Unsustainable Industrialized Urbanization

In Earth's past, mortality rates were significantly different from today, making larger families necessary for the unit's survival. Even just a century ago in this country, a significantly larger portion of our population lived off the land in rural areas. They lived in a way that was more sustainable, mostly due to the lower population volume. The chance for children to reach adulthood was mush slimmer compared to today, so parents tended to have more children to increase the odds of a family surviving to the next generation. A large family also meant that the work required to provide the resources for the family's survival could be spread across the family, with more children meaning that a farm could be sustained by a family, raising the crops and livestock required to feed the family. As populations became urbanized and lost that ability to provide for themselves and the independence it rewarded, we shifted to a reliance upon the industrialization of agriculture through fossil fuels. As we come to realize the limitations of those fossil fuels, we should also recognize that we could potentials see that urbanization as a risk to the modern urbanized lifestyle.

Overpopulation and Resource Consumption

I see overpopulation as one of the greatest environmental risks we deal with today. Problems like overuse of resources and pollution are direct results of that growth. Werner says that there are five main concepts in population growth and resource consumption that need to be addressed:

1. overpopulation is a leading environmental problem,
2. exponential population growth and development leads to faster depletion of resources,
3. population grows exponentially,
4. why population prediction is difficult,
5. population is not evenly distributed throughout the world.

As the population increases, the carrying capacity is stretched, requiring further growth to come with efficient use of resources and space, as well as reductions in waste and pollution. In terms of energy, wasteful countries like the US will require significant changes in how we live as the global population continues to increase. The Human Population Growth we experience comes with a price; limitations on our planet to support those increases. I believe that de-urbanization and de-industrialization can be a part of the solution to meeting that challenge, but education needs to be at the front, teaching people everywhere about environmental limitations and risks to our efforts to maintain civilization.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant: Highly Radioactive Water Leaks From Crippled Japanese Facility

Japan's crippled nuclear power plant leaked about 45 tons of highly radioactive water from a purification device over the weekend, its operator said, and some may have drained into the ocean.

The leak is a reminder of the difficulties facing Tokyo Electric Power Co. as it tries to meet its goal of bringing the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant to a cold shutdown by year's end.

A pool of radioactive water was discovered midday Sunday around a decontamination device, TEPCO said in a statement on its website. After the equipment was turned off, the leak appeared to stop. Later, workers found a crack in a concrete barrier leaking the contaminated water into a gutter that leads to the ocean.

TEPCO estimated about 300 liters leaked out before the crack was blocked with sandbags.

Officials were checking whether any water had reached the nearby ocean.

The leakage of radioactive water from the Fukushima plant into the Pacific Ocean in the weeks after the March 11 accident caused widespread concern that seafood in the coastal waters would be contaminated.

The pooled water around the purification device was measured Sunday at 16,000 bequerels per liter of cesium-134, and 29,000 bequerels per liter of cesium-137, TEPCO said. That's 270 times and 322 times higher, respectively, than government safety limits, according to the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center in Tokyo.

Cesium-137 is dangerous because it can last for decades in the environment, releasing cancer-causing radiation. The half-life of cesium-134 is about two years, while the half-life of cesium-137 is about 30 years.

TEPCO is using the purification devices to decontaminate water that has been cooling the reactors. Three of the plant's reactor cores mostly melted down when the March 11 tsunami knocked out the plant's cooling system.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant: Highly Radioactive Water Leaks From Crippled Japanese Facility

Further reading:

Fukushima Diary  
Fukushima Update | Tracking Japan's nuclear crisis
Fukushima news and articles

Helen Caldicott, MD | PHYSICIAN – AUTHOR – SPEAKER

Updates on Fukushima: | Fairewinds Associates, Inc, Arnie Gunderson

Nuclear Energy Storage vs Disposal

Nuclear waste can not be disposed of practically, so storage is the typical method. Instead of dealing with the waste, we simply bury it and hope someone in the future will find a practical way to neutralize it. So far, one of the best methods of storage is underground in abandoned salt mines. These deep geological repositories are dumping grounds for the dirty side of nuclear energy. The last thing this source needs is another reason that it's dangers don't outweigh the benefits. The hopes of salt mines is that the salt will eventually contract into the caverns carved out for storage and seal the radioactive waste. The salt will keep radioactive material from escaping, produces no significant radiation of it's own, and will also prevent outside elements from coming into contact with the waste. Considering the massive amount of damage that results from the rare failure above-ground, I am not convinced that storing that spent material below-ground is a long-term practical solution.

