SolarTexans.com

The rush to build power plants slows as worries grow over global warming, building costs and transportation.
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — America’s headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems.

Coal, touted as cheap and plentiful, has been a cornerstone of President Bush’s plans to meet America’s energy needs with dozens of new power plants. Burned in about 600 facilities, coal produces more than half of the nation’s electricity.

But urgent questions are emerging about a fuel once thought to be the most reliable of all. Utilities are confronting rising costs and a lack of transportation routes from coal fields to generators, opposition from state regulators and environmental groups, and uncertainty over climate-change policies in Washington.

“Coal projects need more regulatory certainty before any new ones are going to get built in the near future,” said David Eskelsen, a spokesman for PacifiCorp, which serves more than 1.6 million customers in six Western states. “The current situation does make utility planning very challenging.”

Just a few weeks ago, PacifiCorp dropped plans for two coal-fired power plants in Utah, citing the many unknowns in assessing the costs and objections on global warming grounds from a major customer: the city of Los Angeles. PacifiCorp said in filings with the state of Utah that it hadn’t found a substitute for production that it will need to bring online in 2012 and 2014.

The setbacks have energy regulators jittery about the prospects for meeting America’s ever-increasing hunger for electricity. They say that any delays in building new capacity — coal-fired or otherwise — add pressure to an already strained electricity infrastructure, raising the prospect of shortages or sharply higher prices.

Energy planners say coal needs to be in the mix because the other mainstay fuels for generating electricity also have serious drawbacks. Natural gas has proved volatile in both price and supply. Nuclear power plants are costly and take much longer to build — and the problem of radioactive-waste disposal remains unsolved.

“We’re very close to the edge,” said Rick Sergel, who keeps a close eye on the grid as chief executive of the quasi-governmental North American Electric Reliability Corp. “We operate under tight conditions more often than ever. We need action in the next year or two to start on the path to having enough electricity 10 years from now.”

This fall, regulators in Kansas and Washington state denied applications for coal plant permits because of concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.

After Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said in October that he wasn’t a “fan” of coal, utilities postponed plans to build coal plants in Tampa and Orlando.

Xcel Energy has told Colorado officials that it plans to close two coal plants and add 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar power, in addition to a new natural-gas plant. The company wants to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 10% by 2015.

In Nevada, Sierra Pacific Resources delayed construction of a coal plant and moved up the schedule for a natural-gas-powered plant instead.

The Tennessee Valley Authority decided in August to add a $2.5-billion unit to a nuclear power plant rather than construct a new coal facility — the other main option — because of the uncertain economics.

Altogether, 53 coal-fired plants were canceled or delayed in 2007, according to Global Energy Decisions, a private consulting firm that tracks power plants for the Department of Energy.

In the near term, coal clearly will remain a part of the American energy picture. Even as the postponements and terminations pile up, plans for new coal-fired power plants continue to advance in New Mexico, Mississippi and Indiana.

Although TXU Energy canceled eight coal-fired power plants it had proposed in Texas, the utility is going ahead with three others.

Last month, an energy industry consortium announced plans to build a government-subsidized power plant in southern Illinois to demonstrate low-emissions coal technology. But the ballooning cost of the FutureGen plant — now projected to be about $1.8 billion, nearly double its original estimated price tag — has drawn criticism from the Department of Energy, which could delay or kill the project by withholding funds.

The growing push in Washington to do something about global warming is a major factor that affects the cost of burning chunks of solid carbon, by far the dirtiest way to manufacture power.

A recent study by the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute projects that coal power will cost more than nuclear power or natural gas by 2030 if coal’s carbon dioxide problem is solved the way most experts envision. Still unproven, that method involves separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream before it heads out of the stacks, collecting the vapors and then storing them underground. That would also require a new network of pipelines to move carbon dioxide from the power plant to a geologically sound site.

By Charles A. Breeding

Recall the opening scene in the blockbuster movie, Forrest Gump – a feather floating in the wind, up and down and all around with no control or sense of direction whatsoever. I would argue that many business people feel that awful feeling of being powerless, being blown around by the latest change of which they have no power, influence or sense of control. Helpless. It is not a good feeling.

