Viral: Remaja Thailand Bikin Heboh Netizen Karena Pakai Baju Dari Bahan Aneh

Infographic: The Climate Risks of Natural Gas — Fugitive Methane Emissions Fugitive methane emissions are 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 100-year period, and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Why is there such a large range of fugitive emissions? Recent studies on methane leakage have found a wide potential range, due largely to differences in assumptions, methodologies, measurement techniques, industry practices, and regional variations that result in a high level of uncertainty in the data. Practically speaking, methane leakage can vary greatly from site to site depending on the geology, the technologies and practices companies deploy to capture the methane, the age and condition of pipelines, and other factors. More research is needed to identify the true magnitude of these fugitive emissions and the corresponding climate risk. How does natural gas escape into the atmosphere? Natural gas leaks from drilling sites, processing plants, storage facilities, and pipelines that move natural gas from areas of supply to areas of demand. Leaks occur throughout the system; aging pipelines and distribution infrastructure are a common source of leaks in urban environments. Most studies have shown that more than half of the methane leakage from natural gas comes from drilling sites and gas processing plants (i.e. upstream emissions), with the remainder coming from pipelines and storage systems (i.e. downstream emission). In addition, studies show that methane emissions are higher for hydraulic fracturing of shale gas than conventional natural gas production. What can be done to reduce fugitive methane emissions? The good news is that proven, cost-effective technologies are available to significantly reduce fugitive methane emissions. Aging, leaky pipelines can be upgraded or replaced. Drilling site emissions can be better monitored, and effective use of available technologies can minimize the amount of fugitive methane that escapes. Stronger state and federal laws and regulations are also needed, however, for monitoring, evaluating, and mitigating the fugitive methane emissions associated with the production and distribution of natural gas. What are the climate risks of generating more U.S. electricity from natural gas? The U.S. electricity system is going through its biggest transformation in half a century as old and inefficient coal plants reach the ends of their lifespans and are retired. The choices we make to replace them will determine our electricity sources for the next 30 to 50 years. And right now the U.S. is moving toward a natural-gas dominated electricity system. However, a natural gas-dominated electricity system would continue to heat up the planet — heat-trapping emissions from electricity production will barely change if we shift primarily to natural gas for our electricity needs. One week after issuing its letters on EPA’s spring and fall regulatory agendas, the SAB posted a letter to Administrator Pruitt urging him to charge the SAB with reviewing the flawed restricted science rule before taking further action on the proposed rule due to the very important scientific considerations needed for transparency at the agency. This is a strong statement coming from the Administrator’s very own science advisors, 18 of whom were hand-selected by Pruitt himself. The letter calls out the agency for not including agency and outside scientists in the development of the proposal, writing, “the precise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without a public process for soliciting input from the scientific community,” made clear by the fact that there are many considerations having to do with making public sensitive confidential data that were simply ignored in the rulemaking. Among the issues the SAB intends to explore in its review of the rule are: How data restrictions could have impacts on regulatory programs at the agency, thus affecting regulatory costs and benefits with long-term implications. How much of the confidential human subject data can and should not ever be made public for legal and ethical reasons. How reanalyses of data, like the Harvard Six Cities study, can be done rigorously without public access to data and models. How expert panels are already vetting science at the EPA without reanalyzing the original data and methods. Emails we obtained through FOIA revealed that political appointees, not scientists, crafted this policy. It serves no scientific purpose, undermines the EPA’s work, and has drawn wide condemnation from scientists, which is why it needs further scrutiny by the SAB to determine what its impacts on the agency and on the public would be. It’s important for EPA to have this kind of advice, especially on a rule that has such extreme ramifications on the way the agency will be able to consider the best available science. Attempts to politicize, weaken, or simply ignore the SAB and other advisory committees under this administration jeopardize the ability for important dialogues like this to occur, which is why we’ve been monitoring and pushing back against these types of attacks. We expect Administrator Pruitt to take this formal call for review seriously and defer agency action on the rule until SAB review is complete and EPA has the chance to review and respond to its recommendations. He should thus act immediately to call on his advisors and seek the input of the scientific community and the greater public that has so far been absent from the EPA’s process for this rule.

