Go Back   Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion > Outside The Lines > The Leprechaun Lounge
Front Page Forums REGISTER NOW! Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read
Live Chat Game Arcade Varsity Club

Welcome to IrishEnvy.com! Founded in September of 2004, IrishEnvy.com has grown into the premiere web portal on the Internet for mature and intelligent Notre Dame Fighting Irish athletics discussion!

You are currently viewing our boards as a Guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our FREE online community, you will have access to post and respond to discussions, communicate privately with other members, and access many other special features.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely FREE, so join the IrishEnvy.com Community today! If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact support and we will assist you.

If you already have an IrishEnvy.com membership account but forgot the username and/or password, use our password recovery tool to access your account information.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2017, 02:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Legacy
Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,545
Cash: 4,928,934.05
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 4,928,934.05
Donate
Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!



Environmental Issues

A while back, a poster commented that oil spill cleanups are the responsibility of the owner/operator in an exchange on DAPL. That’s true but brings up some interesting points and holes in the laws.

The Oil Pollution Act (1990) states that parties that release hazardous materials and oil into the environment are responsible not only for the cost of cleaning up the release, but also for restoring any "injuries" to natural resources that result. The Clean Water Act (1972) and the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1984) have rules under which it can punish companies for oil spills. The EPA and the affected state’s Environmental department monitor the cleanup, which is done by the owners/operators/construction. Since the parties responsible for the hazardous material release are usually in another state or multiple states than those affected, the lawsuit to determine amount and responsible parties for liability ends up in the federal courts, and decisions on fines and restoration costs average four years. State, federal and private owners sue the responsible parties. Polluters aren't always eager to accept liability, and accurately assessing natural resource and environmental damages and damage to private owners’ properties can take time. Easements for building the pipelines are granted by the state with many in sparsely populated areas, but some near residences, across farms/ranches as well as those easements under waterways like streams and rivers.

Additionally, the Oil Pollution Act (1990) established the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for removal of waste, reimbursements to state and federal for damage assessments, and uncompensated claims under certain conditions. The Trust Fund is funded by an excise tax per barrel on crude oil as well as the fines that are incurred by those responsible for the spills. The tax started at five cents per barrel, then eight cents, and is nine cents per barrel in 2017. Any person who suffers losses or corporation which incurs cleanup costs can be reimbursed from this fund, meeting criteria for reimbursement with documentation for extent of losses.

Pipeline safety regulations fall under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Office of Pipeline Safety, under the Department of Transportation. The National Safety Board found that PHMSA had weak state and federal oversight and the agency has said it had "very few tools to work with". That has resulted in taxpayers and consumers paying the costs of inspection and many of the damages. PHMSA was toothless in mandating oil companies to ensure safety inspections, proactive replacement of aging pipelines,and the extent of replacement of lines when spills occur of the 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. Some pipelines are over thirty-five years old. Congress finally acted in 2016 in a bipartisan consensus, enacting the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act, which has addressed some of these issues and resultant costs to taxpayers, though the oil industry fought against these regulations on responsibilities. The PIPES Act was a response to a third pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River and impacting nearby farms and ranches as well as loss of drinking water sources to communities. Those private citizens will have to disclose the hazardous waste spill should they ever wish to sell their properties.

Pipeline spills are frequent and range from slow seeping to large spills. As an example, the DAPL has had three spills since oil began flowing through it after the President’s executive order, mandating the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit. (List of Pipeline Spills) Spills are a matter of when not if. Pipelines have oil detection systems for monitoring changes in flows that may indicate a spill, but are effective in identifying spills 17% of the time, according to one report. Often pipeline oil spills happen in sparsely populated areas impacting natural resources and may be identified by citizens noticing changes in their drinking water or noxious smells that they explore for the source on their land and notify authorities. One of the Yellowstone River oil spills, totally 50,000 gallons of oil, occurred in winter with ice preventing much of the cleanup until spring at which time some oil had already gone downstream. The pipeline had not been buried six feet as it was supposed to be, but four feet and exposed to River’s increasing flows, which resulted in total disconnections of the pipes. The spill was identified when citizens noticed authorities of a smell in their drinking water, who notified the oil companies. Exxon’s cleanup costs were $135 million, which was taken from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Montana residents and the state had had it. The PIPES Act passed Congress soon after, being green-lighted by the Republican majorities.