To me, the idea of burying nuclear waste at sea and creating a monument to it is beyond malignant. At best, the monument could be a giant golden trash can or toilet, as promoting disposal as good for the environment is more than a dangerous idea, and should meet significantly more resistance. Burial in salt mines is wishful thinking, that the salt will slowly contract and seal the waste, or that future generations will find ways to neutralize the waste. Either way, that waste is not something we can discard, and is a constant reminder of the impracticality of nuclear energy and the constant dangers it poses to the world. All of these waste storage methods are in no way disposal methods of any level of responsibility. If anything, it is an effort to simply kick the can down the road, while continuing business as usual. Unfortunately, our offspring will bear the burden of dealing with our problems...

The Salt Mine Solution - Miller-McCune
Photos: Leaking Nuclear Waste Fills Former Salt Mine
Nuclear waste repositories in salt mines: a new approach to ... - NCBI

Energy, Population Growth, and Transition

Along the lines of a massive energy crisis that comes after the peak in production, I believe imagine that localization would return, both in economic and social terms. I have been writing about this sort of situation for a few years now, seeing a change coming in the future. But that collapse can open the way to a rebirth. Our society has become accustomed to quick fixes and convenience without great concern for sources or environmental impacts. Population growth has been tied to energy availability, with a boom coming during the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The problem with that boom is that eventually a bust will follow, just as in economics. Since we know that we are past peak oil, we can also consider that we are beyond peak coal, and probably past peak natural gas. I believe that this is true as evident in the methods of mining and extraction used today. Strip-mining for coal creates massive devastation on the environment, leaving little more than wasteland behind, a far cry from early mining methods. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) for natural gas brings massive pollution and possibly geological instability to regions where this practice is active (increasing at a massive rate). Fracking also destroys many local water sources, leaving the environment incapable of sustaining life. If there resources were plentiful, would we be destroying the world trying to extract every last bit possible?

What we need is to proactively address this situation by reducing reliance upon those resources while we can, before a collapse of the availability of those resources brings our society to a grinding halt, as we saw in 1973 Oil Embargo (caused by economics related to oil producers' lack of faith after the end of the Gold Standard, rather than by a lack of supply). Reducing reliance upon foreign resources can being back independence if a similar situation occurs again. Without a transition to sustainable energy, we are oil addicts at the mercy of the suppliers.

Cost of Nonrenewable Energy Sources

Think about it this way; the costs of using nonrenewable energy sources are significantly more expensive, though the true costs are generally not realized until the resource becomes limited, usually before it becomes impractical. Unless we diversify energy sources now, when we hit the peak production of resources like oil, we will start to see increases in costs and reductions in availabilities, just as with Peak Oil. The reality is that we have likely passed the peak of oil discovery and it's usage continues to increase despite that decrease.

As production begins to decline, I am only surprised that we continue to find consumption increasing in the face of that stark reality. Some say we have recently passed that peak in production, which makes me think that we passed the peak in discovery a generation or two in the past. That realization makes me think we are long overdue to cease reliance upon oil as a sustainable energy source.

What Is Peak Oil?

Biomass Energy

 

  
Biomass is organic material that is often discarded as waste, byproducts of industry. This includes everything from paper to food waste to sawdust and grass clippings. These materials decompose naturally, though has potential energy stored that can be utilized. By burning biomass, we can use that energy to heat homes and offices. As biomass decomposes, it releases methane naturally. We can capture that gas in landfills and use it to supplement methane extracted from the ground. We can do similar things with manure produced on large farms, turning that waste into energy to reduce overall waste and and to reduce reliance upon extracted nonrenewable resources.

Biomass is matter usually thought of as garbage. Some of it is just stuff lying around -- dead trees, tree branches, yard clippings, left-over crops, wood chips (like in the picture to the right), and bark and sawdust from lumber mills. It can even include used tires and livestock manure.

Your trash, paper products that can't be recycled into other paper products, and other household waste are normally sent to the dump. Your trash contains some types of biomass that can be reused. Recycling biomass for fuel and other uses cuts down on the need for "landfills" to hold garbage.

This stuff nobody seems to want can be used to produce electricity, heat, compost material or fuels. Composting material is decayed plant or food products mixed together in a compost pile and spread to help plants grow.

