Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.



  • -------------------









  • --------------------------


    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is an occasional contributor to NewEnergyNews


    Some of Anne's contributions:

  • Another Tipping Point: US Coal Supply Decline So Real Even West Virginia Concurs (REPORT), November 26, 2013
  • SOLAR FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE ~ Xcel's Push to Undermine Rooftop Solar, September 20, 2013
  • NEW BILLS AND NEW BIRDS in Colorado's recent session, May 20, 2013
  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns


    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart



    Your intrepid reporter


      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.


    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Tuesday, July 07, 2015


    A Survey of Energy Use in Water Companies

    Rachel Young, June 2015 (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy)


    The relationship between water and energy is a close one. Water requires a tremendous amount of energy to move from a reservoir or well, through the treatment process, and out into a distribution system. In addition, energy is required to process wastewater and recycle or discharge it. The energy required to operate the water and wastewater system is often called embedded energy.

    Despite this strong connection, the energy intensity of water and wastewater systems is relatively undocumented. There are few data sources and reports analyzing the energy required to move and treat water, and the data generally are not publicly available. ACEEE has been working to gain a better understanding of the energy embedded in water in order to help water utilities reduce costs, improve energy efficiency, and quantify the avoided energy and pollution savings that accrue as a result of water conservation programs.

    As part of an ongoing effort to advance the understanding of the water–energy nexus and bring attention to possible opportunities, the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) collaborated on a new research project to gather primary information on the amount of energy required to treat and distribute water. ACEEE and NAWC jointly produced a survey for NAWC’s member companies related to their energy use and water processing. NAWC has over 100 member water and wastewater companies of varying sizes throughout the United States.

    Unsurprisingly, the water companies surveyed have energy intensity similar to those seen in previous ACEEE research (Young 2014). In our previous study we found that energy intensity of the water system is between 200 kWh/million gallons and 16,000 kWh/million gallons. Table ES1 shows the result of the NAWC survey, a range of 0–2,800 kWh/million gallons, with an average of about 2,300 kWh/million gallons.

    The survey also confirmed previous studies showing that the distance water travels in the system, the water source, and the size of the water utility all impact the energy intensity of the water system.

    In addition to the energy and water data collected, ACEEE found that some water and wastewater companies are making substantial progress in improving their energy and water efficiency. Overall we found that 9 out of 11 participating utilities have instituted leak-detection efforts in the past three years and 5 out of 11 offer water conservation programs of some sort to their customers. Of the 11 participating utilities, 3 partner with an energy utility, including 1 water utility with a joint program for end-use customers.


    The relationship between water and energy is a close one. Water requires a tremendous amount of energy to move from a reservoir or well, through the treatment process, and out into a distribution system. A gallon of water weighs approximately eight pounds, and water systems may stretch for hundreds of miles. In addition, energy is required to process wastewater and to recycle or discharge it. The energy required to operate the water and wastewater system is often called embedded energy.

    Despite this strong connection, the energy intensity of water and wastewater systems is relatively undocumented. There are few data sources and reports analyzing the energy required to move and treat water, and the data are generally not publicly available. ACEEE has been working to gain a better understanding of the energy embedded in water in order to help water utilities reduce costs, improve energy efficiency, and quantify the avoided energy and pollution savings that accrue as a result of water conservation programs.

    As part of an ongoing effort to advance the understanding of the water-energy nexus and bring attention to possible opportunities, the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) collaborated on a new research project to gather primary information on the amount of energy required to treat and distribute water. This effort has three goals:

    1. Expand our understanding of the energy embedded in water source and conveyance, treatment, and distribution as well as wastewater treatment and discharge.

    2. Provide data on energy use per gallon of water processed.

    3. Help NAWC members better understand their energy use to help them identify opportunities for reducing energy use.

    To achieve these objectives, ACEEE and NAWC jointly produced a survey for NAWC’s member companies related to their energy use and water processing. NAWC has over 100 member companies of varying sizes throughout the United States. The intersection between water and energy provides many opportunities for water companies to save energy by becoming more energy efficient, reducing water waste at their facilities, and persuading their customers to waste less water. We wanted to get a better understanding of how NAWC’s members are improving their energy efficiency. In our survey we asked companies to provide their energy consumption and water processing data so we could understand their energy intensities. Several questions in the survey focused on energy efficiency at water processing plants, conservation programs provided, and any efforts undertaken in partnership with energy utilities.

    Water And Wastewater Facilities

    In this paper when we refer to water companies we mean companies that process and supply potable water to customers. Water supply has a multitude of systems that use energy during operations, including the actual processing and pumping of water. The majority of energy use in potable water processes is in pumping water from the source through to distribution channels. Pumping of treated water is particularly electric-intensive and accounts for the majority of total electricity use in public water-supply systems.

    We also discuss wastewater companies that are responsible for the collection, treatment, and discharge of water after it has been used by people in homes, businesses, or industry. We include any treatment of water that is then recycled back to the end-use customer or is supplied back to the water companies. The energy associated with recycling water is included in the wastewater section of this paper.

    Though wastewater treatment facilities use some natural gas for space heating and heating of anaerobic digesters, they rely primarily on electricity for a wide range of processes, including pumping, filtration, aeration, air compression, and sludge dewatering and thickening (Hamilton et al. 2009). Electricity accounts for almost all energy use in public water supply systems, where it is used for pumping, flocculation, filtration, and feeding of coagulant and chlorine (Carns 2005). For this paper we report electricity use from survey respondents.

    Last, there are companies who serve both water and wastewater needs. We report findings for water process and wastewater process separately, but it is important to note that some companies have both services.

    Private Versus Public Water Companies

    The majority of water in the United States is supplied by municipal or public water and wastewater utilities, while approximately 16% of water companies are private. There are approximately 4,200 privately owned wastewater companies in the United States, which equates to about 20% of wastewater utilities (NAWC 2009). For the purpose of this survey, we partnered with NAWC, whose members are all private water and wastewater companies.

