Bloomberg Backs Off Wind Energy for NYC

Well that was fast. Just yesterday I wrote a post about New York City Mayor Bloomberg's suggestion that the city install wind and solar energy generators to create 10% of its energy from renewables by 2010. I warned readers that this might be a lot of hot air since he provided few details about cost and strategy, unfortunately I was right.

Today, Bloomberg backed off of his idea saying, "I have absolutely no idea whether that makes any sense from a scientific, from a practical point of view." One would think the Mayor of New York City would have some better information before rolling out a new energy initiative.

Although the Mayor should be applauded for thinking about reforming the city's energy sources, he should take this challenge a little more seriously. David Carr, of the Alternative Energy Institute, in Canyon, Texas, said, "I don't think this was very well thought out."

Of all the confusion over Bloomberg's proposal, the one thing he has gotten right is his call for energy conservation. Conservation is the fastest, cheapest way to save energy and money. New York should put serious effort into finding ways to reduce energy consumption at both the government and commercial levels.

New York Turning to Wind Energy

I blogged about an Energy Department study which found that wind energy could equal the power currently generated by nuclear energy simply by using existing technology and investing sufficient capital. You can read that post HERE. One of the only obstacles to gaining 20% of our energy from wind is space. It is difficult to find enough property for all those wind turbines.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come up with a plan to install wind power generators on the tops of the city's bridges, on buildings and shorelines. Mayor Bloomberg believes that turbines in the windier areas of the city like Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island could provide 10% of New York's electricity in 10 years.

In addition to installing wind energy generators, the Mayor's plan also calls for solar panels installed on the roofs of high rises in the city.

What is important now is for the Mayor to follow through on his plans and begin detailing the funding and strategy for installing these alternative energy sources, or else the plan is just a bunch of hot air.

McCain Selling U.S. Treasures for Campaign Cash

For years, John McCain opposed additional domestic oil drilling. It is well documented (read HERE) that when he switched that position on June 16th, oil industry contributions to his campaign grew enormously. In May, McCain raised $208,000 from oil executives, in June he raised $1.1 million. Since that time he has continued to receive hefty contributions from anyone associated with the oil industry.

Its frustrating, to say the least, that McCain traded campaign contributions for America's environmental health. Apparently though, he isn't through.

One of the most protected pieces of American land is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Millions of acres in Alaska are set aside from development and human encroachment so that we can study and conserve the natural environment there. Forty-five species of land and marine mammals inhabit the area, including species of whale and bear. Native tribes live in and rely on the refuge for survival and travel.

In 2005, John McCain voted to protect ANWR from oil drilling that would bring people, machines and settlements into this pristine area. In 2008, as a Presidential candidate, he is thinking of changing his mind.

The Weekly Standard's Steven F. Hayes wrote this week that McCain told him he is reconsidering his support for protecting ANWR from oil drilling. Apparently those big oil industry checks got McCain's mouth watering at the possibility of raising more money by opening up America's most precious preserve. He is also reacting to polling that suggests the public is willing to do anything to lower the price of gasoline.

I wonder how much the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is worth to McCain. He once said drilling in ANWR is akin to drilling in the Grand Canyon. Its amazing how much can change when campaign money is involved.

Read Hayes' story from the Weekly Standard HERE.

Boxed Wine: Good for the Environment

The New York Times is reporting today that Italy's Agriculture Ministry has approved the use of its "Quality Assurance Stamp" on some boxed Italian wines. This is in response to a growing trend around the world of moving to boxed wines for environmental reasons.

Boxed wines are not new, they've been around for more than three decades. They are popular in Australia and France, but they have failed to catch on in the United States. With consumers and businesses thinking more about their carbon footprints, it may not be long before boxed wine is more common in America.

Those heavy glass bottles used to transport wine is difficult to ship because it is delicate and does not make the best use of space. According to the Times, a 750 mL bottle of wine generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon dioxide during its journey from California to New York. A 3 liter box, by comparison, uses half the amount of carbon dioxide of a 750 mL bottle. If 97% of wine consumed in the United States was switched to box packaging, two million tons of carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced each year, the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road.

