Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Detroit Wants To Save Itself – By Shrinking
David Runk, The Huffington Post
Detroit, the very symbol of American industrial might for most of the 20th century, is drawing up a radical renewal plan that calls for turning large swaths of this now-blighted, rusted-out city back into the fields and farmland that existed before the automobile.
Operating on a scale never before attempted in this country, the city would demolish houses in some of the most desolate sections of Detroit and move residents into stronger neighborhoods. Roughly a quarter of the 139-square-mile city could go from urban to semi-rural.
Near downtown, fruit trees and vegetable farms would replace neighborhoods that are an eerie landscape of empty buildings and vacant lots. Suburban commuters heading into the city center might pass through what looks like the countryside to get there. Surviving neighborhoods in the birthplace of the auto industry would become pockets in expanses of green.
Detroit officials first raised the idea in the 1990s, when blight was spreading. Now, with the recession plunging the city deeper into ruin, a decision on how to move forward is approaching. Mayor Dave Bing, who took office last year, is expected to unveil some details in his state-of-the-city address this month.
“Things that were unthinkable are now becoming thinkable,” said James W. Hughes, dean of the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, who is among the urban experts watching the experiment with interest. “There is now a realization that past glories are never going to be recaptured. Some people probably don’t accept that, but that is the reality.”
…The mayor has begun lobbying Washington for support, and in January Detroit was awarded $40.8 million for renewal work. The federally funded Detroit Housing Commission supports Bing’s plan.
“It takes a true partnership, because we don’t want to invest in a neighborhood that the city is not going to invest in,” said Eugene E. Jones, executive director of the commission.
It is not known who might get the cleared land, but with prospects for recruiting industry slim, planners are considering agricultural uses. The city might offer larger tracts for sale or lease, or turn over smaller pieces to community organizations to use.
Orange officials sue couple who removed their lawn
Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during droughts.
But in Orange, officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn in an attempt to save water.
The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year.
They said they were trying to do something good for the environment…
(2 March 2010)
Obama’s Nuclear Blind Spot
Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones
The Obama administration has embarked on a high-stakes gamble: devoting billions of dollars to an expansion of nuclear power in the hope of winning Republican votes for a climate bill. But in its eagerness to drum up bipartisan support for one of the hardest sells on Obama’s policy agenda, is the administration turning a blind eye to the financial risk?
Obama’s 2009 budget provides $54.4 billion in government-backed loans for new reactors—a long-cherished goal of nuclear advocates and their (mostly Republican) allies in Congress. Environmental and taxpayer protection groups oppose this plan—often citing a damning 2003 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that assessed a similar proposed program and predicted that the loans would have a default rate of “well above 50 percent.” The Department of Energy (DOE) argues that this study “is not germane to the current project” and says it has taken steps to avoid the financial pitfalls. But in interviews with Mother Jones, Obama administration officials refused to provide specific figures that would support their claim.
One way to gauge the possibility that a plant might go bust is to look at something called the credit subsidy rate. The term sounds horribly technical, but it’s basically DOE jargon for collateral. In order to win Uncle Sam’s backing for an expensive nuclear power plant, a company has to set aside a certain percentage of the loan in a DOE fund. This figure is, in theory, based on the probability that the plant will go belly up. So, the riskier the venture, the more money the company is supposed to throw into the pot. That way, if construction gets delayed or cancelled and the project can’t repay its loan on schedule, taxpayers won’t be stuck with the entire tab.
The problem? The Obama administration won’t disclose the risk involved with any of the proposed reactors it’s considering for loan guarantees. Credit subsidy rates are confidential business issues, says Jonathan Silver, head of the DOE’s loan guarantee program. Another senior administration official confirms that the subsidy rate is “not a number that’s being given out” and is “different for every single project.” The official will not even disclose the range of rates assigned to the plants under consideration for the program. Last month, the Obama administration offered the first loan guarantee of $8.3 billion to build two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. It won’t say how much Southern Company, the utility that owns the plant, will be required to set aside in order to receive the loan—or whether the government has calculated a figure at all…
(8 Mar 2010)
Tory budget ‘walks away’ from renewable energy, environmentalist says
Gloria Galloway, The Globe and Mail
The new federal budget is titled “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth,” but environmentalists say it fails badly when it comes to creating new employment in fields that deliver energy from renewable sources like sun, wind and water.
Even before the new fiscal plan was released last week, the U.S. federal government was outspending Ottawa by a per-capita ratio of 14 to 1 on the technologies that many believe will be the energy sources of future generations.
In Canada, a four-year, $1.43-billion ecoEnergy program, introduced in 2007, provided money to companies for the development of new clean-energy sources. But that expires in 2011 and the new budget offered nothing to replace it.
Nor was cash injected into a depleted fund at Sustainable Development Technology Canada that had been used to transform research on renewable energy into commercially viable projects.
As a result, said Tim Weis, the director of renewable energy and efficiency at the Pembina Institute, the budget has widened the gap between what is spent federally in the United States and Canada to 17.8 to 1 – again on a per capita basis.
(10 Mar 2010)
