The HIGH COST of CHEAP OIL

The days when the US could kill, drill and consume its way out of crisis have ended. That new reality is made clear by the current conflict between Russia and Georgia, which is looking more and more like one between Russia and the US ... As they look into the abyss, Americans will need to ask themselves once and for all how much more they are willing to pay to scrape the bottom of the last barrel of oil ...

by Sandy LeonVest

The Empire That Couldn’t Strike Back

The exact moment in history marking the last gasp of the American Empire will likely be debated by historians for years. But there is little doubt that August 7, 2008 will be viewed as a turning point in that history. Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia, followed by Russia’s predictable response, may have faded from the US media spotlight, but it is on the front pages of much of the international press - and for good reason.

On August 26, Moscow issued an extraordinary warning to the West. “If NATO suddenly takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia,” said Russian Ambassador Dmitry Rogozin. Russia has also made it clear that it would consider any military assistance to Georgia an act of war. Ambassador Rogozin compared the current crisis to the atmosphere in Europe just before the start of the First World War. The extreme rhetoric from the Kremlin’s envoy to NATO came on the heels of President Dmitry Medvedev’s pronouncement that he would respond militarily to US missile defense installations in eastern Europe.

That same week Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies in Moscow, alleged that the US and NATO had been arming Georgia as a ‘dress rehearsal’ for a future military operation in Iran. ”We are close to a serious conflict,” he said. “US.and NATO preparations on a strategic scale are ongoing ...”

“The Georgia quarrel has all but derailed US-Russian cooperation on the Iran issue,” observed an August 30 special report on the DEBKAfile. “Moscow is not only pulling out of the diplomatic and sanctions front against Iran’s nuclear program ... [It] has decided to finally finish building Iran’s nuclear reactor in the southern town of Bushehr before the end of the year, after holding back for five years at Washington’s insistence.” Later that day, Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, commented: “If nobody wants to talks with us on these issues and cooperation with Russia is not needed, then for God’s sake, do it yourself.”

Moscow has now committed to completing the reactor within four months. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the plant will enable Iran to operate a heavy water reactor and produce plutonium as an alternative to enriched uranium for building a nuclear bomb.

The dangerous scenario unfolding today in and around the Southern Caucasus of the former Soviet Union has exposed an impoverished and vulnerable US, with neither the political clout nor the military capacity to take care of its own, much less bully other nations into submission. The Bush administration, by behaving as if it were unaware of its diminished status, has placed a once-powerful nation at the mercy of hostile powers, made a mockery of US foreign policy and turned geo-politics on its axis.

Energy - the Weapon of Choice

Russia, with its wealth of petroleum and natural gas, has become an energy superpower. It is feeling that power right now - and with good reason. For starters, it is the single largest supplier of oil and gas to the European Union. A full 25% of Europe’s natural gas comes from Russia. Its leaders well understand that Europe’s continued prosperity - and that of many Western states - depends on the uninterrupted flow of liquid fuel and/or the lucrative energy contracts they bring.

Other countries that rely on Russia for energy include Belarus, Poland, Turkey, the Baltics, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Ukraine. Ukraine, a former Soviet state, is the conduit for 85 percent of the natural gas that Russia delivers to Western Europe.

The International Energy Agency predicts that by 2030 Europe’s gas imports will have doubled with much of it coming from Russia. Georgia, also a former Soviet state, occupies the strategically vital land bridge between the Black and Caspian Seas, making it vulnerable to both Russia and Iran. Georgia has not only clashed with Russia over its independence, but hosts the only transit route to the West for Azeri oil and gas that bypasses Russia. Georgia also depends on Russia for natural gas. A key factor in US support for Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his conflict with Russia has been Georgia’s emergence as a critical transit country from the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea basin.

The August 7 outbreak of hostilities between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia is the predictable result of the US’ aggressive use of pipeline politics and proxy states to assert its commercial and military influence in Central Asia. This policy has dominated US relations with the former Soviet republics since the 1991 collapse of the USSR. Back then, US investors rushed in to grab what they could of the former USSR’s economy, most notably the oil and gas industries of the Caspian Basin.

From the outset, US firms and advisors pressed the ex-Soviet states to agree to pipeline routes bypassing ‘hostile’ countries like Russia and Iran. “Such pipelines not only deprived US rivals of transit fees and political leverage arising from their ability to cut off pipeline flows, but also gave Washington the opportunity to weld together pro-US regional alliances,” writes journalist Alex Lantier at countercurrents.org.

In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration pushed hard for two main pipeline projects to export Caspian oil and gas while bypassing Russia, Iran and China. The first would export Turkmen gas through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ports on the Indian Ocean (which inspired the US to support the Taliban in the 1990s). That plan ultimately foundered on the Taliban’s inability to conquer northern Afghanistan. The other was to build a pipeline through pro-US states Georgia and Azerbaijan. Together with an undersea trans-Caspian pipeline connecting Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan with Azerbaijan, the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline would send Caspian energy to the Mediterranean. The construction of this pipeline was viewed as a major affront to Russia’s domination of energy routes from the Caspian to the West.

It is worth noting that some of the Bush administrations’ top officials were involved in US energy companies’ first serious oil negotiations with the USSR. Among them, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who served on the board of Chevron from 1991 to 2001 when Chevron was acquiring a stake in the Tengiz oil field and Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as CEO of oil infrastructure firm Halliburton and as a member of Kazakhstan’s Oil Advisory Board. The advisory board was put together by the Kazakh government after the fall of the USSR, and included CEOs of Chevron and Texaco.

Georgia subsequently became the site of the ‘Rose Revolution,’ during which its unpopular president Eduard Shevardnadze was ousted in December, 2003. The US-trained Georgian military reportedly stood by and watched while its top officials, including then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, personally intervened to order Shevardnadze to step down. This US-lead coup brought to power a series of former Shevardnadze associates who were closely associated with the US. One of them, Columbia University-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili, formally assumed the Georgian presidency in January 2004.

From the point of view of US oil interests, the Rose Revolution could not have been timed more perfectly. It came only a year before the opening of the BTC pipeline, and the pipeline's value to US foreign policy was very much contingent upon the Georgian government being independent from Russian pressure. But developments in Central Asian pipeline politics since the Rose Revolution have not helped the US, which may at least partially explain the Bush administrations’ suport of Saakashvili in his reckless invasion of South Ossetia.

The growth of resistance to the US occupation of Afghanistan has preempted plans for constructing a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. As a result, the Caucasian pipelines through Georgia now represent the only viable path for Central Asian oil and gas exports that is acceptable to Washington.

