring that dwellings be hooked up to utilities, which is a problem for tiny-house enthusiasts who want to live off the grid by using alternative energy sources such as solar panels and rainwater catchment systems.”

Some of the more recent examples of explicit bans include Etowah, TN and Wasilla, AK, which don’t allow homes less than 600 square feet and 700 square feet, respectively.

Boise, ID doesn’t allow homes less than a few hundred square feet, as Shaun Wheeler of Wheeler Homes found when he built a perfectly good and safe 310 sq. ft. home.

Lawmakers spout slippery slope fallacies, saying that allowing tiny homes will lead to decay and “unsightly little cabins plunked down next to traditional homes.” Using government force to stamp out societal change in response to financial factors is this councilman’s idea of conservatism.

Granted, some cities are actually encouraging tiny homes as a means of freedom or as a solution to homelessness, as in Detroit, MI. Some Los Angeles lawmakers don’t see it that way, calling tiny homes for the homeless “a threat in many ways to our public safety.”

Wasilla residents are baffled by the tiny home ban, which seems to run contrary to Alaska’s wild and free nature. Tundra Tiny Houses is leading a new market of small home construction using renewable energy, and now they’ll have to tell customers Wasilla is not an option, in addition to Anchorage to Eagle River.

A big priority for tiny home dwellers is their reduced environmental impact. Many are capable of producing all their own energy from solar and wind, collecting rainwater and reusing graywater. Not depending on utility inputs naturally makes a lot of sense, especially for a tiny home on wheels.

Even those who put their tiny home on a piece of land away from crowded spaces – with the intention of living off-grid through renewable inputs – are considered outlaws if they don’t hook to the utility grid.

This of course ensures that utility companies, which are big donors to political campaigns and profit immensely from government-enabled monopolies, will always get their cut from every household.

In January we reported that sunny Nevada essentially killed its solar industry by increasing their tax on solar customers by 40 percent, causing solar providers to leave the state. The only beneficiary was NV Energy, whose energy monopoly was protected.

Spur, TX was the first city to advertise being “tiny house friendly” as a “town that welcomes new pioneers” – proudly supporting “reducing costs and gaining freedom to operate according to your own plan, unfettered by onerous and unnecessary costs.”

To have this freedom, you must secure your properly permitted tiny home to an approved foundation and be connected to city utilities. The property must always be mowed and the prime responsibility is “of course, paying your taxes!”

“When cities require the same permitting for tiny houses on foundations as they do for traditional houses, it often doesn’t make financial sense to build tiny. “At that point it’s really more of a lifestyle choice than an economic choice,” said Nick Krautter, a real estate agent in Portland, Oregon, who abandoned plans for a tiny house development.”

23-year-old college graduate, Sarah Hastings, built a 190-square-foot home on three acres of farmland in Hadley, MA, complete with a garden next to it. But the town found she was not in compliance with zoning ordinances, and now her home is in storage.

Hastings proposed a change to the town’s laws to allow for her tiny home, but the measure was vote down “because some residents were afraid the town would be overrun with them.” There will be no minimalist, environmentally friendly living in Hadley.

Clearly, the emergence of tiny homes is being met with fear, and the resulting banishment of freedom, by too many towns and cities across America that can’t quite fathom this shift in the way people think about living.

It’s one thing to be concerned about safety issues, but the imposition of minimum square footage requirements and mandatory connections to city utilities is mindless authoritarianism.

Let’s hope places like Fresno, CA and Rockledge, FL, which are specifically allowing tiny homes on wheels, can help their more “traditional” counterparts embrace the future.

Mark Ruffalo Delivers Mobile Solar Trailers to Standing Rock Camps in Preparation for Harsh Winter

Cannon Ball, ND – In a show of kindness and solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux, actor Mark Ruffalo and Native Renewables founder Wahleah Johns presented Sioux tribal elders with mobile trailers equipped with solar collection arrays. The trailers provide a clean energy source for the protest encampment where over 500 Native American tribes have taken a stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline in the largest gathering of American Indians in modern history.

“This pipeline is a black snake that traverses four states and 200 waterways with fracked Bakken oil,” said Ruffalo, co-founder of The Solutions Project, a venture that works to transition society to clean and renewable energy.

“We know from experience that pipelines leak, explode, pollute and poison land and water. But it doesn’t have to be that way.”

The solar trailers will allow for medical tents and numerous other critical facilities to be powered with clean energy, and represent exactly the healthy/abundant future of energy for which the Standing Rock Sioux are currently fighting.

“Water is life,” said Johns, a Navajo leader. “By leading a transition to energy that is powered by the sun, the wind and water, we ensure a better future for all of our people and for future generations.”

According to a report by EcoWatch:

Johns’ company, Native Renewables, promotes low-cost clean energy solutions for Native American families throughout the U.S., with an emphasis on job creation and on benefiting the community as a whole. The trailers were built by members of the Navajo nation and were financed by Empowered by Light and Give Power.

Research led by Stanford Prof. Mark Jacobson, another Solutions Project co-founder, shows that it would be technically possible and economically beneficial to transition to 100 percent clean renewable energy in each and every state across the country. In North Dakota, for example, wind and solar energy would be the primary sources of clean power and transitioning to 100 percent renewables would create 30,000 jobs.

The reality of the situation is that the Standing Rock tribe is fighting to protect their source of clean water. The Dakota Access Pipeline puts the tribe’s clean water supply, as well as that of millions of others, in danger, as the pipeline is scheduled to go directly under the Missouri River.

220 "Significant" Pipeline Spills Already This Year via @EcoWatch https://t.co/dEhJqaEW9T @pstrust @waterkeepersCP

— Dan Zukowski (@danzukowski) October 25, 2016

The construction of the “black snake” marks the conglomeration of corporate/banking interests being elevated above that of the public interest. Furthermore, the ongoing construction has already desecrated sacred burial sites and cultural artifacts.

“Around the world, more than 80 percent of the forests and lands with protected waterways and rich biodiversity are held by indigenous tribes. This is no coincidence,” Ruffalo said. “As so many of us suffer from polluted water, air and land in our rural and urban communities, the water defenders at Standing Rock are showing us another way.”

Imagine how you would respond if an oil pipeline was being dug through the cemetery where your grandparents and great grandparents were buried.

Mark Ruffalo taking a stand for the Standing Rock Sioux is a great example for all individuals, celebrity, and non-celebrity alike. Rather than simply donating some money to a cause, he has utilized his celebrity to bring much greater attention to the continued injustices being perpetrated against the Native American community.

It’s clear that Ruffalo has taken a page out of Ghandi’s book, and is “being the change he wishes to see in the world.”

Please share this inspiring human story — and take a stand for Standing Rock!