Press Release: Green Power in Montana
Clean Energy Law Would Boost Jobs, Economy, Study Says
A federal law backing green energy would help create jobs and fuel Montana's economy, a study shows.
By Amy Linn, 10-29-09
Comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation now before Congress could create 13,000 jobs in Montana by 2020 and would increase average household incomes in the state, according to research announced today by environmental groups.
The groups releasing the information include Climate Solutions and Montana Business Leaders for Clean Energy; CERES; the Clean Economy Network; and Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2).
According to the groups, “clean energy legislation would create 918,000 to 1.9 million new jobs nationally, and increase national GDP by $39 billion to $111 billion more than what would occur without the legislation.”
In Montana, passage of the legislation would increase the GDP by as much as $500 million a year, and could increase annual average household income by as much as $1,700, the study shows. (To read the study in full, go to E2’s list of individual states, and click on Montana.)
The research—a collaborative effort by the University of California, Yale University and the University of Illinois—looked at the impacts of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, which is being heard this week in the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. The legislation calls for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon emissions.
Here are some highlights from the study, taken verbatim from the groups’ announcement:
--"Montana has significant and largely untapped potential renewable resources, particularly in wind power and biofuels.”
-- “Energy efficiency provisions in the legislation will reduce the costs for transportation, heating, electricity, etc., saving households, farmers and ranchers, and businesses money—money they can spend on domestic goods and services and create jobs.”
--"Clean energy legislation will strengthen national security by reducing America’s dependence on imported fossil fuels.”
[End of article]We'll never get off imported fossil fuel unless nuclear is added to the clean energy equation. The U.S. spends more than 300 billion USD annually to import foreign petroleum and most studies indicate that even if the U.S. goes all out (balls to the wall) for solar, wind & geothermal it could only produce 20 percent of U.S. energy needs maximum. Plus the U.S. needs an entirely new energy distribution grid to move it all around.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-29-09And Enviro CAVE BANANA NIMBYs seem to be fighting Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear and New Trasmission Lines with equal vigor.
Comment By jwscotch, 10-30-09Only jobs being created are the number of those doing "study's"!
Comment By Don Quixote, 10-30-09This posting could have been made anywhere among the global warming, economy or cap and trade articles of the past two weeks but I just go around to it today.
Let’s take a look at Montana’s future or even the rest of the country under this administration’s embrace of global warming, the economy and cap and trade.
First some facts: Currently the United States gets 84% of its energy needs from fossil fuels; petroleum (37%), natural gas (24%), coal (23%).
Question: How much of our total energy requirements come from renewable sources. I’ll give you envrios a few minutes to think about it, tick, tick, tick, tick—ding, ding, ding. That’s right 7%. Oh you didn’t know that, then you need to pull your head out of the clouds or from your….
Now let’s break down that 7%: Biofuels 53%, Hydro 34%, Wind 7% (up 2% since ‘06), Geothermal 5%, and Solar 1%.
Funny thing about biofuels over half of the energy gained is by burning wood or wood byproducts. I’m sure the enviros have a formula to make this appear much better than burning gas or coal. The rest is crops, garbage (also burned) landfill gas and ethanol.
Hydropower is concentrated in five states WA, OR, CA, NY and congrats to MT at number 5. Good luck trying to get a hydro dam built these days.
Wind is making head way, but the head winds are becoming fierce. As we know the green enviros are now battling windmill farms all over the US because of, you guessed it, environmental concerns. We have all heard about the fight over transmission lines in CA and now some seventy-year old coot is stopping a $300 million project in West Virginny, because of bats. Oh, now that Teddy is worm food can we get those windmills in Nantucket Sound?
Geothermal works like this, drill a hole in the ground get hot water 200 degrees or less use it to heat a building, 200+ turn it into steam to produce electricity. Where do you get the energy to turn it into steam (not a trick question)?