In December 2007, Russia signed an agreement with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to build a new natural gas pipeline along the eastern Caspian Sea coast. That agreement effectively derailed US plans to convince Central Asian governments to commit substantial oil and gas resources to a trans-Caspian pipeline linked to the US-backed pipelines in the Caucasus. The two pipelines currently running through Georgia are the BTC pipeline and the Baku-Tblisi-Erzurum pipeline. The BTC pipeline alone can pump up to one million barrels a day of crude to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, where a bulk of it is shipped to the West.

The pipelines were the first routes to bypass Russia in transporting Caspian energy to the West. These issues are a key subtext to Russia’s conflict with Georgia. They are instructive as well regarding the Bush administrations’ motives for pressuring NATO to ‘fast track’ Georgia’s application to join the alliance.

A Vast Sea of Oil - The End of an Era

US wealth and power has long rested on the abundance of cheap petroleum. For many years, it was the world’s leading producer of oil, supplying its own needs while generating a healthy surplus for export. “Abundant, exceedingly affordable petroleum was ... responsible for the emergence of the American automotive and trucking industries, the flourishing of the domestic airline industry, the development of the petrochemical and plastics industries, the suburbanization of America, and the mechanization of its agriculture,” writes Michael Klare, author of ‘Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet.’

Without cheap and abundant oil, the US would never have enjoyed the historic economic expansion of the post-World War II era. ”No less important,” notes Klare, “was the role of abundant petroleum in fueling the global reach of US military power ... It has been oil above all that gave the US military its capacity to project power onto distant battlefields like Iraq and Afghanistan. Every Humvee, tank, helicopter, and jet fighter requires its daily ration of petroleum, without which America’s technology-driven military would be forced to abandon the battlefield. No surprise, then, that the US Department of Defense is the world’s single biggest consumer of petroleum.

“As long as most of our oil came from domestic sources and the price remained reasonably low, the American economy thrived and the ... cost of deploying vast armies abroad was relatively manageable. But that sea has been shrinking since the 1950s. Domestic oil production reached a peak in 1970 and has been in decline ever since -- with a growing dependency on imported oil as the result. When it came to reliance on imports, the US crossed the 50% threshold in 1998 and now has passed 65%.”

The Bush administration, having failed to implement an energy policy that might begin to wean the US from its dependence on foreign oil, instead became fixated on it. Its attempts to encircle the Southern Caucasus with NATO members and its’ courting and grooming of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili seem only logical when viewed through such a distorted prism. Tragically, Saakashvili’s invasion of South Ossetia played right into Russia’s hands by providing just the excuse it needed to hit back - hard.

Russia has shown more than once that, when push comes to shove, it will not hesitate to make life miserable for its adversaries. In past disputes, it has cut off natural gas to Ukraine and halted oil deliveries to Estonian ports. Amid a trade row with its neighbor Belarus in 2006, it cut oil supplies to Poland, Germany and Ukraine. In July of this year, it cut oil deliveries to the Czech Republic by nearly half to punish Prague for its deal with the US to host a missile defense shield. In the past, both Poland and Germany have had their supplies threatened as well.

While the US does not depend on Russia to meet a significant share of its own energy needs, many of its NATO allies do. The conflict between Russia and Georgia is illustrative of what can happen when national security - and by extension prosperity - relies upon the good will of any foreign power.

There is little doubt that countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, both major US petroleum suppliers, are observing recent developments with great interest. They, along with Nigeria, Russia, Colombia and a host of other oil-producing countries have grown increasingly wary of - and hostile to - the US and its allies since the launching of the ‘global war on terror’ in late 2001.

“The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit,” ex-Army Colonel and conservative historian Andrew Bacevich told Bill Moyers in a recent interview. “The chief desire of the American people ... is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil and that credit. The chief aim of the US government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad.”

Of course, the current administration is in no position to ‘distribute largesse’ here or anywhere else, and it remains to be seen whether facts on the ground will temper its imperial ambitions.

You Get What You Pay For: The High Cost of No Energy Policy

Whether Americans fully grasp it yet or not, cheap gas is the least of their worries. Included in the Bush administrations’ legacy to the next president are an open-ended ‘global war on terror;’ a food and water supply that is neither secure nor sustainable; an economy in shambles; a disintegrating infrastructure - from the electrical transmission grid to national highways; institutions in freefall - including healthcare, the banking industry, the military and the US Constitution; and no coherent energy policy with which to tackle the threat of accelerated climate change or, for that matter, any other kind of disaster.

Its military having been squandered and its coffers laid bare by gross excess and a cynically-conceived war on terror, the US must now face a moment of reckoning, the likes of which it has never experienced.

Within a few short weeks, a new president will assume the responsibility of trying to piece together the ruins left behind by one of the most corrupt and destructive administrations in US history. If that new president is serious about change of the kind anyone can believe in, he will seize the moment to tell Americans the truth about the cost of energy dependence, drilling in environmentally sensitive areas and over-consumption. He will make it the first order of business to put forward an energy plan that favors and incentivizes de-centralized ‘energy farms’ and he will promote policies that encourage individuals, small businesses and/or communities to produce their own food and renewable energy. While he is at it, he should get rid of subsidies to Big Energy and Big Agriculture and hold the fossil fuel, nuclear and ethanol industries accountable for the damage they do.

For better or worse, another chapter in global history is about to begin. That chapter will need a radical re-write if the US is to emerge as anything more than a sycophant state.

Sandy LeonVest is a widely published journalist, radio activist and renewable energy advocate. She is the publisher and editor of SolarTimes, which can be found online at: www.solartimes.org

by Sandy LeonVest

“Anyone who isn’t cynical right now is either stupid or not paying attention.”

The quote above is not mine, nor does it represent how I feel. It does, however, articulate what I perceive as an increasingly palpable (and disturbing) attitude among some segments of the populous - apparently in response to the crazy times in which we find ourselves.  

I’m hoping this only reflects my experience, and does not represent a hard core ‘renaissance’ of cynicism. But it does seem to me that, right around the turn of the century (just after Bush 2 was elected), cynicism as a valid (even intellectually superior) position picked up steam.  

Today, reality on the ground, including the dismal state of the economy - from local to global - seems to be amplifying the phenomenon further, which, I guess, only makes sense.  “It’s hard to argue against cynics,” wrote good old Molly Ivins. “They always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side.”  Of couse, she’s so right. As a journalist, I can testify to that. Seems like the evidence supporting the cynics’ position is coming in by ever-bigger truckloads with each passing day.  

Yet, I think I prefer Oscar Wilde’s view of the matter. He once defined a cynic as one “who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” And perhaps Ralph Waldo Emerson, who once said a cynic “can chill and dishearten with a single word,” best reflects my attitude on the subject.  