One huge hole in all the Acts and regulations is oil transport from Canadian tar sands fields and resultant oil spills. In Arkansas (the Mayflower Spill), an oil pipeline burst in a residential neighborhood pouring into the streets, releasing over 3000 barrels of oil with 12000 barrels of oil and water recovered. Twenty-two homes had to be evacuated.The source was a 20 inch pipeline in the Pegasus Line with a capacity of 95,000 barrels per day, buried 24 inches deep with a distance of 18 miles between shutoff isolation valves. The oil found its way out of the residential community into a stream that fed a tributary that flowed into Lake Conway. A judge ruled against the Arkansas private landowners and in favor of Exxon, saying he had no choice among two outcomes and could not rule otherwise, because of the Congressional laws. TransCanadian owned the tar sands oil with Exxon only the operator. Those Canadian companies are exempt from U.S. laws and regulations. In order to transport tar sands chemicals are added to thin it out, including the carcinogen benzene. The resultant oil is called dilbit (diluted bitumen) and does not qualify under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for reimbursement. Exxon, who does not pay the excise tax on transport, qualified for reimbursement for cleanup. Congress has resisted including dilbit to the Oil Pollution Act. (Photos/Videos of Mayflower Spill). The Keystone Pipeline was built for transport of those tar sand oil with capacity of 700,000 barrels a day to Texas refineries, who ship it overseas. The liability excise tax of eight cents a barrel is exempt. So, Exxon does not have to pay the tax, can draw from the Liability Fund for cleanups, and has no legal liabilities for the dilbit spills.

These are the Acts and regulations that protect citizens, states and the natural resources with their imperfections and which dictate oil companies responsibility for oil pipeline spills and their results.

(This environmental issue and the discussion of a number of others in other threads seemed to merit a separate thread, which is open to other comments. Many environmental postings have made in the Trump Presidency thread and may have been lost in all the discussions.)

Last edited by Legacy; 06-04-2017 at 02:29 PM..
Legacy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old 06-04-2017, 03:32 PM   #2 (permalink)
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
 
Old Man Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan & Wheeling, West Virginia
Posts: 6,004
Cash: 40,051,828,074.99
Bank: 2,648,655,513,475,589.00
Total Bankroll: 2,648,695,565,303,664.00
Donate
Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!




I'm not sure what is targeted to go into this thread and what is not. I'll probably violate the OPs intention with the following, and if so apologize.

The Oil Spill issue brought to mind the issues of industrial spills and leaks and contamination in general. Having been a teacher, and a government volunteer as chairman of the Kalamazoo Country Solid Waste Planning Commission, and as a brother to family members working on the "dirty real world" side of industrial processes (Bayer, Columbia Southern, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Chemicals, ORMET, Barium Reduction, etc), I've noticed a couple of things perhaps of interest and even use in discussions such as these.

1). You can object to these laws and governmental organizations which the US has set up to attempt to mitigate chemical assaults on ourselves and our environment, but nothing is clearer than the THREAT of some punishment under these laws makes businesses warier and more prone to spend some money trying to obey them. Even if one imagined that all owners and CEOs cared about the environment, major breakdowns within the heavy chemicals and mass extraction industries would happen anyway. Human beings get really cavalier on the job --- even if they KNOW that if something bad happened they'd get fired, they zone out on that anyway. If there are laws with teeth in them, this irresponsible human character trait is at least moderated somewhat. Push comes down from the Top to not have this happen. Admittedly, you cannot build a system which is human fool proof (other than, if you're lucky, a nuclear power plant, and look at the overkill strengths and back-ups you have to go to there.) So spills and other pollutions are going to happen. The bigger the system the more likely the spill will be catastrophic to something. The more transport necessary, the more likely again, at several points in the system. Choosing to live in a heavy-industrial heavy-on-transport economy says we are accepting that bad accidents are going to happen, and that some people and some things are going to be killed by them. ... and other than having an obsessive genius at every human work station, the best we can do is to create incentives-with-bite to shake up the alertness and discipline of ordinary workers. Any argument that government regulations need not exist, and need not be so punishing, can only be made by persons deciding that the loss of life at some portion is acceptable to feed the lifestyle we desire.