    NAWC’s members include privately owned and publicly traded drinking water utilities and wastewater services companies. They also serve professional water contracting companies. Their members are within the United States and include over 120 companies that range from very small businesses to companies with service territories covering multiple states. Their members serve over 90% of all private water customers.

    Often private water companies work in partnership with public entities. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are contractual arrangements that enable municipalities to outsource the management and operation of their water and wastewater systems. Several of NAWC’s member companies are working in partnership with municipalities…

    Energy Efficiency…Conservation…Joint Efficiency Programs…


    The results of the survey show a similar range of energy intensity for potable water services, as we have seen in the past. Though our data sample was limited, we found that the data results were impacted by factors such as distance, elevation, water source, and company size.

    Last, there are additional opportunities for greater energy efficiency, water conservation, and joint program partnership. A few respondents have already taken advantage of these opportunities, charting the course for other companies to follow.


    PRES UPS BACKING FOR SOLAR Many Americans still lack access to solar energy. Here’s how Obama plans to change that

    Chris Mooney, July 7, 2015 (Washington Post)

    “…[The White House] announced an array of new measures to extend access to the most rapidly growing source of U.S. energy — solar — to a much broader group of Americans, including low-income communities and individuals who rent, rather than owning their own homes…That includes a new initiative to ramp up so-called “community solar” projects across the country — programs in which one solar installation supplies energy to multiple different homes or individuals – with a focus on serving low- and middle- income Americans. It also includes a pledge to install a total of 300 megawatts of solar and other renewables in federally subsidized housing developments by the year 2020…The announcements came just a week after the administration pledged, in a joint agreement with Brazil, that the United States will get 20 percent of its total electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030 — a target that would require tripling renewables…” click here for more

    WHY AN OIL & GAS BILLIONAIRE WANTS WIND How a Conservative Billionaire Is Moving Heaven and Earth to Become the Biggest Alternative Energy Giant in the Country; Philip Anschutz wants to turn his 500-square-mile cattle ranch into the world’s largest wind farm…

    Gabriel Kahn, June 29, 2015 (Pacific Standard)

    “…[In 2006, a] buyer was prepared to pay roughly $50 million for [the 500-square-mile high-desert [Overland Trail cattle ranch] in south-central Wyoming where the wind blows so fiercely people have to brace against it just to stay upright…[Owner Philip Anschutz] had become one of the richest men in America—with a fortune of nearly $12 billion—by figuring out an abundance of ways to churn wealth out of real estate, from oil wells and railroads to sports arenas and cattle ranches…[T]he market for wind energy was growing …[A]long the ridges of the Overland Trail Ranch are some of the only Class 7 winds in the nation…[and they start in the morning and gain force just when demand is peaking. With the TransWest Express transmission system to take wind-generated electricity straight from Wyoming across Colorado, Utah, and Nevada into a substation on the California-Nevada border] wind had all the markings of another Anschutz triumph…” click here for more

    NAT GAS BOOM TO BUST Energy Companies That Stake Their Future On Gas May Be In For A Big Surprise

    Mike Scott, July 7, 2015 (Forbes)

    “Almost $300 billion of planned LNG (liquefied natural gas) projects could be surplus to requirements, suggests…[Carbon Supply Cost Curves] from the respected think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative…[T] here is some room for gas demand to grow while we remain within the ‘carbon budget’ that will keep temperature increases to safe limits, but not as much as the gas industry believes…The study finds that over the next 10 years $82 billion of potential capex in LNG plants will not be needed in Canada, $71 billion in the United States and $68 billion in Australia if demand is lower than companies project because of tighter carbon regulations, the introduction of carbon prices around the world, improved energy efficiency, the development of energy storage and the greater use of renewable energy. The value of unneeded LNG projects rises to $379 billion by 2035…” click here for more

    Monday, July 06, 2015


    STUDY: How The Media Is Covering Presidential Candidates' Climate Science Denial

    Kevin Kalhoefer, July 1, 2015 (Media Matters)

    Several months into the 2016 presidential campaign, the media is frequently failing to fact-check statements by presidential candidates denying the science of climate change. Seven major newspapers and wire services surveyed by Media Matters have thus far failed to indicate that candidates' statements conflict with the scientific consensus in approximately 43 percent of their coverage, while the major broadcast and cable news outlets other than MSNBC have failed to do so 75 percent of the time.

    Newspapers Frequently Failed To Fact- Check Candidates' Climate Science Denial

    43 Percent Of Newspaper Coverage Failed To Note That Candidates' Climate Statements Conflict With Scientific Consensus. From March 23 -- when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) became the first candidate to announce his presidential bid -- to June 22 of this year, newspapers and wire services surveyed by Media Matterspublished 54 news stories (in print and online) that included a presidential candidate denying either that climate change is occurring or that human activity is largely responsible for it. But the newspapers and wires failed to indicate that the candidate's position conflicts with the scientific consensus in 23 of those stories, or 43 percent of the coverage.

    Six Of 10 Associated Press Articles Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Denial. Out of the 10 Associated Press articles featuring presidential candidates denying climate science, only four noted the scientific consensus on climate change. For example, a March 23 article countered Cruz's claim that satellite images show that there has been "zero global warming" for the past 17 years by noting that "scientific experts say satellite data is the wrong way to measure global warming, which the vast majority of scientists say is happening and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels." In contrast, a June 4 AP article summarizing Gov. Rick Perry's (R-TX) stance on climate change reported that Perry called climate change science "unproven" and that he doesn't "believe that we have the settled science by any sense of the imagination," but failed to note that his statements do not align with the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists.