The Energy Story - Chapter 10: Biomass Energy

Inexpensive DIY Solar Power

We all know that outfitting a house with solar panels is not cheap right now. Harnessing enough sun to be able to live completely off-grid costs many thousands of dollars, up to many tens of thousands depending on how much electricity is needed. But do we really need to go from 0% to 100% clean energy in one go? That's not usually the way things are done; we usually do incremental changes. The idealist will say that it's not fast enough (and might be right), but the realist will say that the mainstream has more chances of going for it if it's not too radical and expensive, and that the power of numbers is hard to deny. So the question is: Do we really need to go 100% solar at once? What is the least you could pay and still end up with enough solar juice to run some things around the house? The Off-Grid weblog answers that question.
Update: How to Make Inexpensive DIY Home-Built Solar Panels with Damaged Solar Cells from EbayFor $600, you could get yourself enough solar power each week (about 1KWh) to:

run a 20-inch tv for 20 hours, a portable stereo for 100 hours, a laptop computer for 40 hours, or a 12-watt compact-fluorescent light bulb for 80 hours.
The 800-watt inverter (with a 2,000-watt surge capacity) will run a small vacuum cleaner, a drill or a small drill press, a sander, a jigsaw or small band saw, but not a large circular saw. It will handle many toasters and coffee makers, but not all. A blender would be child's play for this inverter, a microwave an impossibility. A hair dryer on low, yes; on high, forget it.

Here's what the "$600 kit" consists of:

One Uni-Solar 32-watt amorphous-silicon PV module, 12 volts: $180.00
One Morningstar 6-amp charge controller, 12 volts: $40.00
Two Deka 92 amp-hour sealed batteries, 12 volts: ($130.00 each) $260.00
One Aims 800-watt modified sine wave inverter, 12 volts: $65.00
TOTAL: $545.00
This leaves you with $55 for wire, battery cables, mounting hardware, fuses between components, and the miscellaneous odds and ends that are always needed for any project of moderate complexity.

Most of these can probably be found online at some of the alternative energy stores we've covered in the past.

But the beauty is that once you've go the "starter" solar system, it is relatively easy to expand it as your needs or wallet grow.

With the exception of the inverter, this system can be easily expanded. Any number of similar modules can be wired together in parallel, so long as the modules are of the same wattage. The 6-amp charge controller can manage up to three 32-watt modules, and extra charge controllers can be wired into the system, in parallel, as your lust for power begins to swell.
Batteries, of course, are always happy to see their numbers multiply.
But alas, the inverter is what it is. It cannot be connected to another inverter to provide more power (though more expensive models can be), nor can it be configured to operate at a higher input voltage, should you ever get ambitious and change the system voltage to 24 or 48 volts. On the other hand, at $65, does it really matter? A slightly-used 800-watt AC power source that can draw power right off the battery is a handy accessory any vehicle would be proud to have tucked away next to the spare tire.
So, while you're saving up to buy the deluxe 4000-watt pure sine-wave inverter with battery charging capabilities, enjoy the little $600 starter system that got your foot in the solar-energy door, and try to imagine where it all might lead.

This project is Do-It-Yourself only if you know what you are doing, and as usual when electricity is involved, a qualified electrician should approve your setup before you power it on.

Inexpensive DIY Solar Power - The $600 Kit : TreeHugger

Free Energy vs Energy Industry Profits

Converting solar to electric energy is not the complicated part, it is changing the focus of the energy industry as a whole. With so much focus and corporate profit on maintaining the current fossil fuel-based energy system, change needs to be localized, as does the reduction on those fossil fuels. In electric energy, transmission is the greatest loss of energy in the process. Creating vast solar arrays in regions when the sun is constant does capture and convert a great deal of energy into electricity for use, but being nowhere near the point of use makes it a highly inefficient solution, just as coal plants are today, wasting much of the energy produced in transporting it where it will be used. Localizing production of solar energy is one highly efficient way to capture that energy and utilize it right at the point of use. Storage systems are still a necessity if that energy is not put to use immediately upon conversion, so batteries or similar devices are still a necessity.

Other supplemental systems that take advantage of electromagnetic currents of the planet are another option for localized energy conversion into a form we can use anywhere, without the need of massive, inefficient power plants. John Bedini developed his monopole device to do just that, reduce reliance upon inefficient sources and work toward a new era of inexpensive energy. Further back, Nikola Tesla experimented in capturing and converting energy without relying on inefficient sources that degraded the environment. Changing the way that people use and capture energy is the greatest hurdle, but that is easier than forcing the energy industry to move toward sustainable solutions. Free energy is not something that big oil or coal companies are willing to invest in, and they have a history of using the government's monopoly on force to silence these innovations, simply to avoid losing profits.