The planet is in deep trouble - perhaps irrevocably. Humans across the world face a resource crisis of historic and unprecedented proportions. That seems as good an excuse as any for giving up.  But, to engage in what John Kenneth Galbraith called “the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness,” seems to me destructively self-indulgent. Unless one is looking for an excuse to give up, cynicism serves no long term purpose. It may be a reasonable position - for a minute. But the more relevant question is, “where do we go from there?”  

Toward that end, we would do well to keep in mind that cynicism is a luxury that primarily plagues the ‘well-fed classes.’ Those members of the global population who face the ravages of civil war, displacement, drought, disease and famine as a way of life understand that hopelessness is simply not an option when survival is on the line.  

For those of us who are still relatively privileged, I would submit that hopelessness is not an acceptable default position.  

So, how does one ‘remain in light’ in such dark times, without resorting to the (dangerous) comfort of denial? Or, in the Zen sense: Knowing we are surrounded by misery, can we still live in a joyous state?  I think the answer is ‘Yes.’ Here’s why:  

I am, by profession, a turner of stones, bound by a sense of personal and moral responsibility to consider many points of view and many facets of the same issue in order to make an informed judgment about how to approach a subject or a story. That may be why being an ‘activist,’ (ie: one who takes action) works so well for me. I find the process to be liberating and fulfilling , calming and exhilarating.  I love doing what I do, and I find it strange when people ask me (and they do), “How can you do what you do, day in and day out, and keep such a positive attitude?”  

The answer is simple: The more I understand about the rest of the world, the more I realize how fortunate I am to be who I am - and where I am. Democracy requires vigilance requires participation ... For my money, the US mainstream media and their ‘subscribers’ are obsessing over the wrong thing(s). Americans are about to discover that high gas prices - and even recession and/or inflation - may be the least of their worries.  

Besides, if a nice, long recession is what it takes to snap US policymakers out of their growth-induced trances, so be it. [Don’t miss reading NASA scientist James Hansen’s testimony to Congress in SolarTimes at www.solartimes.org.]   

As Dr. Hansen so elegantly testified this summer, the long-prophesied ‘tipping point’ on climate change will have been reached if major and substantive measures are not taken within the next year.   

There is no lack of awareness of an energy crisis in the public (or private) sectors. That is not the problem. There are some extraordinary, even visionary renewable energy projects going on locally and across the planet.    

The problem, as I see it, is that while the US media is fixated on rising gas prices, inflation and the flailing stock market, national and global institutions are essentially failing. The ‘dinosaur’ in the room is the growing sense that economic and social systems we have come to regard as ‘normal’ are stressed to the limit and, in fact, melting down.  
Seemingly disparate phenomena, from food shortages in India, Haiti, West Africa et al, to melting ice caps in the Antarctic have converged with overtaxed power grids and energy shortages across the planet. Accelerated climate change and a third-world population explosion obliges us to redefine ‘normal.’  
It is unlikely that the high fuel prices of the past several months are an economic anomaly. Even the US Energy Information Administration says ‘conventional’ world oil production peaked back in 2005, and the peak in all oil (including non-conventional sources like tarsands) is estimated to come in 2010.  
Still, my biggest concern remains the seeming inability of governments - large and small - to implement substantive changes in a timely way. The (relatively small number of) Megawatt renewable energy projects actually being employed today is a drop in the proverbial bucket when compared to what is needed - NOW.  
I am encouraged and inspired by California’s public commitment to leading the nation in the movement to mitigate extreme climate change. And I get as excited as the next person about the latest, greatest R&D, and the promising new technologies that are here now or in the pipeline. But, from where I sit, there still does not seem to be the kind of radical vision of the future and the bold leadership needed to enact the systemic changes that might insure such a future.  

California, to its credit, has set some laudable goals and has passed groundbreaking legislation with AB 32 (the global warming bill signed by Schwarzenegger in 2006).  

But even the California Energy Commission is concerned that many of the state’s emissions goals, ambitious as they are, will not be met within the projected timeline, and agencies like the California Air Resource Board are not always helpful, as evidenced by their April, 2008 ruling on Zero Emissions Vehicles. (See SolarTimes, SecondQuarter, 2008).  

There is much work to do - statewide and nationally.  

By 2050 (conservative estimates), the planet may well have more than 2 billion cars on the road - three times the current number. More efficient fuel economy can be achieved with mandates, such as the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, or by higher taxes, but these are likely political non-starters here in the US. And no country has ever substantially increased its fuel economy (even with new technology) without also implementing tougher fuel standards, higher prices or both. Even Europe, with its high gasoline taxes (relative to the US), has mandates.  In 2007, Congress did finally pass a 35-mpg fuel standard after a grueling battle with conservatives in both parties. That will get the US to where the Chinese are now by the year 2020, and we will still lag far behind Japan and Europe. “No gasoline-powered car assembled in North America would meet China’s current fuel-efficiency standard,” noted the Toronto Star last year. And, dare I add, it may be time to abandon the internal combustion engine altogether.  

“To avoid dramatic climate impacts,” says scientist, Joe Romm, editor of Climate Progress, “The average car on the road will need to put out under one-fifth the emissions of current cars, or the equivalent of five times the miles per gallon of today.”  

And, as Dr. James Hansen points out in his Congressional testimony, time is not on our side. ... SLV

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/23/18282327.php

North Bay / Marin | Environment & Forest Defense
GOOD ENERGY IN STINSON BEACH
by Sandy LeonVest ( solareditor [at] fastmail.fm )
Friday Jun 23rd, 2006 2:00 PM

The Stinson Beach Solar Committee (SBSC) has a vision...to create a sustainable, energy-independent community, to educate the community regarding that process and to incorporate the use of solar power whenever and wherever it is possible. Toward those intentions members of the SBSC have met and discussed - and are currently researching - the concept of becoming energy-independent!

GOOD ENERGY FOR STINSON BEACH
A conversation with Author & Renewable Energy Expert Peter Asmus

Imagine producing clean, silent, renewable electricity right here in Stinson Beach - that's exactly what a community-based solar power plant has the potential to do!

Peter Asmus is a member of the SBSC. He is also a friend, author, colleague and respected renewable energy activist. I spoke with him recently about the realities - technical, political and legislative - of such a community solar project. Peter's decades as a renewable energy researcher uiniquely qualify him to shed light on this and other critical 21st century energy issues.
********************************

IN June, 2006, StinsonSolarTimes Editor Sandy LeonVest had a long conversation with Peter Asmus about the possibilities and challenges of transforming Stinson Beach and its sister city Bolinas into truly energy-independent and sustainable communities. Due to the critical nature of that conversation, SST chose to publish it in three parts as opposed to editing out vital information in order to accommodate our tiny newsletter! The entire conversation is published on Sandy's blog at http://www.relocalize.net/blog/3484, her website at http://www.leonvest.com and http://www.indybay.org.