    Reuters Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Denial In Three Of Seven Articles. Out of seven Reuters articles that included climate science denial by presidential candidates, only four indicated that the candidates' statements contradict the findings of climate scientists. For instance, a May 20 article quoted former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) as saying: "I don't think the science is clear what percentage [of climate change] is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted." The article also noted that "many scientists believe humans are largely to blame for climate change." Reuters published another article about Bush's comments the next day, which noted that "[t]he United Nations panel of climate scientists, which is composed of thousands of the world's leading climate change experts, says it is at least 95 percent probable that most of the warming since 1950 is caused by man-made greenhouse gases." However, three Reuters articles failed to mention the scientific consensus, including an April 22 article reporting that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) "has said humans are not responsible for climate change," and a May 14 article reporting that Cruz has said he "does not see evidence that global warming is occurring."

    The Wall Street Journal Twice Failed To Rebut Climate Denial By A Presidential Candidate. The Wall Street Journal failed to note the scientific consensus in either of its two articles featuring a presidential candidate denying climate science. An April 22 article in The Journal's Washington Wire blog stated that Rubio "recently questioned humans' role in climate change" during his appearance on CBS' Face the Nation. The article reported that the Obama administration "say[s] the debate about this issue is settled," but did not affirm that the debate about humans' role in climate change is indeed settled within the scientific community. Additionally, a March 23 Journal article failed to note that Cruz's claim that climate change "isn't supported by science" contradicts the views of the vast majority of scientists studying the issue.

    The New York Times Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Denial In Four Of 12 Articles. The New York Times published 12 articles that included candidates denying climate science, but only eight of those articles included references to the consensus among scientists that climate change is happening and driven mainly by human activity. For instance, in an April 27 article stating that most of the Catholics running for the Republican presidential nomination are at odds with Pope Francis because they question the science of human-caused climate change, The Times mentioned that "the vast majority of scientists" agree that "climate change is induced by human activity." By contrast, a June 16 Times article reported that Donald Trump called climate change a "hoax," but didn't mention the scientific consensus on climate change.

    USA Today Failed To Noted Scientific Consensus In One Of Three Articles Containing Climate Science Denial By A Candidate. USA Today referenced the scientific consensus in two of the three articles it published in which candidates denied climate science. For example, in a March 27 article, USA Today reported that Bush has "raised skepticism about human-induced climate change ... which scientists say is already leading to sea-level flooding in South Florida." Additionally, a June 15 USA Today article reported that while former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) accused the pope of being "alarmist" on climate change, "[s]cientists, however, applaud the pope for urging moral choices in a discussion dominated by the recitation -- or among deniers, the misrepresentation -- of facts." However, USA Today's On Politics blog did not mention the scientific consensus in a May 29 article which stated that Santorum "compared scientists convinced of climate change to those who once called the world flat." [USA Today articles that fact-checked climate denial: 6/15/15,3/27/15; USA Today articles that did not: 5/29/15]

    The Washington Post Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Denial In Seven Of 20 Articles. Out of the 20 news stories published by The Washington Post (including online print) that included climate science denial by a presidential candidate, 13 articles indicated that the candidate's position conflicts with the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. For example, a March 26 article on The Post's Fact Checker blog cited numerous reasons why Cruz's statement that there has been "zero global warming" over the last 17 years is inaccurate. The article also stated that "[t]he notion that concerns over global warming is no longer backed by science is not an accurate portrayal of the issue," and assigned Cruz's comments Three Pinocchios, a rating reserved for "[s]ignificant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." However, in a May 20 article, The Postreported that "Jeb Bush believes that the Earth's climate is changing -- but don't just blame humans." The article quoted Bush saying that climate science is unclear "on what percentage is man-made" and that it is "arrogant" to "say the science is decided," but did not indicate that his remarks conflict with the scientific consensus that human activities are the primarily cause of climate change.

    The Los Angeles Times Did Not Publish Any Articles Containing Candidates' Climate Denial During The Time Period Covered In This Study.

    TV Networks Other Than MSNBC Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Denial Three-Quarters Of The Time

    Outside Of MSNBC, Major TV Outlets Failed To Fact-Check Candidates' Climate Science Denial 75 Percent Of The Time. From March 23 to June 22, the major broadcast and cable news networks aired 37 segments featuring a presidential candidate denying climate science, and 12 of these segments (32 percent) failed to note that the candidate's position contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. MSNBC accounted for the vast majority of television coverage noting the scientific consensus, as TV outlets other than MSNBC collectively failed to fact-check candidates' climate science denial 75 percent of the time.

    In Only CBS Segment Featuring Climate Denial By A Presidential Candidate, Face The Nation'sSchieffer Failed To Fact-Check Rubio. In an April 19 interview, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer asked Rubio to clarify an earlier statement where he said that humans are not responsible for climate change. Rubio responded: "What I said is that humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of those people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing, because there's never been a moment where the climate is not changing. The question is what percentage of that -- or what is due to human activity." Schieffer quickly moved on to a discussion of social issues without noting the consensus among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. [CBS segment that failed to fact-check climate denial: Face the Nation, 4/19/15]

    In Only NBC Segment Featuring Climate Denial By A Candidate, Meet the Press' Todd Failed To Challenge Huckabee's Anti-Science Claims. On the June 21 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd failed to note that former Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R-AR) position on climate change runs counter to the view of the vast majority of climate scientists. When asked by Todd whether he believed in man-made climate change, Huckabee responded, "Whether it's man-made or not, I know that when I was in college, I was being taught that if we didn't act very quickly that we were going to be entering a global freezing. And, you know, go back and look at the covers of Time and Newsweek from the early '70s and we were told if we didn't do something by 1980, we'd be popsicles. Now we're told that we're all burning up. Science is not as settled on that as it is on some things." Todd simply responded, "Alright, so, if president, climate change is not in your top of your agenda." [NBC segment that failed to fact-check climate denial: Meet the Press, 6/21/15]