Later in the movie, as Forrest’s son is about to leave for his first day of school, he asks his father a thought-provoking question: “Is life like a feather (I’m powerless over many events which affect me) or do I have destiny (I can set goals, and purposefully move toward them)?” Forrest’s answer: “ I guess it’s just a little bit of both, son.” Isn’t it?

Stuff Happens, says the cleaned-up version of the famous bumper sticker. Yet, 10% of success is what happens to you –90% of success is what you DO with what happens to you. In other words, do you respond or react? Do you quit, or get up and try again? Are you a golf club thrower, or do you recoup quickly? Do you let your feelings of resentment or anger get the best of you, or are you as cool as a cucumber in a crisis? Do you say things that you later regret? Or, when attacked, respond with calmly spoken, kind words, and perhaps make the other person regret their attack?

IQ or EQ?
Emotional Intelligence, sometimes abbreviated EI or EQ, in a takeoff of IQ, has become a hot management leadership consulting area in the last two years. Emotional skills have replaced experience and IQ or intelligence as the most important markers of personal success. EI is rooted in the belief that success is only partly explained by IQ, or one’s intellect. More important is how one behaves in response to events, and how well they interact with people.

Credit for popularizing EI concepts generally goes to Daniel Goleman, chief executive of Emotional Intelligence Services in Massachusetts and a former Harvard educator. Goleman reached the best seller list in 1995 with “Emotional Intelligence.”
The foundation of EI, says Goleman, is that “we are being judged by a different yardstick – not just by how smart we are, or by our training and expertise, but also by how well we handle ourselves and each other.”

And I would argue that the tests are how well we handle ourselves in a crisis, in conflict, in disagreement, and in dealing with problems. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Kinder and Gentler
Goleman describes the results of a U.S. Navy study of its best commanding officers: “…the greatest difference between average and superior leaders was in their emotional style. The more effective leaders were more positive and outgoing, more emotionally expressive and dramatic, warmer and more sociable (including smiling more), friendlier and more democratic, more cooperative, more likable and ‘fun to be with,’ more appreciative and trustful, and even gentler than those who were merely average.” I guess that Dale Carnegie had much of it right over sixty years ago.

Improving EI is all about improving our relationships with others. Unlike IQ, however, emotional intelligence is a learned competence. Corporations, which spend small fortunes identifying, nurturing, and training their future leaders, have begun to zero in on emotional intelligence as a key component of management success.

So what else comprises EI? Goleman’s research shows that emotional intelligence — which includes such things as self-awareness, motivation, empathy/sensitivity, listening, self-regulation, accepting responsibility and accountability, and adeptness in relationships — may be up to 25 times as potent as IQ in determining workplace success.

An Example
John is a rising executive, who at 42 years old, has punched his ticket all the way to Executive Vice President at a utility. He’s extremely bright having graduated from one of the best graduate schools for MBA’s, and is a well above-average presenter and public speaker.

Recently, he was provided data about how his peers, subordinates and colleagues viewed him from an assessment instrument called “360 Feedback.” The results: John is seen as not a good listener; he takes delegated or empowered authority back in meetings when things aren’t going his way; he is seen as somewhat unapproachable because of his quick temper and growing reputation for shooting messengers; he is viewed as having problems giving feedback other than criticism of which he excels.

John’s first reaction to the feedback data is disbelief, followed by the same stages as facing pending, imminent death: denial, blaming, anger, and more. Yet, as the expert coaching intervention proceeds over time, he comes to give some credit of how he is perceived by others. “Perception IS reality,” he grudgingly admits.

Because of John’s eventual acceptance of this information, he has won 25% of the battle: awareness. He also has the desire to improve, the next 25% of the eventual victory. Many business leaders aren’t even aware of the impact that their style has on the respect, trust, commitment-level and motivation of their direct reports.