First Steps Toward Localized Sustainability

The first steps are the hardest. Moving away from using non-renewable resources is a difficult prospect when generations have become more and more reliant upon fossil fuels than the previous. It is like an addiction. The first step is admitting there is a problem. We have acknowledged that we need to move away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source, but global consumption continues to increase. It is like there is a fear of what will happen if one part of our culture cuts the cord on fossil fuels while another increases it's consumption to make up for it. Do all countries need to make the move together, all at once? I think that it comes down to an issue of localization. Each region needs to address it's energy requirements and usage independently, while working with the global community to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, and the resulting pollution. Coastal areas can take advantage of tidal energy. Hot and sunny areas can take better advantage of solar energy. Some areas have great geothermal potential, while others can utilize wind energy. All of these sources can help supplement, and then replace, burning fossil fuels to create electric energy. We have to take advantage of what nature provides us with to make changes that we can rely upon, while working toward conservation efforts to reduce pollution and restore our environment to a level that can sustain our population and the rest of the species on the planet.

Oil Extraction - Not in My Backyard

 

ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is the northeast region of Alaska, one of the most remote and undisturbed areas on the continent. The oil that is being extracted is not the "low-hanging fruit" that we have in the gulf or other areas. It is similar to shale oil in that it requires much more energy input for extraction and refinement into a form that can be readily used as a fuel source. Like hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the potential environmental damage is more significant as well. I was lucky enough to travel through NW Canada and Alaska last year and see how beautiful and untouched the region south of ANWAR is. I can not imagine a justification to do more damage to the area in an effort to feed the ever-increasing demand for petroleum.

Alaska Oil - Anwar Oil Field - ANWAR Oil Drilling Ban - Map

The numerous difficulties in extracting and transporting the crude oil from ANWAR is only the first of many issues in the face of justifying the effort. The fault is not on those willing to drill, but on those willing to consume the resource. If there is reduced demand, production will not need to increase to meet those needs. As long as consumers can avoid thinking of the damage done, creating a disconnect between the process and the end result at the fuel pump simply propagates the problem.

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - US news - Environment ...

Or maybe we should just buy into the hype and fear? Is the damage to the environment, even one that most people will never see, worth reducing the price of fuel, just so that we don't have to kick the habit quite yet? What happens when there is no oil reserve left, but we're still addicted to the crude?

It is up to consumers to make a change, not the legislature. By allowing our representatives to continue to work for big business agendas instead of the needs of the People. As long as our government is bought and paid for by Big Oil, we can expect our natural preserved lands to be violated and sacrificed to the almighty dollar.

Transition Towards Sustainability

One thing to consider about how the usage of energy sources affects our lives is what is a necessity in life and what is an attribute of modern, unnecessary convenience? Along with working toward sustainable energy usage, there should also be some consideration of what our needs in life actually are. Do we really need to live at the point of high technology, or can we survive in harmony with our environment, but living a more simple life.

One effort around the world is the Transition Movement. The original Transition Network in the UK worked toward localizing sustainable efforts to reduce energy consumption, pollution, and waste. The Transition US movement joins localized groups around the world working independently toward common goals. I have experienced modern technology, a fast-paced life, and the rewards of working in modern industries, but find myself thinking that focusing on life's basic necessities is a higher priority in my book that buying the latest tech toy or new car. One reason that we have such issues with pollution and energy consumption is that we are taking in the ideas marketed to us that we need to have things that are not necessary in our survival.

Transition is a movement to prioritize our needs in life and reduce our impact on our environment. Together with separate movements like Zeitgeist and Collapse Network, with similar goals, more and more people are not only recognizing the need to make positive changes, but making those changes in local communities. Some groups and individuals focus on environmental impact, others focus on changing public policies and law, but movements and organizations like these are helping to bring sustainability to our world before we run the tank dry.

Spirits for the Environment, Energy from Waste

 

Whiskey in the Car-O?