There are some other benefits associated with boxed wines. For example, if you have a hard time finishing a bottle of wine (you lightweight) boxes keep wine fresh for about four weeks longer than a bottle.

Some California wine makers are beginning to embrace the boxed wine movement. Hopefully Italy's seal of approval will make this eco-friendly option more palatable in the U.S.

To read the full New York Times story on boxed wine, click HERE.

How Much to Solar Power Your Home?

If you've been thinking about making changes to your home to make it more energy efficient and eco-friendly, you may have considered installing solar panels on your roof. It is a convenient place to put the panels and it is currently wasted space.

The most difficult aspect of planning a project like this is estimating the possible costs. A new website might make this part a little easier.

RoofRay is a great website that combines Google Maps with solar panel estimating formulas. Once you are on the site, find your property on the Google Maps window. Highlight the area of the roof you plan to cover with solar panels. Input the slope and angle of your roof. RoofRay will give you a rough estimate of the installation costs and potential energy generation based on your plans.

To check it out, click HERE.

Big Box Stores Use Big Roofs for Energy

Its an emotional struggle each time you visit a big box store. You know they pose a threat to local businesses, they sell products made in sweat shops, they treat their employees badly and destroy acres of land with huge impervious structures. The problem is, they do it all while being convenient and cheap.

Apparently the retailers know your inner conflict and they are trying to reconcile their evil deeds by installing solar panels on their giant roofs. The New York Times published an article this week that documents this growing trend of national retailers using renewable energy to save money while attracting "green minded" individuals.

Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Whole Foods and Safeway have initiated programs aimed at taking advantage of a renewable energy tax credit that may expire December 31st. So far, less than 10% of the stores' locations have installed the solar panels but they may continue the program if Congress renews the renewable energy tax credit this year.

Big box stores are generally the biggest users of energy in many small communities. Their roofs provide ample space to offset that energy use. According to the Times' article, if Wal-Mart installed solar panels on all of their stores, including their Sam's stores, the result would roughly equal 23 square miles of solar panels, or an area the size of Manhattan.

The solar panels can provide 10-40% of each store's electricity needs. This is dependent on weather conditions and the store's demands. Unfortunately, solar power is still more expensive than coal or natural gas. According to an energy expert quoted in the Times' piece, a kilowatt hour of coal costs 6 cents, a kilowatt hour of natural gas costs 9 cents and a kilowatt hour of solar energy costs 25 cents.

There are many ways to bring down the cost of solar energy so that it is competitive with non-renewable sources. The most important way is by encouraging these large-scale commercial installations that increase competition among solar panel manufacturers which drives down prices and increases innovation. The federal government can encourage large-scale commercial installations by providing appropriate tax incentives that reduce barriers to initiating solar panel programs. The federal government's best existing incentive, the Renewable Energy Tax Credit, has not yet been renewed this year.

To read the full New York Times article, click HERE.

New Program Makes Your Computer Green

I have written in the past about some of the ways you can make your computer run more efficiently so it uses less electricity. This is one of the most important things we can do to reduce our energy usage. There are over a billion computers in use throughout the world and each is responsible for its own 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This new, small program makes is easier to manage your computer's energy usage and actually shows the financial and environmental savings.

The program is a free download called Edison by the software maker Verdiem. After downloading and installing it, you are given a set of options like setting peak computer usage times. By choosing to save more or save less, you can set your computer to go to sleep in 10 minutes or 45 minutes. All of this is done in a colorful intuitive interface that makes the whole experience simple.

The best feature of Edison is the ability to see exactly how much money and carbon emissions you will save over the course of the year by making certain adjustments. Its surprising just how significant the changes can be by just making a few tweaks in your settings.

To download Edison from Microsoft, click HERE.

Why Are Oil Company Profits So High?

ExxonMobile tried to quietly release their profits from the last quarter of 2008. This is probably because they made the biggest profit of any company in American history with $11.68 billion. Shell came in second with $11.56 billion. BP made $9.5 billion, Chevron made $5.98 billion and ConocoPhillips made $5.44 billion.

At a time when oil and gas prices are hitting record highs, many Americans see the record profits posted by oil companies and wonder whether they're being robbed. The reality is that the explanation of gas prices and oil profits are so confusing that economists and even Congress has struggled to understand it.