What to Do
One of the most critically important ways to begin to strengthen your emotional intelligence is to learn to accept full and complete responsibility — offering no excuses. This trait is not age-dependent or experience-driven, unfortunately. No passing the buck. Full accountability regardless of “extenuating circumstances.” Perhaps this is one reason that managers command the salaries that they do – they are responsible for what their team does, or fails to do, period.

Make a New Year resolution TODAY to work on your emotional intelligence. Leadership development, executive coaching, and even some classroom training (beyond the one-day seminar wonder) can and will have an effect on the critical interpersonal skills so important to emotional intelligence. If you are in the “fast-track” and want to stay there, success requires a solid emotional intelligence that often requires coaching to fully realize and achieve.

Link this article to your favorite Social Network! Thanks!These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

« Two Personality Powers for Motivating Others

The Arlington Home and Garden Show runs Jan 4th-6th.  We are going to have a 20×20 booth with all 4 sides exposed.  This will be the first opportunity of 2008 to get your sales.  Everybody participating should be able to get the ten sales(most will get much more)needed to make it to Sales Manager.  Remember those who are Sales Managers are given free sales from the Home Office when a customer signs a CitizenRe agreement at the main website.

There will also not be a lower cost to work a show of this size.  I am offering this show for half the cost, $100 for 14 hours.  Consider it a Christmas present.  Right now we have 7 signed to work the event and still need 8 more.  Please let me know quickly so I can get you the information.

Have a Happy and Safe New Year’s celebration.
–
Louis Petrik
Senior Sales Director
(512) 569-5016

Green Energy the Next Frontier

Great piece by Declan Butler in Nature on the new venture capitalism in Silicon Valley. Green energy, folks. California gold. Butler reports how the venture-capital industry in the US spent $2.6 billion on clean-energy technologies in the first three-quarters of this year. Up from $1.8 billion in 2006, and $533 million in 2005. Google joined the game last week, committing millions more to solar, wind and geothermal, seeking a technology patch to make renewables cheaper than coal. A few weeks earlier, Al Gore’s London-based Generation Investment Management partnered with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in Menlo Park—the green-energy investors that nurtured Amazon, Google and Genentech—to fund global climate solutions.

For the fast-moving entrepreneurs of the [Silicon] [V]alley… the next frontier is the roughly US$6-trillion energy market, where the dinosaurs of power-generation utilities have traditionally invested a pittance in research and development. “Venture capital is exactly what we need to try new things outside the bounds of what the traditional energy companies think is worth doing,” says Vinod Khosla, a veteran entrepreneur who co-founded Sun Microsystems and now heads Khosla Ventures in Menlo Park, one of the most prominent clean-energy venture-capital firms. “There is almost no technology risk-taking in any of the energy companies.” Khosla predicts that within five years there will be a green form of electricity that is cheaper than coal, and cleaner fuels that are cheaper than oil.

Butler also notes that although the US lags far behind Europe’s leaders, Denmark and Germany, in renewables, its venture-capital investments in clean tech now more than double those in Europe.

California scooped $726.2 million of this year’s US clean-tech venture funding, followed by Massachusetts ($292.6 million) and Texas ($149.4 million). Almost $1 billion of US investment went abroad, including a $200-million investment in Brazil’s Brazilian Renewable Energy, which produces ethanol, and a $118-million investment in China’s Yingli Green Energy Holding Company, which makes photovoltaic solar systems.

This is the reason I refuse to surrender hope.

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones’ environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.

 If you have not made a call to your Senator to let them know how you feel about alternative energy pleasee pick up the phone on Monday.Let them know this is important. Let them know you are watching them.

Make your voice heard !!!!!!
———————————————————————-

    Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a 21st Century energy bill that would harness American ingenuity and put us on a path to cleaner, smarter new energy future.  This bill is a breakthrough on energy policy and would set the country firmly on a path to increasing clean energy, lowering energy demand, and reducing U.S. dependence on oil.