    CNN's Jake Tapper Fact-Checked Climate Denial, But Three Other CNN Segments Failed To Note Scientific Consensus. The March 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 featured two separate segments that referenced climate science denial by Cruz. In one segment, Cooper said Cruz "mock[s] the notion of global warming," and in the other segment, correspondent Jeff Zeleny called Cruz a "climate change skeptic." Additionally, on the March 23 edition of CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Zeleny stated that Cruz has made "controversial comments about the science of climate change" and aired Cruz's remark that "many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up." While Erin Burnett OutFront did air a clip of California Gov. Jerry Brown criticizing Cruz's climate remarks, none of these CNN segments informed viewers that Cruz's statements contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. By contrast, on the June 4 edition of CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper, Tapper told Santorum that he was contradicting "the overwhelming majority of scientists" by disputing that "humans are contributing to climate change." (After the date range of this study but before its publication, Tapper also fact-checked Trump's climate denial on the June 28 edition of CNN's State of the Union -- a weekend show not surveyed in the study -- by noting that "the overwhelming majority of scientists say [climate change is] real and it's man-made.")

    On Fox Broadcasting Co., Chris Wallace Rebutted Santorum's Denial -- But On Fox News, Hosts Defended Candidates' Anti-Science Remarks. Santorum's climate science denial was forcefully refuted on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, but it was a different story on Fox's cable outlet Fox News Channel. Fox News Channel aired four segments that included statements by Rubio or Cruz denying climate science, and in every instance, the hosts either defended the candidates or attacked media coverage of their statements.

    On the June 7 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace conducted an interview with Santorum, in which Wallace noted that Santorum said the pope "should stay out of the debate on climate change," and aired a clip of Santorum saying: "The Church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists." Wallace then challenged Santorum's climate science denial, noting that the vast majority of "scientists who have studied this say that humans, man -- human activity, contributes to climate change." Wallace then added: "So, I guess the question would be, if [the pope] shouldn't talk about [climate change], should you?"

    Wallace's remarks stand in stark contrast to the way that candidates' climate science denial was handled on the Fox News Channel. On the May 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly showed a clip of Rubio stating, "I don't agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing." O'Reilly claimed that a subsequent Los Angeles Times headline, "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change," was evidence of the mainstream press attempting to "marginalize anyone with strong opinions" and brand conservatives as "kooks and extremists." O'Reilly added that candidates who are "skeptical of climate change" are "brutally assaulted" because they don't submit to "uber-liberal thought."

    O'Reilly also claimed on the March 25 edition of his show that Joy Behar, the co-host of ABC's The View, was being "foolish and unfair" by arguing that Cruz is unfit to be president because he believes that "the facts do not prove man-made global warming." On the March 25 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity brought up Cruz's climate change denial only to criticize the media's coverage of it, claiming "it didn't take long for the mainstream liberal media and those on the left to attack him" for "his stance on climate change." And on the June 19 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, senior national correspondent John Roberts reported that Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) has "declared climate change is real, he just doesn't know how much is man-made," but failed to mention that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is chiefly responsible for climate change.

    ABC's The View Twice Addressed Candidates' Climate Science Denial, And Hosts Debunked Denial Both Times. ABC's The View twice discussed candidates' climate science denial and each time noted that their comments contradict the scientific consensus on the issue. During a discussion of Cruz's candidacy announcement during the March 23 edition of The View, co-host Whoopi Goldberg described Cruz as a "vocal skeptic of climate change," which prompted co-host Rosie Perez to say of Cruz: "You cannot exaggerate and falsify the facts. And for him to say that the scientists are not onboard in regards to climate change was wrong." And on the April 14 edition of the show, co-host Michelle Collins said that Rubio "goes against the science of 97 percent of scientists [who] say that we're going through this climate change. He's not on board."

    MSNBC Consistently Debunked Climate Science Denial In All 21 Segments That Referenced Candidates' Anti-Science Remarks. While other TV outlets largely failed to fact-check presidential candidates' climate science denial, MSNBC consistently challenged candidates' remarks by pointing to the scientific consensus. The network did so in all 21 segments that referenced anti-science remarks by a candidate, with The Ed Showairing 12 such segments, followed by PoliticsNation (3), All In with Chris Hayes (3), Hardball (2), and NOW with Alex Wagner (1).

    For example, the May 6 edition of The Ed Show featured a segment on the threat that climate change-induced sea level rise poses to Miami Beach, and included footage of Rubio stating, "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate." Rubio's remarks were followed by a discussion between host Ed Schultz and University of Miami geological science professor and department chair Harold Wanless. When asked by Schultz to respond to what he called "the blanket comment that's made out there by the deniers, that human activity is not causing climate change," Wanless replied: "Well, they're simply wrong. Since about 1950, the buildup of greenhouse gases has been driving our climate."

    The March 23 edition of All In with Chris Hayes featured footage of Cruz's appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers, where he stated: "Many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up." Hayes then cited Cruz's position on climate change as one of the reasons he didn't believe Cruz should be president, adding, "Ted Cruz is, even by the low standards of the Republican field, one of the most forcefully ignorant politicians on climate change that we have. He is an outright denialist and a symbol of a much, much larger problem. It's 2015. There`s robust -- robust -- scientific consensus that climate change is real."

    And on the May 21 edition of Hardball, host Chris Matthews aired footage of Bush declaring of climate change, "I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural." Matthews responded: "There's an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that climate change is, in fact, man-made. Among peer-reviewed scientific literature since 1991, 97.1 percent have endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    PBS Newshour Did Not Air Any Segments That Contained Candidates' Climate Denial During Time Period Covered In This Study.

    Vast Majority Of Climate Scientists Agree That Human Activity Is Driving Climate Change

    Study: 97 Percent Of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Affirms Man-Made Climate Change. A peer-reviewed paper published at Environmental Research Letters found that the vast majority of the scientific literature that stated a position on climate change acknowledged that human activity is driving it:

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

    Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change: It Is "Extremely Likely" That Human Influence Is Dominant Cause Of Recent Warming. In its fifth assessment report on the state of climate science, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia ... It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as having 95-100% probability.

