Energy Sources

There are a couple of serious problems with the so-called "green jobs revolution. " The first concerns the serial overpromising of new jobs from politicians of all stripes. And it's easy to understand why the overpromising is so rampant: All of us want to believe alternative sources of energy will free us of our overdependence on foreign (and often hostile) sources of energy. Throw in the possibility of thousands of new technology jobs and you have plenty of eager politicians ready to sell a green jobs platform.

Mike Tidwell is correct that the evidence for global climate change is indisputable and that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and alterations in the earth's ecosystems is the primary cause ("Forecast calls for pain," Feb. 6). Since the carbon already in the atmosphere will persist for a thousand years, we must stop and not merely reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to stabilize the current status. I agree that society must put a price on carbon dioxide emissions for the universal harm they do. In so doing, as the price increases, clean, non-carbon energy sources will become competitive in the marketplace.

I've enjoyed reading letters and articles by Ajax Eastman for several decades now and generally found them grounded in progressive thinking and well reasoned. I was surprised to read her article "Wind power and hot air" (Feb. 7) in which she presents an argument in favor of nuclear power but against wind and solar power. Nuclear power should be considered in addition to, not instead of, wind and solar power generation. Her biggest fault with wind and solar energy is the intermittent nature of these energy sources.

A Western Maryland paper mill and several others in the region have collected millions of dollars over the past eight years by taking advantage of an obscure provision in a state law that is supposed to encourage the development of wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. The paper manufacturers routinely burn waste byproducts from their mills to make the energy to run them. But since 2005, they've been getting paid to do so by selling "renewable energy credits" to power companies, which can buy the paper waste credits rather than purchase ones generated by the sun or wind.

After reading Dan Rodricks ' "Despite tragedy, nuclear still way to go" (March 27), I am gratified that there are still thoughtful editorials and letters to the editor in support of nuclear power, despite the situation in Japan. Having had almost everything possible thrown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, there are still no deaths connected to the damaged reactors, proving again that nuclear power generation is the safest form of energy known to date. Yet thanks to a not always benevolent Mother Nature, thousands of people are dead or injured, and the majority of media coverage has diverted national attention away from the Japanese people's needs and suffering to focus on the "nuclear disaster.

Mike Tidwell is correct that the evidence for global climate change is indisputable and that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and alterations in the earth's ecosystems is the primary cause ("Forecast calls for pain," Feb. 6). Since the carbon already in the atmosphere will persist for a thousand years, we must stop and not merely reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to stabilize the current status. I agree that society must put a price on carbon dioxide emissions for the universal harm they do. In so doing, as the price increases, clean, non-carbon energy sources will become competitive in the marketplace.

A recent editorial accused the oil and natural gas industry of hoping "the next administration will be less protective of the environment and the health of Western Maryland's residents," a claim supported by zero evidence ("No study, no fracking," Dec. 27). Regulators from across the country have confirmed that developing natural gas from shale has not resulted in emissions levels that pose a threat to human health. Similarly, they note they have never once seen a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing causing groundwater contamination.

It is with great interest that I read The Sun's article, "O'Malley to push for wind yet again," (Jan. 13) but I don't understand the opposition. Some opponents say wind farms would "look bad. " Funny, how windmills in Holland are considered beautiful. More importantly, others like state Sen. E.J. Pipkin claim offshore wind is expensive and may cost jobs. Senator Pipkin's solution to drill more for natural gas reserves in western Maryland is incredibly foolish and short-sighted. Our underground energy sources are finite.

Maryland wants to buy electricity generated from animal waste, the governor's office announced Thursday. As part of the Clean Bay Power project, the state is requesting proposals from potential energy suppliers who have the ability to generate up to 10 megawatts of electricity from poultry litter or livestock droppings - or any other kind of animal waste, according to a statement from Gov. Martin O'Malley's office. Providers must also be directly connected to the regional grid.