And now solar a terrible waste of time and energy, pun intended, current photo cells are 10% efficient. Next question where do you put solar cells? In arid places where it is hot and dry, where you need lots of water to keep them clean. Screw CA and their need for drinking water lets cover AZ, NM and southern UT with solar cells, divert the Colorado River to clean ‘em, but I forgot the enviros won’t let you build transmission lines, damn foiled again.
What does all this have to do with MT? A lot if you’re a coal miner, MT is number five in the US in coal production and exports coal to 15 other states. MT has vast reserves of coal yet untapped; if cap and trade raises the costs of coal energy to high you can kiss most of those jobs good-bye. Another reason coal may become to expensive is because MT has two types of coal sub-bituminous and lignite both on the low end grades of coal, than say what is mined in OH, WV, KY or PA. Add to that WY is the leading source of sub-bituminous coal with an infrastructure to support its removal and transport and MT comes up short.
Williston Basin covers eastern MT and has a lot of oil, but we don’t want your stinking oil you know that old CO2 thing. Because a lot of MT energy resources are untapped fossil fuels they may be left in the ground because it will be too expensive to extract them.
But, but, but what about those green jobs? To support green jobs we are going to kill off real jobs through higher taxes, give me a green job that doesn’t take more in subsidies to keep it going than it produces. Take a look around at all the ethanol plants sitting idle or incomplete in bankruptcy court. You want green jobs let them stand on their own and gradually as technology and demand meet somewhere in the middle maybe alternative energy and green jobs will become viable, in 20-30 years.
As far as the groups touted by Amy, well.
The president of Climate Solutions bio: Gregg brings more than a decade of experience leading non-profit organizations. Prior to coming to Climate Solutions, Gregg served as the Executive Director of the Washington Toxics Coalition for 7 years and as the Executive Director of the California-based Pesticide Watch for 5 years. I stopped reading there, Nuff Said.
CERE, board of directors is a who’s who of organizations like Sierra Club, Green America and Union of Concerned Scientists. Again, Nuff Said.
The companies of Clean Economy and Environmental Entrepreneurs seems to be a little more creditable, but hey they are run by wealthy people who got their millions the old fashion way, greedy old capitalism. Now they can play in the fields of green fiefdom trying to buy their way back into heaven with good deeds.
I was about to delve into climate change but what is the use? The believers in the Church of Global Warming and the Great Goreracle have already made up their minds. They believe the non-believing heretics should be burned at the stake, but, but, but, what about all the CO2 from the burning? And the Great Goreracle said, “I shall make an exception this time, burn them!” as he walked up the stairs to his private plane leaving for his McMansion.
A year or so back I read an article titled “Yellow Science” By James Kerian. It talked about today’s scientists and “yellow journalism”. It is quite relevant today seeing how low our current crop of investigative journalists has sunk and the direction our scientific community is going today. Look it up it is a good read. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html
The scientific studies for clean burning fuels is commendable. However, it seems that not all scientist agree.
My question is if they did, then it's decided by politicians who will make uneducated decisions. For example Senator Kennedy had all the windmills removed from the bay because it ruined his view!
In most regions the fuel used by the people is dictated by the cheapest available in the area. For me, I utilize a woodburning stove to offset my gas bill. The wood is free the cutting is a workout.
I started to look into solar electric. To purchase a day and night system was over $85,000, the system is totally unaffordable and would take over 50 years without maintenance failures to be worth the effort.
Cogeneration plants seem practical. They burn garbage create electricity. With minimal emissions. Years ago I petitioned the building of one in Pennsyvania. After years of operation there is no smoke or soot. They also minimize landfills.
For me it's natural gas, because it's available, (not affordable). I back it with a wood burning stove. I posesss the energy to cut and carry.
Bottom line any alteration or conversion of clean air systems in any home is totally unaffordable to most people. Otherwise, go nuclear.
Amen, Quixote. I DO hope your mind is credible!
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/clean_energy_can_bring_jobs_health_to_montana_study_says/C559/L559/