There is one aspect of oil company profits that is simple and something we should all be concerned about. For many decades, the federal government has given billions in tax credits and subsidies to the oil industry to help them in times of financial struggle. In addition, several tax loopholes exist that allow oil companies to reduce their taxable revenues while they fail to fulfill their responsibilities.

The idea behind all of these credits, subsidies and breaks was to reduce the financial risk involved in developing new oil wells and refineries. Unfortunately, the oil companies have not developed new domestic energy sources and have instead used their huge profits to buy back billions of dollars worth of their own stock to drive up its value (Read HERE). They are also using their profits to line the pockets of executives. In 2006, the retiring CEO of ExxonMobile, Lee Raymond, was granted a $400 million retirement package (Read HERE). In 2007, Exxon's sitting CEO, Rex Tillerson, made $29.3 million in salary, bonus and stock payouts (Read HERE).

Americans should be frustrated that while they are paying record prices at the pump and gas taxes, billions in federal tax money is being given away to oil companies making record profits. The tax money isn't being spent as it was intended and is instead helping to make rich executives even richer. Ideally, these tax credits, subsidies and breaks should be tied to some expectation that must be fulfilled. Look at it this way, could you claim the child tax credit if you didn't have any kids?

Currently, John McCain is offering even more tax breaks for oil companies (read HERE). It seems that somehow the oil industry has convinced McCain that they are the victims in the energy crisis. Barack Obama is suggesting a windfall profits tax that would tax the billions made by oil companies and return that money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 rebate (read HERE).

$96.2 Billion: Cost to Clean Existing Nuke Waste

The United States Department of Energy recently conducted a study that found the cost of cleaning up existing supplies of nuclear energy waste will cost $96.2 billion. The current plan to clean-up our nuclear waste is to dump it in Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In their study, the Department of Energy assumed no new nuclear power plants will be built in the U.S. and that the Yucca Mountain plan will move forward.

There are two flaws in the Energy Department's study. First, President Bush and John McCain are pushing for the development of more nuclear power plants. In fact, McCain's energy plan proposes construction of 45 new nuclear power reactors by 2030. Second, the Yucca Mountain plan has been long delayed and very controversial. Barack Obama would like to examine alternatives to dumping in Yucca Mountain and is only open to very moderate expansion of nuclear reactors, if necessary.

Back in 2001, the Energy Department conducted a similar study and it found that the cost of cleaning up our nuclear waste by dumping it in Yucca Mountain would be $57.5 billion. As a result of this more recent study, they've had to revise their estimates up by $38.7 billion. The agency says $16 billion of that increase is due to inflation. The rest of the increase is due to additional, unforeseen nuclear waste that has resulted from allowing current reactors to operate longer than expected.

Oil Pay for Protesting House Members

Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are currently involved in a standoff with the House Democratic Leadership over offshore oil drilling. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has ordered the House begin its August recess without considering a proposal to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. In protest, Republican representatives have stayed in Washington and continue to hold their own debate on the issue while everyone else returns to their Districts.

If you are wondering what it costs to keep a politician in Washington to participate in a highly publicized PR stunt, here is a chart of the oil campaign contributions received by each of the representatives involved in the protest. The chart was put together by John Nelson using Open Secrets.