OK, for the most part, the distilling process is pretty much environmentally unfriendly. The spirits industry comes in for a serious beating with Gin, tequila, and rum being the worst for the environment. The problem is that the distillation process requires loads of energy. American bourbons are aged in virgin-oak barrels that are used only once, most of those barrels end up being reused by other liquor makers. And while some of those liquor makers may produce single malts, think of the energy involved in distilling the liquor and transporting it. In terms of distillation, vodka requires more energy and water than most spirits. Now, it seems that the Speyside distilleries byproducts will fuel a local biomass energy plan.

Ironically, fuel cells are some of the more promising technologies to be used as portable power for cars.  So it may turn out one day that distilleries, breweries, and other industries which unload nutrient-rich waste water, might also produce the fuel to power your car.  The politics surrounding this will be entertaining.  Will there be restrictions for cars driven across borders powered by alcohol waste by states that already severely restrict importing alcohol across borders, like Utah and Texas? The whiskey itself can’t be used in your gas tank (yet). There appear to be no limitations to transporting E85 gasoline, which is ethanol (alcohol) based fuel produced from corn. However, why waste food in the form of corn to run your car and still generate carbon dioxide, when you can alternatively make whiskey and use the waste to power your car? And the whiskey also limits greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Seems like an obvious choice. 

Fortunately, there is no drilling required to get to the whiskey.  Therefore, a ‘spill’ at the whiskey distillery would not result in such environmental, economic, or political catastrophes that BP and the Gulf Coast are now enduring.  But imagine the social unrest should there be a leak at the distillery - the horror, the horror!

I'm thrilled to see articles supporting green energy that don't include taking swings at life's pleasures. 

The £50m Rothes project is the latest bioenergy venture from the Scotch whisky industry, but it is believed to be the first to provide electricity for public use. A bioenergy plant at Scotland’s largest distillery in Fife is close to completion. The project by Diageo will provide 98% of the thermal steam and 80% of the electrical power used at the Cameronbridge distillery. And last year, scientists at Napier University announced they had developed a method of producing biofuel from the by-products of the whisky distilling process which could power cars and even aircraft. The new fuel, they said, could be available at petrol pumps within a few years.

I'll drink to that! Biomass fuels from what was at one time wasted byproducts is a great idea.

 

Whiskey to Energy Project in Scotland Gets the Green Light for Construction

The by-products of the distilling process – called draff, are used grains and pot ale (residue from copper stills) – will power the plant. The new power plant will recycle the draff into electricity, by burning it with woodchips. Some conservationists are concerned because some of the woodchips will be trucked in, but the project calls for as many locally sourced woodchips as possible.

The £40 milllion, 7.2 megawatt plant will produce as much power as two wind turbines, and is part of Scotland’s green energy pledge to use 100% renewable energy by 2020. Studies are also being conducted to convert the distillery waste further into biofuel to power cars.

It’s good to see that the distilling industry is trying to be more environmentally conscious. It’s even better to see that waste from the distilling process is being used to offset the processes environmentally unfriendly aspects. As I said in a previous post, I strongly suggest when buying distilled spirit products from enviornmentally friendly distillers if you choose to drink spirits. It also might be a good idea to write your fav distiller and ask them what they are doing to cut their carbon footprint?

A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions might not be significant for biomass over petroleum fuels, but the thought at filling up you and your car from the same source might make you think before you drink!

• Whisky for the Environment
• Scotland toasts new whisky-powered bioenergy plant
• IS IT GREEN?: Maker’s Mark Bourbon Whiskey
• Ruining your Christmas spirit!
• Whiskey for the Environment

Obama Bucks Can't Save Solyndra

"Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn't small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million. ... As my Washington Examiner colleague David Freddoso reported, an audit of the company performed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers two months before Obama's visit noted that the firm had accumulated losses of $558 million in its five years of existence. The auditor noted that Solyndra 'has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders' deficit that, among other factors, raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.' One of the original investors in Solyndra was Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, who was also a major contributor to Obama's 2008 campaign. In early 2011, Kaiser and other investors provided an additional $75 million in financing to Solyndra. They did so on condition, approved by the Energy Department, that they receive priority over previous creditors, including the government. ... But let's assume for the time being that there was no criminal conduct here, no violation of government procedures, no fraud. Let's assume everyone in the administration acted with good faith. There's still a scandal -- the scandal of the government handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to unproven and speculative businesses. ... The real scandal is the 'green jobs' loan guarantee program itself. And the ones getting scammed are American taxpayers." --political analyst Michael Barone

How can we stop crony capitalism?

