NY State could be 100% renewable by 2030

A new study concludes that it would be technically and economically feasible for New York State to meet all of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2030, but researchers say the transition would involve building wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources on a mass scale. 

Writing in the journal Energy Policy, a team of researchers said that to wean itself from fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, the state would need to build more than 4,000 onshore wind turbines, 12,700 offshore turbines, 828 photovoltaic plants, 5 million rooftop solar systems, and 2,600 one-megawatt tidal turbines. 

If implemented, New York — the nation's third-most populous state — would meet 40 percent of its energy needs with wind power and 38 percent from solar, the study said. While this dramatic conversion would require initial capital expenses, the study predicts that the long-term health benefits and new jobs would more than make up for those costs. 

The transition would also reduce end-use power demand by 37 percent, prevent 4,000 premature deaths annually, and save $33 billion in health costs each year, the researchers said. 

"We must be ambitious if we want to promote energy independence and curb global warming," said Robert Howarth, a Cornell University scientist and co-author of the study. [Yale 360]

Tragedy Continues on 2nd Anniversary of Fukushima disaster

While people mourn for the mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents and children that were lost in the earthquake and tsunami, many of those that fled the natural disaster have been able to return home and rebuild their lives and communities as best they can.

The tragedy continues, however, for those still suffering from the impacts of radioactive contamination from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Many areas remain uninhabitable, leaving 160,000 evacuees stuck in limbo, unable to go home, but also unable to rebuild their lives as they lack proper compensation and support.

Families and communities are breaking up, financial ruin is common, as is divorce and mental breakdowns. Recent estimates suggest cancer rates are likely to increase in Fukushima, which weighs heavily on people's minds, and suicides are increasing in the area. It is untrue to say nobody has lost their lives as a result of the nuclear accident.

This ongoing tragedy for the victims of the nuclear disaster is the fault of a system that is supposed to provide fair compensation when there is a nuclear disaster, but doesn't.  This system essentially protects the nuclear industry, not people.

That the nuclear industry is protected before people is a sad and totally unjust reality for most of the world.

The cost of the Fukushima disaster is estimated at US$250 billion, but costs so far have already crushed owner TEPCO so badly it had to be nationalised. TEPCO is one of the largest energy utilities in the world, yet it had to be protected from its responsibilities. Taxpayers are now picking up the tab.

Worse still is that the system offers even greater protection to companies like General Electric, Hitachi and Toshiba. They built the Fukushima plant based on a flawed reactor design. Yet the regulations allow them to walk away and pay nothing to help victims. They also do not show much moral responsibility to help.

The big gap between the costs of a nuclear disaster and what the nuclear industry pays should make everyone angry.

This reality, like other painful truths about nuclear power, has hit home with many Japanese people. They are standing up in protest.

Interviews with Fukushima victims

[GreenPeace]

Louisiana facing highest sea level rise on earth

Port Fourchon experienced serious flooding
from Hurricane Ike in 2008. 

Stunning new data shows Louisiana is losing its battle with rising seas much more quickly than even the most pessimistic studies have predicted to date.

While state officials continue to argue over restoration projects to save the state's sinking, crumbling coast, top researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that Louisiana is in line for the highest rate of sea-level rise "on the planet." Indeed, the water is rising so fast that some coastal restoration projects could be obsolete before they are completed, the officials said.

When new data on the rate of coastal subsidence is married with updated projections of sea-level rise, the southeast corner of Louisiana looks likely to be under at least 4.3 feet of gulf water by the end of the century.

That rate could swamp projects in the state's current coastal Master Plan, which incorporated worst-case scenarios for relative sea-level rise calculated two years ago— which the new figures now make out-of-date. 

Port Fourchon experienced serious flooding from Hurricane Ike, which made landfall in Galveston, Texas in 2008. Scientists say such flooding will become more common, even in smaller storms, as the coast sinks and sea level rises.

http://thelensnola.org/2013/02/21/new-research-louisiana-coast-faces-highest-rate-of-sea-level-rise-on-the-planet/

Obama: Do not approve Keystone XL

The White House will be making a decision in the next few weeks whether to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Please let the president know your thoughts on this subject. Here is a letter I sent to President Obama. 

Dear President Obama,

I would ask you to reject approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. 

The pipeline will only create 2,500 temporary jobs - and if history is any indicator - most of those jobs will go to Canadians. 

Tar sands oil spills will pollute our water. Tar sands pipelines have a history of many more spills than light crude pipelines. In fact the first Keystone pipeline had 12 spills in the first 12 months of operation. 

And tar sands spills are extraordinarily difficult to clean up. We are still recovering from the spill on the Kalamazoo River in 2010 with total cleanup costs of over 3/4 of a billion dollars. 

The tar sands oil will be shipped overseas and will likely increase the price of gasoline in the Midwest. The primary reason TransCanada wants to build the pipeline is to sell tar sands oil outside the US at world market prices.

Finally, tar sands destroys our environment, our clean water, our clean air and dramatically accelerates climate change. 

Best regards,

Mark Sandeen

Keystone XL Environmental Report

The primary argument used in favour of the controversial Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has been that building it is essential to delivering jobs, oil and energy security. The US State Department's recently released draft environmental impact assessment (DEIA) disagrees.

The State Department concluded that not building the pipeline would have almost no impact on jobs; on US oil supply; or on heavy oil supply for Gulf Coast refineries. 

[Vancouver Observer]

Conflict of Interest Found in State Dept Report on Keystone XL

The environmental impact statement the State Department just released on the Keystone XL pipeline was written by a private consulting firm that is being paid by the pipeline's owner. The firm has links to Exxon Mobil, TransCanada, the Koch Brothers and BP. 

This obviously raises concerns about conflicts of interest with the report itself, but it also highlights the problems with turning government work and analysis over to private firms with possible financial ties to other private entities who may be affected by that work and analysis.

[Climate Progress]

CO2 emissions jump

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere underwent one of its biggest single-year jumps ever in 2012, according to researchers at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Between the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2013, carbon dioxide levels increased by 2.67 parts per million — a rise topped only by the spike in 1998.

By comparison, global carbon levels averaged a yearly rise of just under 2 parts per million from 2000 to 2010, and increased by less than 1 part per million in the 1960s. The 2012 rise makes it that much more unlikely that global warming can be limited to the 2 degree Celsius threshold most scientist agree is the bare minimum necessary to avoid truly catastrophic levels of climate change. 

There is a limited "budget" of carbon we can dump into the atmosphere while still maintaining a reasonable chance of staying under the 2 degree limit: 565 gigatons by 2050 to keep our chances at 75 percent, to be precise. At our current trends — and as 2012′s jump can attest — we're set to burn through that budget in 16 years.

[Climate Progress]