Amy Klobuchar does something STUPID… again!
March 11th, 2009
Whatever is she thinking? Amy Klobuchar, Senator Amy Klobuchar, did it again… a STUPID STUPID move… she’s been stumping for coal gasification (STUPID), transmission (STUPID), and now she thinks burning garbage is a good thing (WAY STUPID).
She signed on to a letter to Senators Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski to include garbage incineration in the definition of “renewable.”
Oh, pleeeeeeea-ze…
Waste-to-energy can provide double brenefits: it diminishes waste reserves and produces clean energy while offsetting greenhouse gas emissions.
…
Through the combustion of waste that would have otherwise been landfilled, these facilities decrease our reliance on fossil-fuel fired electric generation.
So, once more with feeling, rattle Amy’s cage and let her know that GARBAGE IS NOT RENEWABLE! BURNING GARBAGE IS NOT CLEAN ENERGY! As the MPCA says, BURNING GARBAGE IS MAKING POISON!
or
Washington, DC
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186Metro Office
1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
MISO’s big transmission plans
March 9th, 2009
Another little birdie said that the MISO meeting to update everyone sitting in queue about their transmission plans was a bust… the good news, from my perspective, is that they don’t seem to be able to promise transmission for wind. Projects are added and drooled over, but there’s always problems and it’s not going anywhere, the same problems exist throughout:
At the meeting, they identified about 7 projects that might be able to make the transmission work from Group 6, one of which is Bent Tree I in Freeborn County. But there’s bad news — it will only require 7 new 345 lines to make these projects work, including a double-circuited 345kV line 345 double-circuit from Lakefield Jct. to Adams, extending the “Split Rock to Lakefield” as I expected since that 2002 SW MN 345kV project. Essentially, they’re doing #9 of the WRAO Report.
So, to recap, they’re talking 7 – 345kV lines, some 765kV lines, they’re talking a SECOND double circuit of the Brookings CapX 2020 line… building massive transmission TO THE EAST COAST!
AAAAAAAAAGH!
When will they understand what NYISO and ISO-NE understand — that there is renewable energy there too — where’s the market? And tranmission is no way to do this, there are better ways. Applies to the Chicago market too:
Michigan looks offshore for energy
By GEORGE WEEKS
Syndicated ColumnistMichigan was the Arsenal of Democracy in the mid-20th century. Gov. Jennifer Granholm strives to make it an arsenal of alternative energy in the early 21st century.
“She wants Michigan to be the leader in every sector of energy,” Stanley “Skip” Pruss, director of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth, said in a phone interview Friday.
Pruss, former deputy director of the Department of Environmental Quality and an assistant attorney general under Granholm and legendary Frank Kelley, said Michigan could be a “game changer” in wind energy.
He revealed that Wisconsin Gov. James Doyle seeks “a collaborative effort” on generating energy from offshore windmills in Lake Michigan.
Offshore wind has more punch than onshore wind. And the deeper the water, the more the punch, so near-shore is not as potent as far out.
Last week, an extensive examination of the offshore issue in the Traverse City Record-Eagle had this alert: “Nothing’s imminent, but state and environmental regulators are preparing for the possibility that utility developers may want to harness wind power from Lake Michigan and other big lakes.”
Subsequently, seriousness of such offshore preparations was underscored at assorted state forums, including the Michigan Wind Conference in Detroit, where Jennifer Alvarado, executive director of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association, sought to “showcase Michigan’s potential in being a major player when it comes to wind energy.”
Xcel’s 2008 SEC 10-K
March 7th, 2009
Haven’t a clue why I couldn’t find it before, but here it is, and here’s the good news:
Xcel Minnesota peak demand is down… way down…
Xcel’s 2008 10-K filed February 23, 2009
From their 10-k, p. 10:
Capacity and Demand
Uninterrupted system peak demand for the NSP System’s electric utility for each of the last three years and the forecast for 2009, assuming normal weather, is listed below.System Peak Demand (in MW)
2006 2007 2008 2009 Forecast
9,859 9,427 8,697 9,662The peak demand for the NSP System typically occurs in the summer. The 2008 system peak demand for the NSP System occurred on July 29, 2008.
So please explain — if peak demand drops 7%, nearly 8%, what’s their basis for thinking it will increase over 1,000MW next year?
Sen. Harry Reid’s Transmission Bill
March 5th, 2009
He says goodbye to Yucca Mountain, and in with a Federal Transmission bill — what a deal…
Yes, it’s that bad. Call everyone…
Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act as introduced
Here’s the DRAFT bill:
CALL EVERYONE AND SAY “NO!”
One thing it would do that’s wrong-headed: If it’s claimed to be “for renewable” it’s presumed “needed.” What’s wrong with that?
1) Rebuttable Presumption is a shift of the burden of proof. On what basis? DUE PROCESS RED FLAGS!
2) What about a commitment to any percentage of renewable changes whether it is needed or not, what about a percentage changes impacts on environment, property values or EMF or or or or or. Electrons don’t care, cannot be ID’d as to generation, and impacts on environment and ratepayers remains the same no matter what’s on it.
3) FERC mandates that transmission be open to all comers — it pretends that it’s “for renewables” when FERC says transmission servces whoever is there, ready to interconnect.
4) What about need:
Nothing about “renewable” claim changes whether it is needed, whether there is a better way, whether those MW could be accomplished through conservation, through load shifting.
Nothing about “renewable” claim address whether renewables could be produced close to load, whether taking nonrenewables off near renewable site or in other locations would make room for renewables (maybe demonstrate this by taking a map with generation and xmsn on it, and highlight coal plants existing and in queue and how many MW there — you’ll see that’s where the transmission is planned)
5) Unreasonably favors that 70%, non-renewable, contrary to policy
6) RES – use of electricity is down, we don’t need MORE, instead we need to shift the percentages to a higher percentage of renewables.
(Maybe offer rebuttable presumption for renewable replacing coal generation and interconnecting at that site? HA!)
Tell them “NO, OVER MY DEAD POLAR BEAR!”
… starting with that dreadful Sen. Amy Klobuchar:
Washington, DC
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186
Metro Office
1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW… puppies!
March 4th, 2009
Ruger’s doggy brothers and sisters are growing up!
This update just in!