More

Oil Rigs and Energy Sustainability

Off-shore oil drilling is a massive system that few people truly can wrap their heads around. We can go down to the coast and look out and see an occasional oil rig in the distance, thinking that there are a few out there. The reality is that oil companies are in high gear, working to extract every last drop they can from the Earth to feed consumer wants (not needs). Deepwater Horizon was a horrible tragedy, but the odds that something like it was going to happen were in it's favor.

There were around 3,700 oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico alone in the early part of last year. The volume of oil being extracted is as far from sustainable as you can imagine. One of the things that the majority of people do not understand is how energy from natural resources is interconnected to population growth and global economies. Without cheap energy, our way of life is not sustainable. Being able to recognize the stark reality of this situation is what is driving so many people and companies to find alternative solutions for energy that are sustainable as well as reduce the negative impact on our environment. If our collective energy needs can be reduced and those sources replaced with more practical solutions for future efficiencies, our survival and way of life can be assured.
Farron Cousins | The Ticking Time Bombs In The Gulf of Mexico

Solyndra, an Example of Corruption on Both Sides of the Aisle

The point that the blogger is presenting is quite valid, but does little to defend the current administration, or differentiate them from the previous one. Obama's reign has been as damaging as Bush's, doing little to undo previous damage, or to make strides to restore sanity in government. It's hard to defend an administration that continues the same big business efforts as the last few, regardless of their political or social affiliations. Obama and Co. are just the latest in a series of representatives-in-name-only continuing to sell the rights to taxpayer resources to the highest bidder in big business circles. Obama's failure was signing a check that Bush filled out before considering what he was doing. By pushing ahead, the public sees less differentiation between the two parties, and begins to see how both parties push agendas through at the expense of the public, to the benefit of big business. Things need to change.

Solyndra lacithedog | 16/09/2011 at 17:34 | Categories: Climate Change, Environment, Environmentalism, global warming, Green Lifestyle, Solyndra | URL: http://wp.me/pQHZM-1ba

Solyndra has become known as a boondoggle in the US. If you haven't heard, it's the solar power company that got $500 million in Recovery Act loans from the Department of Energy and then went belly up a couple of weeks ago.

Conservatives have been trying to paint this as a big scandal of some kind, despite the fact that: the company had plenty of private investors too, it's the only DOE loan that has failed so far, and there's no real evidence that anyone in the White House did anything worse than push OMB to speed up their decision-making process a bit in 2009.

It's often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was "rushed through" by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.

You'd never know from the media coverage that:

• The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
• The company's backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
• The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE's overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

The loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser, a man who donated money to the Obama campaign. What critics don't mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons and the Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

Climate Progress is publishing this timeline, verified by Department of Energy officials, that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations to set the record straight. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers' investment:

 

May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be "scored." OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.

November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): "despite the Administration's urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent."

And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): "The whole point of the Democrat's stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn't been spent."

June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.

August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.

September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning."

What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than "pushing funds out the door too quickly," the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers' investment.

What actually happened, how it could have been prevented and who's responsible, are these things are orthogonal to the battle taking place in political circles. That battle has nothing to do with the facts.

For a mix of financial and ideological reasons, U.S. conservative movement activists, operators, and politicos hate clean energy. They don't believe in climate change, they love fossil fuels and fossil-fuel campaign donations, and they think, or want the U.S. public to think, that clean energy is weak, unreliable, marginal, and dependent on government subsidies. They have been trying to make that case for a long while.

What Solyndra gives them is a symbol, something to use as a stand-in to discredit not just the DOE loan program, but all government support for clean energy and indeed clean energy itself.

Cons understand post-truth politics. They understand that truth is utterly inert in an era when mainstream institutions are viewed with hostility and skepticism, the media is fractured, and there are no shared norms or referees to enforce them. The side that wins is the side that plays to its audience's existing preconceptions with a simple message repeated over and over and over again in multiple venues.

That's what is happening now around Solyndra. The right is going after this whole hog, trying to make the name synonymous with clean energy boondoggle. And the left is flailing around, throwing out this fact and that fact with no coherent message. Additionally, the right pretty much has a lock on the US media so that the message that this was yet another Obama and environmentalist failure is repeated over and over.

That works with the Low Information Voters who believe that global warming is a hoax, or in some way a disputed theory. Unfortunately, they are the people who need to be reached with better information rather than fed more of the corporatocratic propaganda.