June, 2006 - A Conversation with Peter Asmus - Part One:

SLV: Peter, will you talk about what thee Stinson Beach Solar Committee (SBSC) is currently up to - especially with respect to a commumnity-based solar production facility?

PA: SBSC is following up on the great response we received from the Stinson Solar Sunday event held here last February. On June 8th, we had Dana Armanino from Marin County speak at the Stinson Library about the various services and rebates the county offers to local residents and businesses. For example, most people here in the county might not realize that they can get a free site assessment from the county to determine whether they have a good solar site on their property. One of our challenges is that renters like me for example currently have few options to go solar or switch to any other form of renewable energy.

This idea of cooperating at a community level spurred on my investigation of the concept of “community solar.” What we are hoping to accomplish is to find a way to create a larger solar project that could serve several residents, as well as businesses.

SLV: As you know, Peter, some of us have big dreams for Stinson Beach...the vision being that a community solar power project would provide power for residents in Stinson who, for instance, do not have a good location (southern exposure) for a solar array...Assuming the SBSC was able to purchase the land, get through any legislative and political hurdles and actually construct say a 100kW array, how exactly would this work? My understanding is that such an array, while theoretically capable of producing enough power for 20-30 homes, in reality, would not be capable of physically transporting solar power to a specific site...

PA: The physical transport of energy over the electricity grid is hardly straightforward. If one is off the grid and depending upon a remote solar photovoltaic array or small wind turbine to generate electricity, then there is no doubt where one is getting their power from. When one is connected to the grid, the situation is more like a giant battery, that all kinds of power sources – both dirty and clean – contribute to in order to keep the lights on. The grid needs to stay in balance, hence the armies of technical folks who must keep supply in check with demand, or we get the rolling blackouts. I think it's safe to say that tracking electricity is much more a financial transaction than an actual physical delivery of electricity, yet building a community solar project is technically feasible. The prime obstacles are political. Existing regulations and rules focus on individuals or businesses installing solar projects. Ironically enough, there are all kinds of regulatory obstacles to constructing a solar project that could actually serve various parts of a community. In Denmark, by way of contrast, farmers pool their resources together and build decentralized wind projects that are then owned by a cooperative. The only state in the US that has tried a similar approach is Minnesota, which of course of a state with a rich European background.

SLV: OK - so much for the reality check. Let's talk about what may be one of the most important yet underplayed aspects of 'going solar.' I often wonder if 'consumers' understand what a really powerful statement 'going solar' is...that once a consumer owns a solar-producing array, that he/she has actually transformed his/herself from an energy consumer into an energy producer...talk about why such a concept is no longer simply an "alternative," but a 21st century imperative...

PA: Well, I think that in light of global climate change, the terrorist threat, record oil industry profits, and the personal satisfaction of being responsible for the size of one’s environmental footprint, going solar is one of the most meaningful acts one can take to solve the world’s problems. And if one can’t go solar, switching to other renewable energy sources is also admirable. The Strauss Dairy out near Marshall is now completely powered by cow herds whose waste is a major contributor to global climate change. Now that waste is being harnessed to fuel this organic dairy. Then there is the Stubbs Winery, the first winery to go organic in Marin County, and an off-grid enterprise completely powered by the sun and the wind.

But for most of us, solar is the way to go. There are no moving parts, and once placed on your rooftop or other site, the solar PV systems quietly churn out clean electrons for 20-40 years. Here’s one way to look at it: would you rather own or rent your power supply? Not only that, would you rather be sending your dollars to help support the maintenance of nuclear or coal plants, or would you rather take personal responsibility for own power usage and invest in a system whose negative environmental impact is essentially zero?

SLV: One of the most frustrating aspects for home solar producers, esp out here in West Marin, is PG&E's grid; as you know, West Marin has more than its share of power outages. This means when PG&E's grid goes down, solar power goes down right along with it...backup systems like generators or even batteries are not only very expensive, but they produce 'dirty energy,' which is what we're trying to avoid. Can you talk a little about this particular challenge...?

PA: Well, solar PV owners are not required to be connected to the grid, it is just that virtually all of the government goodies being handed out by the state and federal government are earmarked for systems connected to the grid. One of the main drivers behind solar right now is the policy of “net metering” wherein a solar system owner sends back unused power to the grid from their system and get credited for that clean power at the retail price. It is policies such as net metering that have driven solar into the mainstream and the grid then becomes an ally as it serves as a battery for your solar system. But you are right, the solar system owner is relying upon the grid – with all of its dirty power sources – to keep things humming at your home. Going off-grid is quite appealing, but obviously even more expensive. Many people who live in remote areas, as in Mendocino County, live off-grid and love it! They are willing to deal with the occasional inconvenience of not being able to wash their clothes at night, or not being able to run every appliance in their homes when their solar fuel is low. In the developing world, off-grid systems are a godsend for millions of people. Indeed, remote off-grid solar systems are allowing tribal villages to keep their families intact, allowing them to connect to the outside world via laptop computers, but stay true to their rural lifestyles without the whole family having to migrate to crowded and polluted urban centers to make a living.

Here in the US, the current solar movement is being driven by grid-connected systems. Of course, with policies such as California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, the overall mix of resources powering the grid will be getting cleaner and cleaner over time. The latest version of the RPS has California obtaining 33 percent of our total electricity from renewable resources by 2020. Here in Marin County, a law called “Community Choice Aggregation” allows our local elected officials to choose the power content of electricity. The proposal on the table is for Marin to go 51 percent renewable energy. So, if this plan goes forward, those connected to the grid in Marin County will have a power supply fives times cleaner than our current generic grid mix!

PART TWO - THE POWERS THAT BE

SLV: One problem is that PG&E's grid infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating, yet you seem to say that we're stuck with that infrastructure...Should that policy be changed...? Can it be changed over the long term?

PA: Oh, I think we are entering a time when renewable energy is going to have to become a larger part of all of our lives. The private utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric are among the most powerful special interests on the planet, and the last thing they want to see happening is for folks to go off-grid. Perhaps that fear can be used as leverage for PG&E to change its current stance of not allowing more consumers to take advantage of net metering. Right now, PG&E and other private utilities limit the amount of folks that can barter their solar electricity. Even though the state has now committed to $3 billion to add 3,000 megawatts of solar power to the grid by 2017 – that’s enough to power about 3 million homes – most of those systems will not be able to take advantage of net metering unless current artificial caps on grid-connected solar power are lifted. There is currently a bill – AB 2993 by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – that would lift that cap, more than doubling the amount of solar systems that could connect to PG&E’s grid and still be eligible for the benefits of net metering.