2). Bitching however is still rampant. My tenure on the KCSWMPC taught me some lessons there. It was interesting to see who the people were who were objecting to perceived threats and who were not. The people who were not objecting to perceived threats were the people who felt that not building something like a landfill would cost them money --- either because they were "in the business" somehow, or wanting to reduce their waste disposal fees, so just felt that this didn't affect them. None of these people could be labeled "environmentalists" in any definition, and almost all could be labeled "personal-economy-oriented." There were no statements ever about values which involved broader based concerns.

The bitchers presented a mixed group. Some of these were easily labeled "environmentalists" and they made all sorts of "impractical" arguments which were viewed as economics-unfriendly. But there were others of a distinctly separate stripe. These were the NIMBYs ("Not-In-MY-Backyard") folks, who were, frankly indistinguishable from the people on the opposite side, except that THIS was THEIR backyard we're talking about.

What's the point? The "environmentalists" fight against things that they perceive are dangerous whether the fight involves their personal backyard or not. The "non-environmentalists" fight on one side or the other depending on how they see themselves directly affected. I've seen this dichotomy play out everywhere across the decision-making spectrum (when I have had enough experience and data to make such an analysis.) I do think that there might be two radically different kinds of citizens: persons who generally at least try to act in accordance with caring about things and people well beyond themselves, and those that care about people (and some things) but only if they "know" them. It seems that this dichotomy splits the discussions (and the country) "effectively" into nearly inoperative halves, from which one side eventually "wins" nearly every time because there is more money and organization behind it.

One last thing: whereas the so-called "environmental" side does win some skirmishes, it inexorably loses. This is because on almost every issue, you only have to lose once (a Park, a forest, an ecology, a neighborhood, a life) and that war is over forever. Does that mean we should be more "conservative" in creating our protections (in any English-language use of that word which is actually helpful in this discussion) or is it more "democratic" to say that we've all decided to live in this "free" country, so let The Devil Take the Hindmost; it is acceptable loss "for what we get out of it."
Old Man Mike is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 10:37 AM   #3 (permalink)
Legacy
Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,545
Cash: 4,928,934.05
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 4,928,934.05
Donate
Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!



Mike,

Any insights to share? Kalamazoo River oil spill
Quote:
The Kalamazoo River oil spill, also described as The Dilbit Disaster,[1] occurred in July 2010 when a pipeline operated by Enbridge (Line 6B) burst and flowed into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. A six-foot break in the pipeline resulted in one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history (the largest was the 1991 spill near Grand Rapids, Minnesota). The pipeline carries diluted bitumen (dilbit), a heavy crude oil from Canada's Athabasca oil sands to the United States. Following the spill, the volatile hydrocarbon diluents evaporated, leaving the heavier bitumen to sink in the water column. Thirty-five miles of the Kalamazoo River were closed for clean-up until June 2012, when portions of the river were re-opened. On March 14, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered Enbridge to return to dredge portions of the river to remove submerged oil and oil-contaminated sediment.
Dilbit is also highly corrosive in addition to containing toxins and carcinogens.

Kalamazoo River oil spill timeline after 6 years, billion-plus dollars spent (MLive)

NTSB report: Enbridge, federal regulators missed numerous opportunities to prevent or lessen impact of Kalamazoo River oil spill (MLive)

Last edited by Legacy; 06-05-2017 at 10:40 AM..
Legacy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 01:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
Old Man Mike
Fast as Lightning!
 