    Nearly 200 Scientific Organizations Acknowledge Human-Caused Warming. NASA states that "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing" the position that recent global warming is very likely due to human activity, including "nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations."


    CLIMATE HEAT TURNS MALE LIZARDS FEMALE Climate change turning male dragon lizards into females

    PTI, 6 July 2015 (The Economic Times)

    “Scientists have confirmed for the first time that sex change [of male dragon lizards into females] can occur naturally due to exposure to increased temperatures resulting from climate change…[Researchers from the University of Canberra were] able to show that a reptile's sex determination process can switch rapidly from one determined by chromosomes to one determined by temperature…[W]hen exposed to extreme temperatures [in natural conditions], genetically male dragons turned into [fertile] females…[With field data from 131 adult lizards and controlled breeding experiments, molecular analyses] showed that some warmer lizards had male chromosomes but were actually female…[From studying the new breeding lines, they discovered those lizards] could trigger a rapid transition from a genetically-dependent system to a temperature-dependent system…[The] sex-reversed mothers - females who are genetic males - laid more eggs than normal mothers…[and the] ‘dad lizards make better mums’…” click here for more

    SOLAR-POWERED FLIGHT CROSSES THE PACIFIC Record-breaking flight shows the power of solar energy; Solar Impulse 2's flight from Japan to Hawaii, using only solar power, has put clean technology back on the agenda.

    5 July 2015 (AlJazeera)

    "A record-breaking flight using electricity produced from the sun is showcasing what is possible using clean technology…The accomplishment marks the latest leg of a round-the-world mission by two Swiss explorers to promote the promise of clean technology...Solar Impulse 2 took off from Abu Dhabi on March 9 on the first stage of a 35,000 km journey…The sun-driven plane completed its latest leg from Japan to Hawaii… setting three world records in the process…” click here for more

    1ST U.S. OCEAN WIND NOW BUILDING First Offshore Wind Farm in U.S. Powers Ahead; Proponents of Block Island project hope its five towering windmills will boost coastal sites

    Jon Kamp, July 2, 2015 (Wall Street Journal)

    “…Five towering windmills off the [Block Island]’s southeast coast are scheduled to begin generating power late next year…[Proponents] hope it will help jump-start the offshore wind industry in the U.S. The American Wind Energy Association trade group estimates there are 11 projects in 10 states in various stages of development. The U.S. lags behind other parts of the world in developing offshore wind, particularly Europe, which has been tapping the power source for more than two decades…In 2010, Rhode Island state regulators approved an amended deal for the state’s main power utility to buy the wind farm’s output…[T]he project is fully financed and permitted, and workers are expected to begin anchoring steel foundations to the ocean floor [in late July]…The new power source means Block Island residents will see their power bills go down roughly 30% by replacing the expensive diesel power…” click here for more

    Saturday, July 04, 2015

    The Cheapest New Energy

    They are called “nega-watts” by the professionals. They are watts that smart consumers don’t use. DO try this at home. From Renewable Enerbgy World via YouTube

    The Venerable Wind

    Count on it. From GreenMtnEnergy via YouTube

    The Amazing Progress Of Solar

    There are some amazing numbers here – and striking some images. How about 174,000 jobs in solar? How about 50,000 vets employed in solar by 2020? How about solar will double from 20,000 MW in 2014 to 40,000 MW in 2016? From Solar Energy Industries Association via YouTube

    Friday, July 03, 2015


    We need to grow 50% more food yet agriculture causes climate change. How do we get out of this bind? The World Bank’s head of agriculture and food security speaks of a “frustrating lack of attention paid to agriculture” at the climate talks and calls for advances in climate-smart farming

    Mark Cackler, 3 July 2015 (The Guardian)

    “We are trapped in a vicious cycle: we will need to grow 50% more food by 2050 to feed 9 billion people but agriculture, which is paradoxically vulnerable to climate change, generates 25% of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change. The more we grow using conventional methods, the more we exacerbate the problem. It’s time for a climate-smart agriculture but first we must address a few man-made problems…By definition, food production affects all countries, rich and poor, and it is hard to imagine any effective post-Kyoto climate change agreement that ignores 25% of the problem. So, we need a climate change agreement where agriculture is a big part of the solution, and delivers a triple win: higher agricultural productivity to feed more people and raise the incomes of poor farmers - especially women, greater climate resilience, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions…” click here for more


    Discovery Brightens Solar's Future, Energy Costs to Be Cut

    July 2, 2015 (Reuters via NBC News)

    “Scientists in Switzerland…[have] a cheaper, solar technology that splits water molecules to [make it cheaper to] create clean-burning hydrogen fuel…but a simple version won't be available for average citizens for at least 10 years…Splitting water molecules to create hydrogen allows the sun's energy to be more easily stored to generate electricity or power clean cars…Previous solar hydrogen technologies were too expensive to commercialize, scientists from the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne said…The new solar panel looks similar to the traditional version mounted on rooftops, except sunlight first passes through a thin layer of water contained inside the device. Tungsten diselenide, a non-toxic chemical, acts as a photocatalyst and is critical for using the sun's energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen.” click here for more


    Viaducts with wind turbines, the new renewable energy source

    July 2. 2015 (PhysOrg)

    “Wind turbines could be installed under some of the biggest bridges on the road network to produce electricity…[according to European researchers using Juncal Viaduct in Gran Canaria of the Canary Islands] as a reference. This concept could be applied in heavily built-up territories or natural areas with new constructions limitations…[because] the wind blowing between the pillars on this kind of infrastructures can move wind turbines and produce energy…Results confirm that each viaduct presents specific energy possibilities and wind potential. In the Juncal Viaduct case, the evaluated power would be about 0,25 MW per wind turbine. So, with two turbines, the total power output would be 0,5 MW, which is classified in the medium-power range…” click here for more