This post is a part of a series on Clean Energy Momentum For most of us, when the power fails, the lights stay out until the grid gets fixed. Regardless of personal cost, or degree of inconvenience, or magnitude of disaster looming close behind, only the utility can re-flip that switch. Power out, and powerless. That is astounding. In so many areas of our lives, we trust systems, but also make backup plans. Banks plus sock drawers, grocery stores plus canned goods, water taps plus gallons in the back; we belt-and-suspender proudly, mitigating risks on the daily. Yet not so for electricity. When it comes to the grid, the vast majority of us solely rely upon a massive centralized system, which means we benefit from economies of scale when it works, and stagger under catastrophes of fail when it doesn’t. Shouldn’t there be a backup plan? Well for a growing number of people, there is. As my colleagues and I detail in a new interactive map, more and more communities are turning to microgrids to buttress their electricity needs, enabling them to keep the power on even if the grid shuts off. Here, a pathway to resilience: power to the people, by the people, starting from the ground up. Why microgrids? The devastating consequences of severe power outages have been achingly front of mind as of late. An upright world, suddenly toppled over into upheaval everywhere. Utilities are working on ways to help the grid better handle severe storms. Credit: dakine kane/Creative Commons (Flickr) Given our increasingly electrified day-to-day, power outages are threatening to result in costs that we just can’t afford to pay. As a result, there’s been heightened attention on how to do better—how to keep the power on, instead of shutting off. But that discussion has been focused nearly exclusively on the grid. On the power plants feeding it, and the types of fuel that’s feeding them. On the wires strung high above, and the pipelines buried deep below. On the trees and wind and fires and flood that knock and knock and knock. Which is all critically important work, and something we invest a lot of time in ourselves. But the truth is, no matter how good we make the grid, the power will still go out. Less frequently, and for far shorter amounts of time, but still it will blink off. Why? Because the world’s largest machine isn’t too big to fail—it’s simply too big not to. Thus, a conundrum: We know we can’t afford to fail, and we know that still we will. Something’s got to give. Enter microgrids. Microgrids are… A power system in miniature. They can be teeny tiny micro small, held in the space of just one hand, or they can really stretch that micro moniker far, linking whole campuses and communities as one. Microgrids come in two main forms: Islanded microgrids are fully untethered from the grid. For these systems, every day is Microgrid Day, supporting everything from pumps in pastures to highway road signs, emergency response units to whole towns unto themselves. Islandable microgrids, on the other hand, are systems connected to the broader grid that can also run alone. These microgrids hum along in harmony—until the lights go out. Then, a spot of light in a sea of dark as the system shuts the failure out and solely self-supplies. And about that supply. Here’s where the real promise begins. Because although any type of resource works, the diesel generators many have long turned to leave a lot to be desired. In addition to spewing out health-harming pollutants, they also require reliable access to fuel in the midst of surrounding disaster. What’s more, because they’re so infrequently used, they’re often prone to failure in the exact moment they’re needed most. Students check out solar panels as part of Florida’s SunSmart E-Shelter Program. Credit: Florida Solar Energy Center. Solar-plus-storage, on the other hand, shines brilliantly bright as the face of many future systems, cleanly and reliably and affordably bringing power to the people. And, not just when the power goes out. Indeed, these systems can actually save communities money in the many, many hours when they’re not in island mode by generating electricity and lowering bills all throughout the year. Sure do sound like some sharp-looking suspenders to me. But jump to take a look, and be the judge yourself! Micro grids, mammoth potential We recently put together the map above, highlighting microgrid stories from all across the country. We want to illustrate just a few of the ways in which microgrids have—and increasingly will—serve to bring power back to the people. You should zoom around and explore for yourself, but here, a few quick highlights from the route: a pioneering island in Alaska; a policy in Massachusetts that looks forward, not back; a grocery chain in Texas that elicits tears of joy; and a new form of disaster response that’s powered by the sun. And our map just scratches the surface. Microgrids are supporting military installations and first responders, schools and hospitals, emergency shelters and wastewater treatment plants. They keep gasoline stations pumping along evacuation routes, and experiments running in labs. They serve individuals, they serve critical facilities, they serve communities. And, what’s more, they have the potential to be serving many, many more. As the costs of renewables and energy storage keep plummeting, the ever more accessible these benefits-generating, resilience-boosting, risk-mitigating win-win-win solutions will be. Our nation’s electricity grid is an incredible resource, and one we all benefit from keeping in the very best of shape. But we don’t have to put all our eggs in one basket. There are some services, some people, some needs that simply cannot allow for electricity access to be left to chance. Especially because we don’t have to. Microgrids are here and ready to help. Let’s make sure that when the lights go out, every community has the chance to flip that switch themselves.