SLV: Have you ever walked around Stinson Beach and noticed how non-sensically our energy/telecom infrastructure seems - just in appearance? In a book I once read, one renewable energy advocate said that PG&E's wires reminded him of "silly string insouciantly tossed across an otherwise pristeen and pastoral setting..." Something like that.

PA: Yes, our electricity infrastructure leaves something to be desired, that’s for sure. In Europe – and in some parts of the US – poles and wires are all placed underground, which addresses the visual problems, but of course does not take care of lingering concerns about the impacts of electromagnetic fields on public health. Having lived through many power outages here in Stinson, there have been many times I thought about how nice it would be to be off-grid with my own clean power supply. Of course, the challenge is that we need both on-site renewable energy system such as solar, but we also need to develop larger renewable energy projects if we really want to address global climate change. Many renewables – such as wind and geothermal steam – tend to be located in remote regions far from power consumers. Somehow that power has to be transmitted. There are a lot of trade-offs to consider as one takes a systems view of our electricity system. Just how far can we change the status quo? That remains an open question.

SLV: How does PG&E fit into the pictue - politically and institutionally speaking? Talk a little more about where their interests lie...is the utility invested in keeping solar producers tied to their grid...

PA: PG&E will say they have more solar connected to their grid than any other utility in the US – and that’s true. But that hardly means they are supportive of solar power. Just look at their resistance to more consumers adding more solar to their grid via net metering.

PG&E actually was a pioneer on solar when folks like Carl Weinberg worked in their R&D office and began touting solar PV projects as a way to increase the reliability of the grid over 25 years ago. Of course, the grid doesn’t have to be our enemy. The only two community solar projects that I am aware of are grid-connected; they just happen to be owned by public power entities. I’ve always liked the notion of public power, having learned about energy in Sacramento. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District has had the most successful solar program in the country. So I like the notion of local control. But some public power entities are very, very regressive. They tend to reflect the culture of the region they serve.

PG&E was the most gung ho among California utilities on deregulation. Of course, they basically went bankrupt when our “deregulated” electricity system collapsed due to the antics of Enron and others. They are more progressive than some utilities, particularly the Neanderthals such as the Southern Company – which still extols the virtues of coal – but they obviously have a vested interest in keeping their customers, not losing them. Solar has always been perceived as a threat to private utilities, but given that even Wall Street players such as Goldman Sachs are now touting renewable energy, it might be time for them to wake up and see the light. Solar and other renewable energy sources are the wave of the future. Sometimes off-grid solar will make much more sense from a societal point-of-view; sometimes grid-connected systems make more sense. In the perfect world, we would be able to make these decisions without considering the power and influence various players within the power supply business typically exert on our lawmakers and regulators.

SLV: I think it's safe to assume that in the 21st century, renewable sources of energy are no longer merely an option - they are an imperative. In that respect, it seems that the term "alternative energy" has become a 21st century anachronism. Today, are we not talking about an energy imperative...an essential model...? Toward that end, what kind of legislation would need to happen to change (dare I say) the existing paradigm? And who, if anyone, is addressing this, politically?

PA: Right now, I’m still investigating the obstacles to “community solar” projects, such as the idea of installing a solar carport on the south Stinson Beach State Park parking lot, which then could power local community structures, as well as residents that lack a good site, or who could not afford the high up-front costs.

Changing the existing paradigm is quite a challenge, but there is more going on to move forward with renewable energy than ever before. It has gone mainstream, but of course, that also means compromises. Is it good that General Electric now builds wind turbines and is installing solar roofs for schools in San Diego County? On one hand, this is good; on the other, one might complain that it is GE that owns the systems and thereby derives the greatest financial benefits. On the other hand, the schools now have a clean source of electricity and can enjoy fixed-price solar electricity.

No politicians seem to be taking on the powerful special interests that comprise the energy industry. Instead, we see a lot of Johnny-Come-Lately conversions to renewable energy. I think we need the radicals to keep pushing for way to democratize our energy economy. But we also need Wall Street financial folks to recognize that solar and other renewable to reduce risks, do offer a better way to address global climate change than nuclear power plants or “clean” coal. We are in such a dire predicament when it comes to global climate change, that we need help from wherever we can get it.

PART THREE - THE FUTURE

SLV: As you know, I'm one who believes the longterm vision will necessarily include getting off the grid completely. And the more I learn about PG&E's crumbling infrastructure and outsourcing practices, the more that seems inevitable. Seems
like we may need to deal with PG&E for now and perhaps work toward a longterm vision of true energy-independence and sustainable community...

PA: Going off the grid is a great vision. But the thing we then have to figure out is how to back-up our intermittent renewables. Battery systems are expensive, and carry their own waste disposal liabilities. I don’t necessarily see one model working everywhere. Where there currently is no grid – such as parts of the developing world – I think that’s where the most innovation can be done. And wouldn’t that be grand, to have the developing world teach us in the so-called industrialized world, the best way to supply power?

Is the grid the enemy? Yes and no. If the grid became dominated by renewable fuels, then the issue of backing up solar with dirty sources starts to go away. Of course, there is talk of micro-grids, little islands where clean, premium power could be provided to people and companies that cannot afford any power outages at all. Then there is the idea espoused by Amory Lovins about our eco-cars becoming mini-power plants. Instead of just plugging our electric/hydrogen cars into the socket to get charged up, they could also become the power providers for our homes and small businesses.

Here in an isolated community such as Stinson Beach, creating an off-grid island could certainly be an appealing prospect for many. Perhaps advances in non-toxic batteries and other forms of energy storage will help make that real. The prime challenge right now for the off-grid all renewable vision is storage of energy when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind is not blowing. But that’s where modular biomass sources could come in, since they could provide power round-the-clock.

There are no silver bullet. The answer is the whole family of renewable resources, and a much more intelligent, nimble and less intrusive grid. In the end, I see the future energy supply like the Interent: a decentralized system where each of us has on-site sources, but also a way to share resources we cannot use ourselves. How we get there is still being figured out.

SLV: You probably remember the May 23 blackout...? I was home on my laptop researching among other things PG&E's infrastructure issues and the lights began to flicker, which I didn't even notice until the phone line went down and I was knocked off the internet. It lasted late into the night...I remember being grateful that my laptop had a battery backup b/c I was able to document the event - and my own feelings about it - in the moment. What is your visceral response when Stinson Beach experiences these all-too-frequent power outages?