    Renewable Energy from the Ocean One Step Closer with Completion of Biowave Construction

    June 30, 2015 (PR Newswire)

    “…[BioPower Systems (BPS)] has completed the construction and onshore testing of a 250kW bioWAVE pilot demonstration units [supported by Australian grants]…The unique bioWAVE comprises a 26-metre tall oscillating structure that sways back-and-forth beneath the ocean swell, capturing energy from the waves and converting it into electricity fed into the grid via an undersea cable…The structure is scheduled for deployment at Port Fairy in Victoria Australia later this year. The data collected from the project, combined with the experience gained, is expected to help drive down the cost of wave energy, and contribute to further development of the bioWAVE towards commercial production…Importantly, during infrequent extreme wave events, the structure will automatically assume a ‘safe’ position lying flat against the seabed. This reduces the structural design requirements (and hence cost) while maintaining reliability…” click here for more

    Thursday, July 02, 2015


    You can’t fight climate change with denial

    Former George W. Bush speechwriter Micheal Gerson, July 2, 2015 (The Olympian)

    "Reducing Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si to a white paper on global warming is…[like reading Moby Dick as if it was about the whaling industry.] The whole spirit and story of the thing is missed…In the pope’s vision, both nature and human nature are gifts to be appreciated and accepted, not despoiled or redefined…Francis is offended — infuriated, really — by how humans have treated their home and one another…[and] there is no getting around the fact that Francis regards potentially catastrophic, human-caused global warming as a fact…Many conservative Republicans now deny the existence or danger of human-caused warming and routinely question the motives of scientists who speak up on the issue…Truth exists to serve the narrative rather than the narrative arising from truth. It is a malady easy to see in others and harder to diagnose in ourselves. But it is dangerous to democracy…The pope’s views on climate change are shared by every national academy of science in the world…Conservatives can choose their policy reaction, but not their own reality.” click here for more


    Study: Energy efficiency saved US $800 billion last year

    Robert Walton, July 1, 2015 (Utility Dive)

    “The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has released a new report finding energy efficiency in the United States has come a long way in the last 35 years, slashing in half the ‘energy intensity’ metric that compares energy consumed to the gross domestic product…The United States has cut the amount of energy it uses, compared to each dollar of gross domestic product, from 12.1 thousand Btus per dollar in 1980 to 6.1 thousand Btus per dollar in 2014, ACEEE found...Last year, the study found, efficiency measures saved the United States $800 billion. Most of the improvements over the last 35 years came from advances in energy efficiency itself, ACEEE concluded, and not changes in the broader economy…” click here for more


    Urban turbines mine wind power; Engineers are creating more efficient rooftop wind turbines, but their cost is a problem

    Chelsey B. Coombs, Jjne 29, 2015 (ScienceLine)

    “The skyline is changing in the outer boroughs of New York City, especially in Brooklyn and Queens, where an influx of young, rich people has led to an influx of tall, luxury office buildings and residential towers…[O]n some of those buildings, whether they are residential, such as Long Island City’s Pearson Court Square and Downtown Brooklyn’s 388 Bridge St., or commercial, such as the Whole Foods in Gowanus, wind turbines stand tall, a testament to both engineering ingenuity and the public’s increasing green conscience…Space limitations and economies of scale are the key problems for rooftop turbines…This means the standardized design of a utility-scale turbine just doesn’t work on a rooftop. Instead, engineers have turned to alternate designs…” click here for more


    Is Solar Power Right For Me? Utilities Offer Advice With “WattPlan” App

    Aisha Abdelhamid, July 1, 2015 (Clean Technica)

    “Allowing customers to learn about and explore solar power options at their convenience, a new online application helps utility customers learn the answer to many solar power-related questions, including, ‘Is solar power right for me?’ …Newly launched by Clean Power Research, the new ‘WattPlan’ online application engages [homeowners and small businesses] with highly personalized [comprehensive energy and financial analysis] about solar power and other energy technologies…[It] incorporates customer-specific information such as [smart meter data, available sunlight, incentives, electric rate structure and rooftop characteristics]… to offer customer education when and where customers want it…” click here for more

    Wednesday, July 01, 2015


    "The next shale": How solar is poised to transform America's energy markets; A new study says the solar boom is coming faster than many think

    Herman K. Trabish, February 19, 2015 (Utility Dive)

    A lot of people didn’t see the shale oil and gas revolution coming, and now a new report says many are failing to anticipate a coming energy explosion that will transform the energy sector to a similar extent.

    Plummeting module prices and rising module efficiencies are driving a solar boom so big it may face only one obstacle: Its own success.

    “The comparison is that the magnitude of the impact solar can have on the market is similar to the impact shale gas has had,” said Wood Mackenzie Research Director Prajit Ghosh. “The economics of solar is already competitive in many parts of the U.S. and that will only get better.”

    There are many parallels between the energy revolution created by shale resource development and what is now happening in solar, said Ghosh, lead author of the consultancy's recently-released report, "Solar: The Next Shale?" An example is that rigs became more productive in shale in the same way that module efficiencies are driving the solar boom.

    The comparison is more qualitative than quantitative but both the shale revolution and today’s solar boom are technology driven, Ghosh added.

    A Net Cost Analysis verifies solar’s value

    Dissatisfied with levelized cost of energy (LCOE) studies showing solar’s competitiveness, Ghosh’s Wood Mackenzie team worked up a Net Cost Analysis (NCA) for comparison.

    “LCOE doesn’t account for the fact that solar only produces energy during the day when there is no cloud cover,” Ghosh explained. “It doesn’t account for the revenue side.”