Unfortunately, this morning, a minority of Senators, led by coal and Big Oil supporters blocked forward progress on energy and the bill failed to reach the 60 vote hurdle.  Senators who blocked this bill, including Texan John Cornyn, delivered an early Christmas present to big oil and dirty coal and put a lump of coal in the stockings of the American people.

Voting FOR the clean energy bill: Reps. Green (Al), Hinojosa, Reyes, Edwards, Jackson Lee, Gonzalez, Rodriguez, Doggett, Cuellar, Johnson (Eddie Bernice)

Voting AGAINST the clean energy bill: Sen. Cornyn and Reps. Gohmert, Poe, Johnson (Sam), Hall, Hensarling, Barton, Culberson, Brady, McCaul, Conaway, Thornberry, Paul, Neugebauer, Smith, Lampson, Marchant, Burgess, Green (Gene), Carter, Sessions

Sen. Hutchison and Reps. Granger and Ortiz did not vote.

Americans should not tolerate leaders who are defending the status quo on energy.  At a time when oil prices are at more than $90/barrel, the public deserves a 21st century clean, green energy policy that saves money at the gas pump and on energy bills.

Please call your U.S. Representative and Senators and tell them how you feel about their vote. You can reach their offices by calling 202-224-3121.

Then let us know who you talked to and what they said by visiting our website:

http://environmenttexas.org/action/energy/clean-energy-call?id4=ES

We are particularly disappointed that despite overwhelming public support for renewable energy and demand for cars that get better gas mileage, that the Senate has missed this opportunity to enact a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and strengthen fuel economy standards. Both of these policies would substantially reduce global warming pollution while saving consumers money.

We hope the Senate will act again quickly (which they may do as early as Tuesday) to pass these critical energy policies and deliver a bright green holiday to America.

Sincerely,

Luke Metzger
Environment Texas Director
LukeM@environmenttexas.org
http://www.environmenttexas.org

Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement

Posted by David Roberts 02 Dec 2007

I’ve run into a lot of sentiment along the lines of this comment thread — harumphing about how weak and insufficient the impending energy bill is — and it seems crazy and wrongheaded to me.

I urge you to check out this post by Josh Dorner on the post-2000 history of energy bill negotiations. Remember what it’s been like.

Since I started at Grist, I’ve been writing about a Republican president and Congress trying over and over again to pass energy legislation focused on drilling, mining, and doling out subsidies. Their greed and overreach were such that they bungled it again and again, until the 2005 Energy Act, which was a slightly scaled down version of the same old thing.

That act was part and parcel of what energy policy has been in this country more or less since Ronald Reagan walked in the White House: a monomaniacal focus on extraction and supply coupled with generous corporate welfare.

In just over a year, Democrats, with a small majority in the House and a knife-edge margin in the Senate, have pulled together an energy bill that contains:

1. The first CAFE boost since 1975. Even if you don’t think CAFE is crucial energy policy (I don’t), it ain’t nothing, and it is of extraordinary symbolic significance. It’s going to be the headline.
2. A 15% Renewable Energy Standard — a clear statement of support for a new energy direction, echoing and amplifying state-level efforts.
3. Billions in subsidies for clean energy.
4. Boosted energy efficiency and green building standards.
5. Yes, yes, a massive, horrendous boost in biofuels, but even on that front there are environmental safeguards attached that were absent in early negotiations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Photo: speaker.gov.

The distance between this bill and where were were a year ago is remarkable. And it is a credit to the leadership.

If you’re determined to think that all politicians are craven simps, go ahead, but it’s hard for me to see what would count of evidence of boldness and commitment on Nancy Pelosi’s part if this doesn’t.

Don’t think she’s been tiptoeing around. Sen. Pete Domenici, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, is so pissed off at her he’s pulling out of the energy bill process. He’d gotten the impression that the RES (aka RPS) was off the table, but Pelosi’s pushed it back on. Says the irritated and possibly soon to be steamrolled Domenici:

RPS may not be the only deviation from the negotiated bill text, as the Speaker appears willing to take advantage of the lack of a formal conference committee process and institute other changes in the bill as she sees fit.