PA: Oh, I get upset, but sometimes it becomes a relief, too. It makes us notice just how dependent we have become on all of our gadgets and gizmos. In an odd way, I’ve enjoyed some of the blackouts, because they forced me to let go of all of these deadlines and tasks I wanted to accomplish, and instead, had a great excuse to just go for a hike or to the beach. Of course, an extended blackout then creates problems for communication, food storage, etc. What upsets me is when it took PG&E so long to restore service to isolated rural communities such as Stinson because they cut back on their service personal due to deregulation and efforts to profit at the expense of providing good customer service. That’s the part that galled me!

SLV: Since going completely off the grid is clearly a long term vision, what steps do we need to take as citizens, as a community to begin that process...? Would that not necessitate tearing down a lot of institutional walls - along with the old grid?

PA: If we change the power content, then some of the problems with the grid go away. If the ownership changes, that takes care of some of those issues. What we need to do is bring our energy infrastructure into the 21st century. We need to look at the negative impacts of the transmission towers and distribution lines scattered over the landscape like spaghetti, and see if there is a better way.

My main concern with going off-grid is this: How will that encourage community solar projects? How can we share power if we are not connected somehow? Going off the grid has long been the vision driving hard core renewable advocates, and recent trends instead highlight that the grid is providing benefits for those installing solar systems. If one is a purist – and Sandy I get the feeling you fall in that category – the ideal world would be one where each one of us could power our own homes with an on-site renewable source, whether that be the sun, wind or waste such as methane from a dairy operation or wastewater treatment plant, etc. Can we each afford such a system? How can we best democratize the energy economy by distributing our energy dollars more locally and to someone besides an oil company or a private utility?

It may be that your vision of an off-grid energy world becomes true in developing nations. And wouldn’t that be ironic! We here in the US and in Europe would be living with the outdated systems, while people in Africa, Asia and South America could be enjoying the state-of-the-art!

Whatever we do, we need to figure out ways to cooperate at a local level, at a regional level, and ultimately, at the global level –if we have any chance for long-term survival.

SLV: Will you talk a little about communities that have actually negotiated with their power companies to buy up the existing grid within their area? There is precedent for communities buying up the existing power grid?

PA: Well, SMUD in Sacramento did just that, but it took them over 25 years to get it done. The nice thing about the Community Choice Aggregation plan is that we can change our power supply content, without having to drag in all of the lawyers and spend all of this money to take over the PG&E grid. But obviously owning your own power infrastructure allows one to make more dramatic changes. A community in the San Joaquin Valley just announced it is doing just that, but it is a community that already owns some hydroelectric power plants to provide its own electricity.

Right now, about 25 percent of California consumers are served by public power entities. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is the largest municipal utility in the country. Ironically enough, it actually has been the dirtiest utility in the state – because it has been buying power from a coal plant in Arizona that has been employing – and killing – large numbers of Native Americans. But to its credit, it recently has launched major solar and renewable energy programs, and is contemplating phasing out its reliance upon coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels.

SMUD was considered one of the worst utilities in the country before it closed the Rancho Seco nuclear reactor, the only nuke ever shut down by a local initiative, and I was heavily involved in that successful campaign. But since then, SMUD became one of the most progressive public power utilities in the world.

SLV: What can SST readers do to effect the kinds of changes in local energy policy that will get us closer to this 21st century imperative?

PA: We need to identify the obstacles to moving forward with community solar projects that can serve our community assets, such as the Fire Station, Community Center, etc. We are holding a series of workshops to help educate local citizens about these issues. The next workshop will be held at the local library on Wednesday, July 12th. I was also recently approached by NorCal Solar, a statewide solar advocacy group, which is focusing on Marin County as a model solar community. I am helping them organize what they are billing as a “Marin Solar Financing Summit” to address some of the issues that have arisen among non-profits and local agencies seeking to switch to solar power.

Recently, Fetzer Vineyards announced they are installing the wine industry’s largest solar array, over 900 kilowatts! The company MMA Renewable Ventures LLC is underwriting the project through its proprietary third-party financing model. They will be at this summit to discuss how they bring in outside money to help install projects. Under this approach, Fetzer did not have to put a dime up-front!

So, local citizens just need to stay in touch and share what they learn. This effort to solarize Stinson is a five-year process, and we are just at the beginning. The good news is that California now has the most aggressive solar energy program in the world, and there are efforts to extend some federal tax incentives. There really hasn’t been a better time to invest in solar. That said, there are many of us – yours truly included – that do not own their homes and cannot afford a solar system today, even with all of the subsidies. And that’s why we need to figure out a way to develop a community solar project that could provide power to those of limited income, who do not have a good solar site, but who support the critical transition we need to make to a renewable and sustainable energy future.

SLV: And now, my final question - and it's...kind of personal but if you'll humor me, I think your response may reflect what so many of us (renewable energy activists) feel, esp since the turn of the century, the merciful death of the global warming "debate," 911, Iraq...Please, will you talk a little about your visceral response to those who don't or won't get it...people with two SUVs in the driveway or sitting on million dollar properties who still insist they "can't
afford to go solar?"

PA: Sandy, you certainly do like to stir things up, don’t you! I think it is easy to become disillusioned here in Marin, where there is so much wealth and natural beauty, but also so many people preoccupied with status and shallow concerns that epitomize what is wrong with this country – even here in allegedly liberal and progressive Marin County. Perhaps Marin County should require any home valued over $1 million to install a solar system! If I were governor, I would mandate that all new subdivisions require new solar systems, so they could be rolled into mortgages, and just be viewed as a standard part of a new home. Yes, after one visits a place like Texas, it is comforting to see all of the bumper stickers criticizing the war in Iraq and other noble causes. But many of these bumper stickers are on gas guzzling SUVs!

Really, energy is no longer a Republican or a Democratic issue. People finally understand that the Bush Administration’s propaganda about having to choose between the economy and the environment is bogus. Renewable energy is the answer to virtually all of our problems. But renewable energy can also be corrupted by the powers that be. We have to be careful to develop renewable energy in a way that respects people and planet. If we can’t do it right in Marin County – with the wealth, visionary thinkers and environmental values so evident – how can we expect any other place to follow through on making the dream of a sustainable energy future a reality.

SLV: Thanks, Peter!

***************************************

Peter Asmus has served as an energy power consultant for, among others, Common Cause and Consumers Union. In 1984 Asmus wrote a series of stories on money-and-politics for The Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News and other leading California newspapers. Today he is not only an active member of the SBSC, but he continues to write hard-hitting journalistic exposes, commentaries and op-eds. He also writes in-depth policy-oriented think pieces for leading journals and magazines.

Peter Asmus has published several books on the topic of renewable energy.

Among them: Patriot Test (Patriotic Press, 2004), Reaping the Wind: How Mechanical Wizards, Visionaries and Profiteers Helped Shape our Energy Future (Island Press, 2001), Reinventing Electric Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action and Clean Power (Island Press, 1997)and In Search of Environmental Excellence (Simon & Schuster, 1990).