See also:

• Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story
• Solyndra is the next 'Climategate'

Add a comment to this post

Global Benefits of Collapse on Resource Usage

My thoughts regarding population impact and consumption of resources are supported in a recent text I have been reading; Visualizing Environmental Science. A developed nation has a much greater responsibility to maintain sustainability than a developing one, as those developed nations have a significantly greater impact on the use of resources.

People in highly developed countries are extravagant and wasteful consumers; their use of resources is greatly out of proportion to their numbers. A single child born in a highly developed country such as the United States causes a greater impact on the environment and on resource depletion than perhaps 20 children born in a developing country. Many natural resources are needed to provide the automobiles, air conditioners, disposable diapers, cell phones, DVD players, computers, clothes, newspapers, athletic shoes, furniture, books, and other “comforts” of life in highly developed nations. Thus, the disproportionately large consumption of resources by the United States and other highly developed countries affects natural resources and the environment as much as or more than the population explosion in the developing world.

If the United States continues toward a financial collapse, it's ability to consume a disproportionate amount of available resources will reduce significantly, to the benefit of those developing or underdeveloped nations. A situation like this could be a positive aspect of collapse that I had not previously considered.

Nuclear watchdog criticizes TEPCO over blacked-out documents - 16th Sept 2011

The head of a government nuclear watchdog has criticized Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) for not being transparent enough, after it submitted documents earlier this month that were mostly blacked out.

"Why don't they release all the information? There are problems with TEPCO's attitude toward providing information," Hiroyuki Fukano, 54, head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), told the Mainichi in an interview on Sept. 16.

The documents in question include an operation manual for responding to nuclear accidents.

"NISA has still not received the manual (in full)," Fukano said. "It is our job to investigate problems such as why the emergency condenser (for cooling the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant) didn't work properly, and the operation manual serves as a base for such investigations." Fukano indicated that NISA will request non-blacked out documents from TEPCO.

Regarding the current state of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant six months on from the start of the crisis, Fukano said, "Although conditions have stabilized, there are still large amounts of radioactive water at the site, and we can't say the situation is under control. There are still many problems to tackle." Read More

Peak Oil vs Sustainability

Simply recognizing that resources are limited is sometimes the first step toward creating a sustainable supply. Take oil for example. M. King Hubbert developed the idea of peak oil in the 1950's to explain how a supply can be depleted while consumption of that supply continues to increase. He predicted that we would cross this peak in the late 1960's. His theories were disregarded during his time due to the abundance of cheap oil. Fuel economy was not a consideration in many nations around the world during his time. He predicted that if oil were not conserved and it's usage reduced to a more sustainable level, we would begin to see oil shortages and sharp rises in costs related to the resource.

It is easy to recognize the impact of his observations by looking back as recent as six months prior at the cost of fuel. We may see temporary dips in prices at the pump, but in general costs rise as production decreases. Everything from fuel to plastics to costs of delivering good is directly connected back to oil consumption and production. Easy oil sources are running low, so we are now looking to reserves that are more difficult to extract from the Earth and to process into usable forms. This addiction to cheap energy puts strains on those industries and aspects of life that rely upon their availability and affordability. A paradigm shift toward sustainability may allow us to continue to utilize this resource, but a failure to recognize and make changes could lead to a much worse situation.

Peak Oil

In Town Near Fukushima Plant, Population One | The Jakarta Globe

Matsumura is an anomaly in a country where defiance of the government is rare and social consensus counts above everything else. Yet, Matsumura’s quiet civil disobedience speaks loudly of the dilemma facing the more than 100,000 silent “nuclear refugees” who were displaced by the March 11 disaster.

Tokyo was quick to establish evacuation zones around the plant but has been slow to settle the refugees. A government order forbids them from going back to their homes in a half dozen towns around Fukushima Daiichi that were declared off-limits after the tsunami-stricken nuclear plant started spewing radioactivity.

“We are already being forgotten,” said Matsumura, a leathery but clean-cut man with the sturdy build of a farmer. “The rest of the country has moved on. They don’t want to think about us.”

Tomioka’s city hall has been moved to a safer city in Fukushima prefecture, where thousands of its residents live in makeshift shelters. Thousands more have scattered across the country.

The town itself is sealed behind police barriers, which hide the heart of the nuclear no-go zone, an area that is officially too dangerous for human habitation.

In Town Near Fukushima Plant, Population One | The Jakarta Globe