Old Man Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan & Wheeling, West Virginia
Posts: 6,004
Cash: 40,051,828,074.99
Bank: 2,648,655,513,475,589.00
Total Bankroll: 2,648,695,565,303,664.00
Donate
Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!Old Man Mike should be giving advice to Kelly!




Legacy: I know a little about this issue, as it occurred ten years after I retired, so others will be more expert. Although the pipeline burst occurred in the Kalamazoo River basin, it did not occur in Kalamazoo, but closer to our sister cities of Battle Creek and Marshall to the East. The pipeline itself passes well south of Kalamazoo on its way from Canada across Michigan to the Chicago area. It goes right through Niles and close to South Bend.

The pipeline moves Canadian Tar Sand heavy crude which is ultimately headed towards the Gulf Coast refineries in Texas. That is, of course, why anybody outside of Michigan cares about this anymore, as it is a lesson about transporting Tar Sands crude across long distances at the time when the big political shouting match goes on about the Keystone pipeline. This is particularly relevant since the same company, Enbridge Energy is I think their name, is the major player in both cases.

Some salient points might be:
1). The spill went on much longer than necessary. The plant monitors (way back in Edmonton) noticed that something was going wrong, but did not report it --- they are on record as stating that other possibilities (than a break) seemed possible;
2). This reaction was odd since the company already knew (apparently from some sensor data five years or so earlier) that there was a flaw in that line just where the ultimate rupture occurred. Again a rationalization occurred and it was decided NOT to dig out that area and inspect this in those intervening years;
3). The clean-up was $1.2 billion, plus direct fines for other negligence --- over twenty environmental/technological violations were in the legal records, and the local waterway was closed for, I believe, about five years --- some significant time;
4). Tar Sand heavy crude is the nastiest of the oil resource materials to deal with if you get a spill --- it is an extra-dense form of crude, significant portions of which will sink in water rather than float, making clean-up a nightmare if you cannot simply go in and dredge everything out and haul the macro-tons of contaminated soil away (wherever "away" is).

Persons saying that there is no real concern that pipelines will rupture and cause serious troubles are simply lying because they want what they want, and are willing to roll the dice that if anything happens it will not affect their personal lives. ... because it's clear that pipelines DO rupture, and things get damaged, sometimes rather badly. Of course no CEO or similar power person will live anywhere near these things.

For the Michigan line, every foot of it is now scheduled for replacement before this happens again.
Old Man Mike is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2017, 05:00 AM   #5 (permalink)
Legacy
Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,545
Cash: 4,928,934.05
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 4,928,934.05
Donate
Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Man Mike View Post
Legacy: I know a little about this issue, as it occurred ten years after I retired, so others will be more expert. Although the pipeline burst occurred in the Kalamazoo River basin, it did not occur in Kalamazoo, but closer to our sister cities of Battle Creek and Marshall to the East. The pipeline itself passes well south of Kalamazoo on its way from Canada across Michigan to the Chicago area. It goes right through Niles and close to South Bend.

The pipeline moves Canadian Tar Sand heavy crude which is ultimately headed towards the Gulf Coast refineries in Texas. That is, of course, why anybody outside of Michigan cares about this anymore, as it is a lesson about transporting Tar Sands crude across long distances at the time when the big political shouting match goes on about the Keystone pipeline. This is particularly relevant since the same company, Enbridge Energy is I think their name, is the major player in both cases.

Some salient points might be:
1). The spill went on much longer than necessary. The plant monitors (way back in Edmonton) noticed that something was going wrong, but did not report it --- they are on record as stating that other possibilities (than a break) seemed possible;
2). This reaction was odd since the company already knew (apparently from some sensor data five years or so earlier) that there was a flaw in that line just where the ultimate rupture occurred. Again a rationalization occurred and it was decided NOT to dig out that area and inspect this in those intervening years;
3). The clean-up was $1.2 billion, plus direct fines for other negligence --- over twenty environmental/technological violations were in the legal records, and the local waterway was closed for, I believe, about five years --- some significant time;
4). Tar Sand heavy crude is the nastiest of the oil resource materials to deal with if you get a spill --- it is an extra-dense form of crude, significant portions of which will sink in water rather than float, making clean-up a nightmare if you cannot simply go in and dredge everything out and haul the macro-tons of contaminated soil away (wherever "away" is).