Republican House Member	2006	2008
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland	$0	$0
Rep. John Boehner	$65,000	$0
Rep. Adam Putnam	$0	$20,000
Rep. Roy Blunt	$87,300	$98,900
Rep. Louie Gohmert	$76,700	$29,850
Rep. Tom Price	$0	$0
Rep. Mike Pence	$30,000	$0
Rep. John Shadegg	$21,775	$22,000
Rep. Ted Poe	$43,450	$24,200
Rep. John Campbell	$0	$0
Rep. Duncan Hunter	$0	$0
Rep. John Shimkus	$27,850	$31,750
Rep. Bill Sali	$10,500	$32,500
Rep. Charlie Dent	$0	$0
Rep. John Carter	$29,350	$18,550
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter	$0	$0
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito	$66,700	$47,250
Rep. Michael Burgess	$32,446	$53,700
Rep. Tim Walberg	$0	$13,050
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry	$0	$0
Rep. Virginia Foxx	$16,750	$7,500
Rep. Eric Cantor	$0	$44,600
Rep. Steve King	$0	$12,500
Rep. Pete Hoekstra	$0	$0
Rep. Mike Conaway	$94,500	$113,500
Rep. Dan Lungren	$15,000	$11,000
Rep. Don Manzullo	$0	$0
Rep. Adrian Smith	$0	$0
Rep. Devin Nunes	$24,000	$29,000
Rep. Michael Turner	$0	$0
Rep. Paul Broun	Didn't Run	$13,250
Rep. Greg Walden	$27,200	$0
Rep. Tom Cole	$86,096	$51,100
Rep. Kevin Brady	$43,500	$38,500
Rep. Wally Herger	$9,000	$0
Rep. Kevin McCarthy	$38,550	$16,000
Rep. John Boozman	$0	$4,300
Rep. Jon Porter	$50,562	$39,800
Rep. Henry Brown	$11,000	$15,550
Rep. Mary Fallin	$169,950	$79,950
Rep. Mike Rogers (MI)	$31,700	$23,950
Rep. Rob Bishop	$8,500	$5,100
Rep. Brian Bilbray	$20,300	$8,550
Rep. Todd Platts	$5,000	$4,000
Rep. Joe Wilson	$0	$0
Rep. Chip Pickering	$43,659	$43,300
Rep. Gus Bilirakis	$0	$17,100
Rep. John Culberson	$53,700	$18,657
Total Oil and Gas Contributions	$1,240,038	$988,957

Like McCain, Obama Flips on Drilling

On June 16th of this year, John McCain made a speech where he outlined a whole new energy strategy that included a complete reversal from his previous stance on offshore oil drilling. For over a decade, McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling, but new polls showing a vast majority of American supporting increased domestic drilling changed his mind.

After making his energy shift, McCain began attacking Barack Obama for not supporting a similar policy. Several negative political advertisements by McCain questioned whether Obama was ready to lead because he didn't support offshore oil drilling. Obama's view was that drilling for oil would take 10 years and that America needed to transition away from oil now so in 10 years we'd rely on renewable sources of energy to power our lives. However, the negative ads took their toll on Obama's poll numbers, so he made a slight shift in the same direction as McCain.

The first change in Obama's energy stance is his request for the release of 70 million barrels of oil from America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Releasing light crude from the Reserve has lowered gas prices within two weeks in the past. Obama has said he would accept drilling for oil off the U.S. coast only if it is part of a larger compromise that included increased funding for alternative energy sources and a windfall profits tax on oil companies that would be used to help individual taxpayers.

In addition to releasing oil from the Reserve and supporting domestic oil drilling, Obama is also pledging support for expansion of hybrid vehicle manufacturing. His goal is to put 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. Plug-in hybrids get up to 150 miles per gallon. Consumers who buy these hybrids will qualify for a $7,000 tax credit. Automakers could receive $4 billion in loans and tax credits to help them retool their factories to build fuel efficient vehicles. Obama has also proposed conservation efforts that would decrease U.S. electricity demand by 15% and new energy development that would replace 10% of our energy sources with renewables.

After McCain Flip-Flop, Oil Money Floods Campaign

I recently received a comment on my "Obama vs. McCain on the Environment" post that corrected one of my facts. In the post, dated February 13th, I said that John McCain did not support further drilling for oil in the United States, specifically in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Of course since that time, McCain has flipped on the issue of domestic oil drilling, even in ANWR.

As I thought about correcting my old post, I wondered what McCain had to gain in completely changing his mind on such a controversial issue. Apparently, he had lots of campaign contributions to gain.

The Washington Post is reporting today that during the last half of June, campaign contributions to McCain from oil executives rose from $208,000 in May to $1.1 million in June. The majority of that money rolled in when McCain began supporting additional domestic oil production on June 16.

Immediately after giving his speech on the 16th supporting additional oil production, McCain met with oil company executives and attended a fund raiser at the San Antonio Country Club. That event yielded $1.3 million in campaign contributions to McCain.

The Washington Post interviewed David Donnelly, the national campaign director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group that conducted an analysis of McCain's oil industry contributions. In his interview, Donnelly said, "This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money."