Contact Info:
Peter Asmus,
PO Box 436
Stinson Beach, CA 94970
tel: (415) 868-9866
fax: (415) 868-9566 pthfind [at] earthlink.net

Side Bar:

The East Bay's 'mystery' outage of May 23 and the Stinson brownout on May 25, 2006, illustrate all too graphically the ever-deepening energy crisis here in California. The May 23 event impacted 21,000 customers at its peak according to PG&E. Although investigators have yet to establish the cause, PG&E's decaying infrastructure and its growing reliance outsourcing are both likely suspects in these non-weather related events.

Today the SBSC's vision is only a concept, and an ambitious one at that. Like any vision, it is a process of turning over stones. It will need a long-range plan to transform it into a reality. Like any vision, the path will present its hurdles and challenges. But one thing is self-evident. Today as never before, such a vision is not only possible, it is essential. (See SST, P.3, 'Are We There Yet?) The technology for such a project is rapidly evolving, the political will is showing signs of bending to public pressure and private interests are beginning to reflect very public environmental and
economic realities.

slv
http://www.relocalize.net/blog/3484, www.l...
© 2000–2006 SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

GOOD ENERGY FOR STINSON BEACH
A conversation with Author & Renewable Energy Expert Peter Asmus

The Stinson Beach Solar Committee (SBSC) has a vision...to create a sustainable, energy-independent community, to educate the community regarding that process and to incorporate the use of solar power whenever and wherever it is possible. Toward those intentions members of the SBSC have met and discussed - and are currently researching - the concept of becoming energy-independent! Imagine producing clean, silent, renewable electricity right here in Stinson Beach - that's
exactly what a community-based solar power plant has the potential to do!

Peter Asmus is a member of the SBSC. He is also a friend, author, colleague and respected renewable energy activist. I spoke with him recently about the realities - technical, political and legislative - of such a community solar project. Peter's decades as a renewable energy researcher uiniquely qualify him to shed light on this and other critical 21st century energy issues.
********************************

IN June, 2006, StinsonSolarTimes Editor Sandy LeonVest had a long conversation with Peter Asmus about the possibilities and challenges of transforming Stinson Beach and its sister city Bolinas into truly energy-independent and sustainable communities. Due to the critical nature of that conversation, SST chose to publish it in three parts as opposed to editing out vital information in order to accommodate our tiny newsletter! The entire conversation is published on Sandy's blog at http://www.relocalize.net/blog/3484, her website at www.leonvest.com and www.indybay.org.

June, 2006 - A Conversation with Peter Asmus - Part One:

SLV: Peter, will you talk about what thee Stinson Beach Solar Committee (SBSC) is currently up to - especially with respect to a commumnity-based solar production facility?

PA: SBSC is following up on the great response we received from the Stinson Solar Sunday event held here last February. On June 8th, we had Dana Armanino from Marin County speak at the Stinson Library about the various services and rebates the county offers to local residents and businesses. For example, most people here in the county might not realize that they can get a free site assessment from the county to determine whether they have a good solar site on their property. One of our challenges is that renters like me for example currently have few options to go solar or switch to any other form of renewable energy.

This idea of cooperating at a community level spurred on my investigation of the concept of “community solar.

"The United States...has made it clear that we're quite in favor of [nuclear] proliferation to our friends...Iran under the Shah got our...encouragement for the nuclear activities we're now denouncing. Iraq, where we just went to war to prevent them from getting WMDs, was encouraged and helped in its nuclear program while it was fighting Iran...India, Pakistan have all benefited from US toleration or encouragement. So, we don't have a nonproliferation [policy]. If that's to happen, [US] policy will have to change; and above all, it will have to...move toward disarmament. No American president has had any intention of carrying out the supposedly solemn commitment under Article VI to undertake negotiations toward total elimination of nuclear weapons."

Daniel Ellsberg, May, 2005, on Democracy Now!

It is the 21st century - the age of terrorism and 'long wars.' But in the US and abroad, nuclear power, that 20th century energy behemoth, is quietly coming back.  If successful, it threatens to plunge the global populous into heretofore unseen levels of darkness and despair. 

LOOK - OVER THERE!

At least partially thanks to the "genius" of Karl Rove, the Bush Administration has always been good at changing the subject and since early 2006 when it became apparent even to its supporters that the unholy war in Iraq was the blackest of holes, Rove's monster public relations machine has been working triple-time.  But the smoke and mirrors being generated by that machine is concealing a far more threatening development behind its foggy curtain.  

In recent months the Bush Administration's public hysteria over Iran's nuclear ambitions has been hogging the media spotlight - some would argue, justifiably. This despite the fact that after more than three years of inspections, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) found no indication of "undeclared source or special nuclear materials" in Iran. The IAEA further reported finding no indication that any declared source or special nuclear materials had been diverted to military purpose. Yet Bush's obsessive fear mongering over Iran's nuke-building begins to make sense when viewed through the prism of its own nuclear weapons activities.  Those activities coupled with this White House's unprecedented history of secrecy, lies and contempt for those it has sworn to serve, go far toward explaining the president's fixation on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions.

Aided and abetted by Congress and a complicit media, George W. Bush and his henchmen have managed to fire up an entire nation - and the international community - with its "Iranian nuclear threat."  In so doing, they have constructed a dangerously volatile straw man - one that distracts Americans from the real nuclear threat. That threat is being played out not as we are instructed to believe, in the Middle East, but across the US and in the corridors of power in the nation's capital.

THE DEAFENING SILENCE

By now the Bush Administrations' fondness for Big Energy is a matter of very public record, if only because of its own arrogance. Even so, it took the mainstream media awhile to process the news that its Chief Executive and VP were literally conspiring with their Oil Industry friends to make National Energy Policy. Apparently the president's not-so-public pandering to the nuclear industry and its quiet launching of a new era of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism and national insecurity fall under the same category - still more of a sleeper than a scoop.  If it were widely understood, the Administration's efforts to resurrect nuclear power might stand at least a chance of sparking a national debate - or better still, an International Weapons Proliferation Summit.

Yet when Dr. Robert Civiak released his "Analysis of the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for Nuclear Weapons Activities," divulging the nuclear nature of the president's February 6, Budget Request for FY 2007 (which begins October 1, 2006), it didn't seem to generate any excitement at all, never mind that Weapons Proliferations Summit.  

In his analysis, Dr. Civiak documents the Bush Administration's $6.4 billion budget request for Nuclear Weapons Activities. The analysis finds that Bush's request "continues the decade long upsurge in funding for nuclear weapons" and that "the 2007 weapons budget is one-third higher than the average annual spending on nuclear weapons during the Cold War, even after accounting for inflation.