Persons saying that there is no real concern that pipelines will rupture and cause serious troubles are simply lying because they want what they want, and are willing to roll the dice that if anything happens it will not affect their personal lives. ... because it's clear that pipelines DO rupture, and things get damaged, sometimes rather badly. Of course no CEO or similar power person will live anywhere near these things.

For the Michigan line, every foot of it is now scheduled for replacement before this happens again.
Thanks, Mike.

Focusing on Enbridge, for the moment. Enbridge is one of the largest pipeline companies in the world, with 3,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S. (17,150 miles of pipelines in North America). The vast majority move oil from the oil sands producers in Western Canada to the U.S. Enbridge transports nearly 70% of U.S. bound Canadian oil exports. Enbridge is based in Calgary. Enbridge is now the largest North American energy infrastructure company with a combined enterprise value of approximately $124 billion. So they have very deep pockets.

Enbridge's lines in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota date back to the 1960s - almost sixty years old. As noted, they carry the corrosive heavy crude/dilbit oil in pipes not originally meant for transporting that type of oil. All need replacing and are at various stages of approval or construction. The one in your area - Line 5 - also runs along the bottom of Lake Michigan near the Mackinac Bridge. The Supreme Court gave private corporations the right to eminent domain in 2005 - as long as it can demonstrate overall economic gain (Kelo v New London).

Enbridge has used eminent domain to seize swaths of private lands for its pipelines.
Property rights and Enbridge: A pipeline story

Spills are regular occurences. According to Enbridge’s data, in twelve years, between 1999 and 2010, across all of the company’s operations there were 804 spills that released 161,475 barrels (approximately 18.95 million litres, or 5 million gallons) of hydrocarbons into the environment. One example of a recent spill (Jan. 30, 2017) 600,000 gallons (14,285 barrels) of oil spewed out of Enbridge's Seaway Pipeline in Blue Ridge, Texas, the second spill since the pipeline opened for business in mid-2016. Seaway also carries mostly tar sands extracted from Alberta.

Enbridge, in addition to seizing land by eminent domain, does not have to carry pollution liability insurance for oil pipeline spills, having successfully lobbied state legislatures. Enbridge recently won a court case over landholders that lived within 350 yards of its pipelines who wanted Enbridge to buy a $25 million Environmental Impairment Liability Policy. The landowners maintained that, should there be an oil spill, the pressure inside the pipe would result in the release of more than 2 million gallons of oil per hour until the pipeline was closed down.

Enbridge also recently partnered with Marathon Oil in buying a $1.5 billion stake in a pipeline system that includes the Dakota Access Pipeline.

A Corporate Profile of Enbridge

Last edited by Legacy; 06-07-2017 at 05:18 AM..
Legacy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 02:55 AM   #6 (permalink)
Legacy
Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,545
Cash: 4,928,934.05
Bank: 0.00
Total Bankroll: 4,928,934.05
Donate
Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!Legacy should be giving advice to Kelly!



China's dominance in renewable energy

As the U.S. under Trump withdraws from the Climate Change Accord and support of solar power, the Chinese have made huge investments in alternative energy with an eye to being the world's supplier of alternative energies.

China cementing global dominance of renewable energy and technology as well as investing in overseas energy production. (Guardian)

Quote:
It now owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms and the largest wind-turbine manufacturer

China is cementing its global dominance of renewable energy and supporting technologies, aggressively investing in them both at home and around the globe, leaving countries including the US, UK and Australia at risk of missing the growing market.

A report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (Ieefa) found China’s dominance in renewables is rapidly spreading overseas, with the country accelerating its foreign investment in renewable energy and supporting technologies.