    The Wood Mackenzie team created an annual revenue model for all U.S. and Canadian transmission load pockets that included a full range of factors, including varying supply-demand profiles, solar and wind resource profiles, and gas supply profiles. It then created annual revenue for a specifically defined solar facility at a known cost.

    The difference between the revenues and the cost in the NCA confirmed LCOE analyses of solar’s rapidly expanding price competitiveness. In larger scale solar, 19 states will be at grid parity and competitive with natural gas generation by 2020 and 38 states will be there by 2030, according to the study. By 2025, states will be approaching grid parity in residential rooftop solar as well.

    “An NCA for California solar shows the economics went from no-reason-to-build in 2009 to 10% of peak solar market share in 2014 and 2015 that approaches 14% to 15% in some months,” Ghosh said.

    How solar displacing gas could stunt solar's growth

    The NCA also showed how solar threatens solar’s growth.

    “The regulatory support for shale exploration was in place to accommodate the impact of shale gas,” Ghosh said. “The power market structures are not.”

    As the cost of solar falls, due to economies of scale and efficiencies, more is installed. With this increased market penetration, solar both displaces gas – which takes market share away – and also decreases the price the market pays for gas as capacity, Ghosh explained.

    “This is not just a forecast, it is actually happening,” he said, noting the drastic drop in solar’s net cost curve and the rising gas cost curve shown in the Wood Mackenzie study. In particular, natural gas revenue in the high-price capacity market is lost.

    “The economic incentive for new gas plants is no longer there,” Ghosh said. “But to integrate more solar, the market has to have something to run when solar is not available.

    There either must be a technology, like battery storage, or an incentive to build flexible natural gas, like California’s flexible resource adequacy product.”

    Accommodating such integration costs will either diminish the solar value proposition or impede growth, Ghosh believes. The more likely outcome will be a slowed pace of growth as integration costs are socialized. Grid operations and infrastructure will be affected. And other technologies, like wind and battery storage, could be factors.

    “It depends on the market,” Ghosh said. “In ERCOT, the cost of the transmission build out to support wind was socialized. And there are a lot of mutual benefits in solar and wind profiles. In other markets, there might be a generally good profile showing wind could back up solar but it might not be a perfect correlation.”

    Solar's biggest threat: Poor rate designs

    In distributed and rooftop solar, Ghosh said, the economics are not as clear as in large scale solar because of many nuances and varying incentives.

    The expanding battle in states over net energy metering (NEM) and rate designis a central question. Retail rate NEM was introduced in the 20th century as a convenience, not a calculation. It was intended to grow solar and it did.

    But as rooftop solar owners’ electricity bills go down, their payments for bill infrastructure charges are reduced proportionally, Ghosh explained. “As solar rooftops proliferate, some utilities and regulators say those costs are being shifted to non-solar-owners.”

    As a result, there is now much anti-NEM legislation and rate design review that will be decided in 2015, he said. “Watch those cases to know how the economics of rooftop solar will go.”

    If utilities are successful at implementing rate design changes that capture fixed charges, it could curtail economic rooftop solar, Ghosh said. “But 20th century rate design with net energy metering does not account for the fixed cost in an appropriate manner and that rate design has to be changed.”

    If the cost is not paid for appropriately, the problem multiplies, he said. “As solar gets more economic and more customers move away from the grid, it could cause a rate increase loop. The more rates increase, the more customers will want to leave. And it gets worse and worse for the utilities.”

    Kicker: More cost reductions coming

    There is every indication the cost of solar will continue to go down, Ghosh said. Module efficiency, the biggest driver of cost reductions, continues to improve. As prices get better, competition increases and that will push out market inefficiencies like value pricing and grow new opportunities like building integrated photovoltaics.

    Finally, solar is not one technology. Just as thin film created competition that produced higher efficiency silicon-based modules, perovskite now may be a silicon replacement.

    “It is not at all market ready,” Ghosh said. “But its efficiency has increased from 2% to 20%, a learning curve we have not seen historically. Given the rate of change of these technologies, we have to pay attention.”


    AVATAR DIRECTOR GOES SOLAR James Cameron’s Plan to Fix Solar Panels

    Alissa Walker, June 30, 2015 (GizModo)

    “…[Avatar director, deep-sea explorer, NASA advisor, and all around badass James Cameron has turned his attention to solar. Panels] are installed a certain way on-site to receive the peak amount of solar energy, but this optimal placement also means the panels’ performance will plummet at other times of the day…[whereas Cameron decided] the design needed to be able to track with the sun’s movement throughout the day, increasing productivity, and not rely on a roof’s pitch for optimized installation…[Cameron] chose a sunflower…

    “Cameron then worked with the solar company Sonnen…The first Sun Flowers were installed last month on the Malibu campus of the MUSE School, a nonprofit school focused on environmental learning which was cofounded by his wife Suzy Amis Cameron…The grid-tied system is currently generating about 260 kWh per day, which provides about 75 to 90 percent of the school’s power needs, but Cameron believes in the upcoming summer months the panels could supply the full 100 percent…” click here for more

    U.S. KEEPS WIND TURBINE BUILDERS BUSY Vestas racking up big orders for new U.S. wind farms

    Cathy Proctor, June 30, 2015 (Denver Business Journal)

    "Vestas Wind Systems is racking up more orders from customers eager to put the Danish manufacturer’s wind turbines to work across the United States…[It has] orders for more than 250 of its wind turbines for U.S. wind farms. And Vestas’ factories in Colorado will be building components for those wind farms…Vestas employs nearly 3,000 people in the state and has four factories…The wind industry has been revving lately in the United States, following an extension of the federal wind Production Tax Credit, worth $23 for every megawatt-hour of power produced for 10 years. New wind farms where at least 5 percent of the budget was spent in 2014 will qualify for the credit…” click here for more

    VW ENTERS THE RACE FOR THE 200 MILE EV In Battle to Produce World’s First Truly-Affordable Long-Range Electric Car, VW Throws its Hat into the Ring

    Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield, June 30, 2015 (Transport Evolved)

    "With the exception of the high-end, high-priced Tesla Model S electric sedan, the majority of mass-market electric cars on sale today still offer a real-world range of between 60 and 110 miles…[M]ost advocates and automakers alike all quietly agree that in order to accelerate the mass-adoption of electric vehicles beyond their already-positive levels, cars need to be developed which are both affordable and offer double or even triple [the battery range] of today’s vehicles…Consequentially, Nissan, General Motors and Tesla Motors are all racing to bring next-generation electric models to market in the next few years which offer a price point of around $35,000 as well as real-world, achievable [200 miles per charge] ranges…Now German Automaker Volkswagen has thrown its hat into the ring…” click here for more

    Tuesday, June 30, 2015


    Offshore Wind in Europe; Walking the tightrope to success

    March 2015 (Ernst and Young)

    Key Findings

    In a context of strong commitment on GHG emissions reduction and uncertainty on fossil fuel prices and energy security, the large-scale deployment of renewable energy capacity appears indispensable to Europe moving forward. Offshore wind energy represents a crucial component of the future European energy system:

    • Offshore wind in Europe currently represents one of the most stable sources of renewable energy, with increased energy capture expected due to Europe’s leading position in offshore wind R&D.

    • Offshore wind energy is expected to grow to 23.5 GW by 2020, tripling current installed capacity.

    • Industry efforts to reduce capital and operating costs mean that offshore wind will become highly competitive by 2023 when compared to other sources of energy. LCoE could reach €90/MWh by 2030 as long as a continual stream of projects enters the pipeline.

    • The policy framework for securing 27% renewables and 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 is currently unclear. However, in an “Offshore Wind Scenario”, the installed capacity of offshore wind power could reach almost 65 GW by 2030, allowing wind energy to make up more than 25% of electricity generation in Europe.

    • The “Offshore Wind Scenario” could also save Europe €18b each year on fuel imports in 2030. Applying the SCoE model to the “Offshore Wind Scenario” shows that it is possible to build a low carbon energy sector €4b cheaper than in a “Nuclear Scenario”. Compared with other energy mix scenarios, prioritizing offshore wind energy could create the most jobs in the energy sector, displace the most carbon, and would be cheaper for society than nuclear or conventional sources of energy.

    Today’s needed actions for 2030

    In order to secure Europe’s commitments to climate change, energy security and a low carbon economy, offshore wind should be considered as an important component to the power mix. Continued cost reduction and support from policy makers are necessary to maximize the potential of offshore wind resources and to realize the socioeconomic benefits of a fully industrialized and emerging sector. Several key priorities have been identified to address these challenges:

    • Ensure a stable regulatory framework and define long-term policy schemes

    • Improve access to finance for the offshore wind sector

    • Ensure cost-effective grid investment and connection

    • Address planning system issues

    • Face supply and logistics challenges

    • Support innovation and training, and enhance synergies to reduce costs

    The potential of offshore wind and the industry today…The cost of offshore wind…The future of offshore wind… Industry and government actions to realize the potential of offshore wind…


    BILL GATES BRINGS $2BIL TO NEW ENERGY Bill Gates to invest $2bn in breakthrough renewable energy projects; Bill Gates plans to double investment in green energy technology and research to combat climate change, but rejects calls to divest from fossil fuels

    Emma Howard, 29 June 2015 (The Guardian)

    “…[Bill Gates will invest $2bn] in renewable technologies initiatives, but rejected calls to divest from the fossil fuel companies that are burning carbon at a rate that ignores international agreements…[Gates will] double his current investments in renewables over the next five years in a bid to ‘bend the curve’ on tackling climate change…[The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] currently has $1.4bn invested in fossil fuel companies…[but Gates said divestment] would have little impact…Instead he said there was an urgent need for ‘high risk’ investments in breakthrough technologies…[He said] a ‘miracle’ on the level of the invention of the automobile was necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe…[because] current renewables are not yet close to being able to meet projected energy needs by 2030…[Innovation, he said,] is the only way to reach a positive scenario…” click here for more

    THE INEVITABILITY OF U.S. OCEAN WIND Offshore wind still the best bet for clean energy

    Ann Berwick, June 29, 2015 (Boston Globe)

    “…A bill pending in the Massachusetts Legislature would require that large amounts of electricity come from wind turbines located offshore…For the Northeast to address climate change, developing offshore wind is a necessity. That’s because nothing beats offshore wind for generating power…To cut [climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions drastically, we need to do three things: reduce the amount of energy we use; ‘green’ the electric grid with renewable sources of energy; and — as much as possible — use that clean electricity to run electric vehicles and heat buildings…In this part of the country, there are currently only four potential large sources of renewable power for generating electricity: onshore wind, hydropower (mostly from Canada and some from northern New England), solar, and offshore wind. Examine each option more closely and it becomes apparent that we cannot do without offshore wind…” click here for more

    THE INEVITABILITY OF SOLAR The Solar Energy Revolution: Past the Point of No Return; Solar energy is now so cheap that it's beating fossil fuels, putting it on a path for growth that can't be stopped.

    Travis Hoium, June 27, 2015 (Motley Fool)

    “…[In 2011, the SunShot Initiative’s goal of $1-per-watt solar energy seemed a long way off]… First Solar's CEO Jim Hughes said that $1 per watt is…less than two years away…The government's progress toward achieving $1 per watt by 2017 and having it be a widespread commercial reality by 2020 is well ahead of schedule…Whether you invest in tech, retail, oil and gas, utilities, coal, or any other industry, this will affect the companies you own. And you're going to want the solar boom to be a tailwind, not a headwind…First Solar says that bids for solar projects are now in the $0.04-to-$0.05-per-kWh range, which is less than you can build a fossil fuel plant for, no matter the source of energy…” click here for more