You’ll recall that when they were in control, Republican leadership regularly pulled procedural shenanigans that made this look like patty cakes. But still, Pelosi isn’t playing by Queensbury Rules. She’s throwing elbows.

It wasn’t just leading Republicans Pelosi had to outmaneuver. As this NYT story makes clear, she’s also gone head to head with Rep. John Dingell, one of the most powerful committee chairs in recent history, and pulled him in line:

Mr. Dingell said that all sides had compromised to get a good deal on the energy bill, and he took credit for safeguarding the interests of the auto industry. In a telephone interview, he praised Ms. Pelosi and said his disagreements with her had been useful.

…

Outside observers, however, said Mr. Dingell had capitulated after realizing he could not win, especially given high oil prices. “The speaker basically took him on and won,” said Dan Becker, an environmental consultant.

Pelosi’s been fighting hard and smart, and she’s done so out of what everyone who knows her describes as a genuine passion for renewable energy.

Please explain to me why the first reaction to this should be grumbling about how it’s not enough. What kind of political message does that send? What incentive does that give anyone to follow Pelosi out onto this limb?

You know what nobody likes? Nobody likes people who do nothing but judge and condemn and enforce in-group purity and piss on everyone’s shoes, including their friends’ shoes. Nobody wants to make any effort to please those people. Nobody even wants to get stuck in an elevator with them.

Of course this bill is not enough. Nothing will ever be enough, I guarantee you. But it’s a victory, and you know what people do like? People like winning. They like being on the winning team. They like winners. They want to hang around the winners, and act like them, and date them, and name drop them.

So please, take a moment for some strutting. Take strength from this victory, and give strength. Hand out some props for a job well done. Make politicians feel like there’s social and political capital to be gained by going green — if you do that, they’ll be back for more.

The arc of history is bending in our direction. Celebrate it. Tell everyone you know about it. Tell them about this:

Don’t Let Congress Give Away Our Future!

November 9, 2007The future of clean power is in the balance

Congress is about to pass an energy bill that will kill renewable energy development in this country!

Solar Nation hears that the vital 2007 Congressional Energy Bill is about to be compromised almost to death, with no provision for tax credits to help ordinary Americans take advantage of the benefits of solar energy.

We urgently need you, as a Solar Citizen, to contact your representative and senators as soon as possible, and ask them to put your concerns to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid before Congress gives away YOUR future.

Please click here now to learn more and TAKE ACTION!

This really hit home with me and I thought I would share it with the Ecos out there . Citizenre will be a big part of the shift that needs to happen in this country and every one of you will play a part in making the change. I know this has been a slow process but we are about to round the corner. Hang in there just a little longer and everything will soon come together .

Tim Padden
512-788-5281
Executive Sales Director
www.solardays.com
tim@solardays.com

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

Here is somebody to breakdown the odds for you .

Friday, October 19, 2007

Not surprisingly, Austin Energy – the US’s greenest utility – had a significant hand in the development of this admirable program.

Austin Energy is also leading Plug-In Partners, the national grass-roots movement to enlist support from cities, states, utilities and organizations for the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by obtaining pledges for fleet purchases, endorsements, rebate and incentive programs and citizen petition drives.

Mayor Wynn, his Council and his Task Force also deserve plaudits for setting standards the rest of the US would do itself proud to meet.

Austin leads way in energy efficiency; By 2015, code changes will reduce energy use by 65 percent in new homes
Kate Alexander, October 17, 2007 (Austin American-Statesman)

WHO
Austin, Texas, City Council (Mayor Will Wynn)

Austin, Texas: A little city big in New Energy.

WHAT
Austin’s leaders adopted efficiency standards for new homes as strict as any in the US.

WHEN
- The Council approved 4 rounds of building code changes by 2015, the 1st effective January 1, 2008.
- 1st round of improvements cost $1200 and return cost in 5 years.
- All improvement costs returned in 10 years.

Austin Energy Green Building Program 5 Star Rating residence

WHERE
Austin is Texas’ capital city. It is at the edge of the state’s southwest “hill country.” <More…>