"The Administration's request supports a vast research and manufacturing enterprise focused on upgrading existing US nuclear weapons and designing new ones," states the report.  "Beyond being an appalling waste of Federal funds, the massive nuclear weapons development effort belies commitments the US has under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. By placing such importance on upgrading US nuclear weapons capabilities, the Administration frustrates efforts to convince proliferators that they can gain nothing by developing nuclear weapons and it undercuts international cooperation...vital to constraining the proliferators."

The utter failure of the mainstream press to connect the nuclear dots now borders on criminal complicity - especially when viewed in the context of the president's recent nuclear speaking tour.  Admittedly, George W. Bush's May, 2006 speech at the Limerick Generating Station wherein he cited nuclear power as the "perfect example of how we can grow our economy and protect our environment at the same time" didn't make particularly compelling press.  Even the light-handed coverage of his visit to Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland last year touting nuclear energy as a "replacement for fossil fuels" might be understandable were it not for the obvious pattern emerging from the Administration's actions.  While it is hardly shocking that Bush's pro-nuclear audience didn't challenge the president's assertion that "there is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation...[therefore] it is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again..." the lack of media inquisitiveness should be.  Never mind that the Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility is a likely site for the first new nuclear energy reactor to be built in the US in 30 years. Never mind either that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific research concludes that nuclear storage, safety and security issues in 2006 remain largely unresolved. 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CENSORSHIP

It is little comfort that when it comes to news censorship, the eerie blackouts that characterize the 21st century are an equal opportunity phenomenon from which no one is exempt. The blackouts are a reaction not to the messenger, but to the message.

When only last month (June, 2006), former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who reached near god-like status among the Wall Street crowd during his tenure as Fed Chief, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the nation's "worrisome dependence on oil" makes nuclear power key to national security, he didn't make headlines either. By the next day, even the Information Highway was hard pressed to give up that testimony although a webcast was available on C-SPAN. While the "nineteen new applications [for nuclear power plants]...currently on file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)" seemed to excite the ex-Fed Chief, his stunning proclamation was apparently not sexy enough for prime time.

In April of this year when twenty-three Senators signed on to a $27 million appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2007 for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear programs, clean energy advocates might have been interested to learn that among the signatories were ten leading Democrats - including John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other Democratic signatories were Senators Bingaman, Obama, Wyden, Reed, Kohl, Jeffords, Bayh and (Bill) Nelson. Yet there was no televised coverage at all and with few notable exceptions, there was little print coverage either. Thirteen Republicans (Voinovich, Craig, Crapo, Lugar, Bond, Talent, Alexander, Chafee, Warner, Burr, Isakson, DeWine and Smith) also signed the letter sent to the Committee on Appropriations.

The request for the FY 2007 DOE budget seeks the restoration of funding for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program to FY 2006 levels in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill - slated to be cut next year. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee that they expect to receive at least eleven applications for new plant construction between 2007 and 2009," the request reads. "Given the anticipated growth of nuclear power in this country...we urge you to restore funding for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program..."

The Bush energy plan, which includes a provision for easing the licensing process and more than $1 billion for new construction, got some press at the time it was announced, but that story too faded to black before most Americans had a chance to absorb its potential impact.

HISTORY 101 - THE REAL THREAT

In 1945, the US launched a massive nuclear attack on the heavily populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That low point in American history marked the US as the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against another.

It has been more than six decades since President Harry S. Truman gave the order to drop "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on the unsuspecting populous of two of Japan's major cities. Truman described the massacre as "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." That rain of ruin resulted in the instant incineration of at least 140,000 innocents in Hiroshima and well over 74,000 in Nagasaki. Those numbers do not take into account the thousands who died after 1945 of radiation-related illnesses.

Even so, in 2006 nuclear power and the weapons made possible by its generation are universally coveted.  Nuclear proliferation has become a fact of life in the global community.  Countless nuclear catastrophes later, China, France, India and a host of other nations are all moving aggressively to build new nuclear power plants. Even Australia, once known for its no-nukes attitude, has decided it needs a "national conversation" about nuclear power.

The IAEA recently announced that it now expects global nuclear capacity to nearly double by 2030. All of this despite reams of data documenting the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to attack, a relentless series of catastrophic and near-catastrophic accidents, billions of wasted dollars, suspicious diseases and deformities in nuclear-infested neighborhoods and major questions regarding the disposal and storage of waste.  Those same issues that once brought about a shift in public attitudes toward nuclear power - and with that shift a decline in political support - remain today. Yet this time around, the stony wall of silence and secrecy surrounding them seems all but impenetrable.

The stakes are as high as they get, yet it seems the lesson taken from the nuclear experience has been the wrong one. Some 94 percent of the world's nuclear capacity is still in developed countries but that too is changing thanks in part to the "liberalization" of US trade laws. Of the new plants under construction, 18 are in Asia. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear power plants and India recently announced that it wants to expand its capacity by a factor of 10 by 2022, and by a factor of 100 by 2052. China wants to expand by a factor of five or six within the next 15 years.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) reports that the US has 104 reactors currently online, and that in France 59 reactors provide 78 percent of all electricity. There are some 55 reactors in Japan, 31 in Russia, 18 in Canada and 17 in Germany. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and South Africa have two operating reactors each.  And despite Israel's continued denials of any nuclear culpability, that country is widely believed to posses enormous nuclear capacity.  More than 16 percent of the world's electricity comes from nuclear and the WNA reports 440 nuclear reactors in use around the world with dozens more being considered or under construction.  

It is the 21st century and the window of opportunity for turning back the nuclear clock threatens to slam shut.  The shutting of that window comes at a time when the international community can no longer afford to engage in industry-sponsored "non-debates" like the recent one on global warming that wasted so much valuable time, money and energy. With congressional support, the nuclear genie has been teased out of its bottle by the Bush Administration and its friends in the nuclear industry. In coming months, Americans will again be treated to nuclear "happy talk" about "new, improved versions" of nuclear power, that it is (again) the "safe, clean solution" to world energy shortages and global climate change.

But the genie isn't new or improved. And it is just barely contained in its almost-invisible new bottle.

Sandy Leon Vest is a renewable energy activist and journalist and editor of the Stinson Solar Times. Her writing has been published in progressive publications including www.towardfreedom.com, www.zmag.com, www.indybay.org, the Coastal Post (www.coastalpost.com) and the Point Reyes Light (www.ptreyeslight.com) in her home town in Marin County. Her documentary work has been distributed nationally and internationally through the National Radio Project in Oakland. She has produced news and public affairs programming for public and community radio, including KPFA, in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles and KWMR in Marin County.