Analysing Chinese foreign investments over US$1bn, Ieefa found 13 in 2016, worth a combined $32bn. That represented a 60% jump over similar investments in 2015.

China to generate a quarter of electricity from wind power by 2030

China was already widely recognised as the largest investor in domestic renewable energy, investing $102bn in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance – more than twice that invested domestically by the US and about five times that of the UK.

The big foreign investments in 2016 included two in Australia, two in Germany and two in Brazil, as well as deals in Chile, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan and Vietnam.

- In Australia, China Light & Power struck a $1.1bn deal, buying power from wind and solar farms.
- In Chile, Tianqi Lithium spent $2.5bn acquiring a 25% stake of a lithium miner and processor. (Lithium is essential for lithium batteries used in electric vehicles and home battery storage.)
- In Germany, Beijing Enterprises Holdings Ltd spend $1.6bn on a Waste to Energy development.

The report noted the global expansion cements China’s total domination of renewable energy growth globally. China now owned:

Five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms
The largest wind-turbine manufacturer
The world’s largest lithium ion manufacturer
The world’s largest electricity utility
The Chinese would invest in established foreign electrical grids in the trans-Pacific sphere as well as building developing countries's grids.
Australia blocks Chinese firm from stake in electricity grid (BBC)

China builds world's biggest solar farm in journey to become green superpower (Guardian)

Quote:
“The development of clean energy is very important if we are to keep the promises made in the Paris agreement,” Xie Xiaoping, the chairman of Huanghe Hydropower Development, the state-run company behind the park, said during an interview at its headquarters in Xining, the provincial capital.
China sees this as a huge investment that will bear fruit in the global market and seeks to expand their market share as well as resolving their air pollution. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.

Quote:
Hove said Beijing saw a “huge investment opportunity” in exporting low-carbon technology such as high speed rail, solar power or electric vehicles to developing nations in Africa, south Asia and Latin America. “This is a 20-30 year mission to develop [clean] markets,” he said.
Quote:
Xie, the Huanghe chairman, said his company was now making its first steps into Africa with solar and hydro projects under development in Ethiopia.

“We are actively going global,” he said, warning that the developing world could not copy the west’s dirty development model without bringing about “the destruction of the world”.

Geall said one indication of whether China was prepared to become the world’s premier climate leader would be if it was seen helping to finance more low-carbon projects beyond its own borders – such as a huge Chinese-built solar park in Pakistan.

“You’d hope to start seeing more of those sorts of projects around the world being financed … rather than [China being] just a source of cheap finance for dirty energy projects.”
Quote:
Xie, who hosted the Chinese president, scoffed at Trump’s suggestion that climate change was a Chinese hoax and said such claims would do nothing to dampen his country’s enthusiasm for a low-carbon future.

“Even if President Trump doesn’t care about the climate, that’s America’s point of view,” he said. “The Chinese government will carry out and fulfil its international commitments as they always have done in the past, and as they are doing now in order to try to tackle climate change.

Xie concluded: “I don’t care what Mr Trump says – I don’t understand it and I don’t care about it. I think what he says is nonsense.”
Scientists, what do they know!

Why China Is Dominating the Solar Industry
(Scientific American)

Quote:
China’s new dominance of nearly all aspects of solar use and manufacturing—markets that are predicted to expand by 13 percent a year, according to the report—came through a “unique, complex and interdependent set of circumstances” that is not likely to be repeated.

But if the United States innovates, cuts costs and nurtures newer technologies, it might emerge as the world’s second largest solar panel manufacturer by 2020, the report concludes.
Quote:
China tried to reduce the subsidy this year by setting a deadline for ending it, but that spurred another surge in domestic buying. “China put in 20 gigawatts in the first half of this year. The entire U.S. capacity is around 31 GW. The Chinese market appears enormous,” said Ronen.
Quote:
Moreover, China’s plan for the global growth of the solar market is still a work in progress. In October, Liu Zhenya, former chairman of China’s state-owned power company, State Grid Corp., came to the United Nations to shed more light on his nation’s evolving solar ambitions, which he said are part of a plan aimed at organizing a global power grid that could transmit 80 percent renewable energy by 2050.