IN THIS winter of ice and snow and record low temperatures, most people have been focused on keeping their body heat up and their energy budgets down.With the announcement of the federal energy budget for fiscal year 1995, President Clinton and Congress should seize this opportunity to dramatically shift federal energy research dollars toward energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy sources.For most Americans, using energy for whatever purpose is hard not only on the pocketbook; it's hard also on the environment because we are so dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

It is with great interest that I read The Sun's article, "O'Malley to push for wind yet again," (Jan. 13) but I don't understand the opposition. Some opponents say wind farms would "look bad. " Funny, how windmills in Holland are considered beautiful. More importantly, others like state Sen. E.J. Pipkin claim offshore wind is expensive and may cost jobs. Senator Pipkin's solution to drill more for natural gas reserves in western Maryland is incredibly foolish and short-sighted. Our underground energy sources are finite.

A recent editorial accused the oil and natural gas industry of hoping "the next administration will be less protective of the environment and the health of Western Maryland's residents," a claim supported by zero evidence ("No study, no fracking," Dec. 27). Regulators from across the country have confirmed that developing natural gas from shale has not resulted in emissions levels that pose a threat to human health. Similarly, they note they have never once seen a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing causing groundwater contamination.

There is much concern in the U.S. about energy sources and our dependence on foreign oil. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking of shale may be a partial solution to this issue of energy independence. That's the good side of fracking. There's also a potentially bad side, and that is the contribution of exposure to chemicals associated with fracking to the decline of human health in communities, particularly rural communities. In her recent op-ed ("The hidden health risks of fracking," July 20)

There are a couple of serious problems with the so-called "green jobs revolution. " The first concerns the serial overpromising of new jobs from politicians of all stripes. And it's easy to understand why the overpromising is so rampant: All of us want to believe alternative sources of energy will free us of our overdependence on foreign (and often hostile) sources of energy. Throw in the possibility of thousands of new technology jobs and you have plenty of eager politicians ready to sell a green jobs platform.

Much has been said about the power outages caused by recent storms, but one thing rarely mentioned is the importance of getting people off the electrical grid. It's a national security issue when so many people are rendered helpless in a neighborhoods because their electrical power all comes from the local utility. The government should continue to offer incentives for households to install solar panels, wind turbines or geothermal systems of whatever size. It would help if even one or two people on a block had an energy source besides the grid.

Last year, Gov.Martin O'Malley proposed to build 500 megawatts of offshore wind. The debate centered around how much this would really cost, and the proposal died. This year, the proposal is to spend a fixed amount of money by capping the amount by which Maryland electric bills can increase. The state would be saying, essentially: Give us a billion dollars so we can build some offshore wind. Like most Marylanders, I want electric power that is cheap and clean. However, I oppose offshore wind - because it is not cheap, and wind systems are not clean.

THERE ARE three basic ways of improving the nation's energy situation. We can produce more oil to cut dependence on imports; we can increase fuel efficiency to conserve oil; we can develop alternative energy sources. Only the first of the three seems to interest a Senate Energy Committee evidently afflicted with tunnel vision.The national energy bill approved by the committee calls for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling (at heavy environmental cost).But the proposed requirement to raise automotive fuel-efficiency standards was dropped from the bill.

A Western Maryland paper mill and several others in the region have collected millions of dollars over the past eight years by taking advantage of an obscure provision in a state law that is supposed to encourage the development of wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. The paper manufacturers routinely burn waste byproducts from their mills to make the energy to run them. But since 2005, they've been getting paid to do so by selling "renewable energy credits" to power companies, which can buy the paper waste credits rather than purchase ones generated by the sun or wind.

It is unfortunate that commentator Charles Campbell's recent criticism of the current administration's handling of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was so supercilious ("D.C.'s Keystone Kops," Jan. 30). He made valid points: Wind and solar power are inconstant and must be supplemented. Their installations can be intrusive and demand lots of space. And the broader question of our energy problem is enormously complex. However, that does not justify our failure to invest in alternative energy sources the way other countries have.

Maryland wants to buy electricity generated from animal waste, the governor's office announced Thursday. As part of the Clean Bay Power project, the state is requesting proposals from potential energy suppliers who have the ability to generate up to 10 megawatts of electricity from poultry litter or livestock droppings - or any other kind of animal waste, according to a statement from Gov. Martin O'Malley's office. Providers must also be directly connected to the regional grid.