To read the full Post article, go HERE.

Oil Spill in New Orleans

While President Bush and Senator McCain continue pressuring Congress and the country to feed our oil addiction by supporting their ten year plan to drill for oil in the risky Gulf of Mexico and the sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the reality of oil drilling hits home once again.

No one will forget the terrible oil spills that occurred on two coasts at the same time back in November of 2007. California was spending millions of dollars cleaning oil off of the feather of birds and out of the ocean water after a shipped leaked 58,000 gallons of fuel. Their fishing industry was hit hard by the spill. At the same time, the Black Sea was truly black when an injured Chinese tanker dumped oil into its waters.

Now Mississippi and Louisiana are suffering from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has shut down the Mississippi River and seriously damaged valuable wetlands. About 419,000 gallons of oil were dumped into the Gulf waters right at the mouth of the Mississippi River when a barge and a tanker collided on Wednesday. The result of the oil spill was the halting of supertankers, grain barges and other ships that use the River to deliver goods farther north. Currently, over 800 workers are using containment booms, skimmers and other equipment to try to scrub the oil out of the sea water.

Billionaire Oil Barron Has Renewable Energy Plan

If you are fed-up with waiting for the government to solve our current energy crisis, maybe you should read the Pickens Plan for America's energy challenges. Billionaire T. Boone Pickens made his fortune on oil and now he is betting that fortune on a future of renewable energy projects and natural gas.

Today the entrepreneur and philanthropist unveiled his plan to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil by more than one-third and shift our energy sources to renewables and natural gas. He decided to confront the issue of oil reliance when he saw the destructive toll gas prices were having on our economy.

Currently, Pickens' efforts are directed at developing more wind energy. He says he cannot believe America is not better utilizing wind energy. "Wind power is ... clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy," Pickens told CNN in May. He will spend $2 billion on a new wind energy farm in Pampa, Texas as part of a multi-billion dollar plan to build the largest wind farm in the world there.

Wind energy farms along the nation's "wind corridor" (the area stretching from Canada to West Texas) could produce 20% of America's electricity. More importantly, the energy produced by wind could fuel power plants that are currently burning natural gas for fuel. Freeing up the natural gas will allow it to be used by consumers in vehicles.

It is very simple and cheap to outfit vehicles so they can run natural gas. A $100 mechanism is added to the car, which allows it to burn both regular and natural gas. Because the United States currently accesses natural gas from the ground and has large deposits of natural gas available, Pickens sees us saving $230 billion a year by following his plan.

Pickens is a lifelong Republican but he is not endorsing a Presidential candidate this year. He says he will work with whoever is elected. If you'd like to read his plan and get more information about the proposal, visit his website HERE.

Disappointing Poll: U.S. Chooses Drilling Over Conservation

The Pew Research Center has released the results of a new poll which shows that gasoline prices are beginning to undermine Americans' support for energy conservation. Worse, the poll shows that more Americans now believe that oil exploration and new power plant construction is a higher priority than protecting the environment. 

Five months ago, only 35% of Americans believed the top energy priority was energy exploration, drilling and power plant construction. Now, 47% of Americans believe that is the top priority. Meanwhile, those who believe energy conservation is most important declined by 10%. Surprisingly, 60% of Americans say increasing energy supplies is more important than protecting the environment with more people now saying we should drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

These changes in opinion are not limited to one political philosophy. Liberals, independents, women and young people have all begun changing their minds with regard to drilling for new energy. 

The most frustrating part of this poll is that it appears Americans are being misled by politicians looking for expedient ways to increase their own poll numbers. I have seen both the Bush Administration and John McCain attempt to take advantage of consumer anxiety by making promises about lower oil prices through oil drilling. Of course they are leaving out important details in their speeches.

What these politicans aren't telling us is that conservation is the only solution to our energy crisis we can apply today. Oil exploration and drilling will take over 10 years and will not solve our fossil fuel addiction. In fact, oil corporations may drill for oil in the U.S., but they are under no obligation to sell the oil here and will likely choose growing nations like China and India where price is no object. Through conservation, we can avoid the expense of building more energy infrastructure and we can re-route that money to developing new energy technologies and more fue