He calls his idea the Global Energy Interconnection. His speech invited U.N. support for a new international group to plan and build the grid. It’s called the Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organization (GEIDCO), and China has named Liu its chairman. He ticked off the reasons for a global grid that would transmit solar, wind and hydroelectric-generated power from places on Earth where they are abundant to major population centers, where they are often not.
He gave three reasons for his new mission. Expanding energy demands will exhaust coal, oil and natural gas supplies over the next 110 years. Environmental pollution from fossil fuels will exacerbate serious pollution and health problems. And world leaders need a mechanism to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by half to prevent a potential 4-degree-Celsius rise in the Earth’s average temperature, a possibility that Liu called “seriously threatening human survival.”

His grid’s development would take shape in three phases. First, Liu explained, individual nations would redesign their own power electric grids. He noted that China’s effort is already underway, generating 140 GW of wind power and 70 GW of solar power, “more than that of any country of the world.” By completing a network of long-distance, high-voltage direct-current power lines to move renewable power from the north to the south and from the east to the west, China could finish its new grid by 2025, he predicted.

The second phase, Liu described, would be an international effort to build regional grids that would be able to transmit substantially more power across national borders in Northeast and Southeast Asia, between Africa and Eurasia, and between nations in both North and South America. The third phase would build power lines and undersea cables that would connect the regional grids. The upshot would create what he called a “win-win situation” by generating clean electricity in places like Africa and Central America that are among the richest when it comes to sunshine, and selling the clean energy to major cities that have the biggest need for it.

The process would also bring more energy and energy-generating income to poorer nations, to help them develop. “In the Americas, we will speed up the development of Canada’s hydropower and clean energy in southwestern and central U.S. and northern Mexico to be delivered to load [demand] centers in [the] East and West coasts of North America,” he said.

There would be plenty of work for “all global players” to coordinate the effort, to share and innovate new technology, and to develop global standards and rules for cooperation, Liu promised. He closed his U.N. presentation with a glimpse of a future world where a combination of renewable energy, a network of high-voltage direct-current transmission lines and “smart grid” operating systems can serve the planet the way the human “blood-vascular system” serves the human body.
Quote:
Just how much harmony China’s GEIDCO proposal might generate remains to be seen, but a U.N. press release noted that the meeting was attended by representatives of 70 organizations, including government organizations, businesses and universities. The U.S. delegation included people from DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory and Stanford University. During his visit to the United States, Liu also met separately with representatives of the Electric Power Research Institute, which serves American utilities.
Coal production fell by the most on record last year as power producers switched to natural gas as well as wind and solar power.

(fromBP Plc's Statistical Review of World Energy for 66 years.)

Last edited by Legacy; 06-14-2017 at 03:37 AM..
Legacy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 04:43 AM   #7 (permalink)
brick4956
Blue Chip Recruit
 
brick4956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 437
Cash: 117,584.06
Bank: 420,706.14
Total Bankroll: 538,290.20
Donate
brick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the communitybrick4956 is a leader in the community

In my state of North Carolina the company chemours was discharging chemical water containing an unregulated chemical that hasn't had any testing done on its effects on humans it's called GenX some believe it is similar to the compound c8 which is believed to be cancerous. The chemical in question cannot be removed through any type of treatment process as it's very water soluble and the size of 6 atoms this company was told to never discharge any type of water by the EPA.
brick4956 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




Copyright © 2004 - 2013 IrishEnvy.com. All Rights Reserved. All material on this Notre Dame Fighting Irish discussion forum is strictly for entertainment purposes only. This site and any pages within are in no way affiliated with the University of Notre Dame, the Big East Conference or the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Any images, copyrights, or trademarks used on this site are used under the "Fair Use Provision" of the Copyright Act for purposes of comment, criticism, and news reporting. SEO by vBSEO 3.7.4

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39