On June 13th, the Union of Concerned Scientists worked with the California 100% Clean Energy Coalition to bring more than 100 people to Sacramento to lobby in support of Senate Bill 100 (De León) and California’s transition away from fossil fuels. SB 100 would accelerate the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 60% by 2030 and require that the remaining 40% of the electricity mix come from RPS-eligible resources or zero-carbon resources by 2045. Last year, SB 100 passed the California State Senate, but stalled in the Assembly. A day after lobby day, the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy scheduled SB 100 for a hearing on July 3rd! Meeting 100% of California’s electricity needs with zero-carbon resources is a bold goal, but achieving it is within reach. In 2016 California received about 25% of its electricity from eligible renewables. Another 19% came from a combination of nuclear and large hydropower, which are zero-carbon resources that would be eligible under SB 100. Statewide we are already on track to exceed the current RPS requirement of 50% renewables by 2030. California has led the nation in the transition from coal to clean energy resources and demonstrated that a cleaner electricity system need not come at the price of a growing economy. We have the technology to run a flexible and efficient grid with even more renewables, and the prices for energy storage are coming down. The time is right to double down on this clean energy momentum. Climate change is the biggest threat to the health and economic stability of Californians. With more extreme weather events threatening the livelihoods of frontline communities, it is time to pass legislation that will prevent further damage to these communities. Cleaning up our electricity grid will also provide a blueprint for significant cuts in global warming emissions. This post is a part of a series on Clean Energy Momentum Offshore wind power is a powerful, plentiful resource, but that doesn’t mean that it’s been a slam dunk in terms of getting it into the US electricity mix. Movement forward on offshore wind in three different states, though, made yesterday a day to celebrate. 1. Massachusetts says yes to 800 megawatts The state we’d been watching this week was Massachusetts. Yesterday was to be the date for an announcement about which offshore wind project or projects had been selected for the first phase of a 1600 megawatt commitment from the state based on a 2016 energy law. And the day didn’t disappoint. While the law required at least a 400 megawatt first tranche, the state announced that an 800 megawatt proposal from Vineyard Wind was the winner of this round. The larger project likely brought with it some nicely lower pricing, and was a pleasant surprise. That amount of power (as our handy new offshore wind calculator shows) will generate electricity equal to the consumption of more than 400,000 typical Massachusetts households. It will also, given the electricity mix and what that offshore wind power might displace, reduce carbon emissions by the amount emitted by almost 200,000 cars. All that requires actually getting the wind farm built and the turbines spinning. But yesterday’s step was an important one.

2. Rhode Island goes for 400 megawatts Another pleasant surprise from yesterday was the announcement that Rhode Island had taken advantage of the same bid process and selected a 400 megawatt project of its own. While the announcement was a surprise, Rhode Island’s commitment to offshore wind isn’t. The new project-to-be, from Rhode Island-based developer Deepwater Wind, will build on the state’s (and Deepwater’s) experience with the first-in-the-nation 30 megawatt Block Island Wind Project. And it fits within Gov. Gina Raimondo’s recent call for 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy for the Ocean State by 2020. Rhode Island has already shown it knows how to get offshore wind done. While the next project will be in federal, not state, waters, that experience is likely to count for something in the race to get the next steel in the water. 3. New Jersey grabs a piece of the limelight Not to be outdone, New Jersey also used yesterday to move offshore wind forward. Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law a 3,500 megawatt state goal that the legislature had recently passed. That’s the largest state commitment to date, and the latest in the crescendoing drumbeat of state action on offshore wind. And the first tranche of Garden State action may be even larger than what Massachusetts and Rhode Island just moved forward on. Just after coming into office, Gov. Murphy ordered the state’s public utility commission to carry out a solicitation for 1,100 megawatts of offshore wind. While megawatts may be the stuff of headlines, each of those projects and commitments is about a lot more—jobs in the near term, and air quality improvements, carbon reductions, careers, and more once the projects are up and running. What’s next? All that is particularly true as even more states get into the act. So where should we look next for leadership on offshore wind? Connecticut could be poised to join its neighbors as it makes decisions about proposals for meeting its own renewable energy needs. The bids included proposals from Vineyard Wind and Deepwater Wind, plus Bay State Wind, the other entity vying for the Massachusetts and Rhode Island attention. It’s also unlikely that New York is going to stay quiet, given its new offshore wind master plan, a 96 megawatt project planned for off Long Island’s South Fork (also being developed by Deepwater), the record-breaking lease sale off New York City in late 2016, and federal moves to evaluate more potential sites in the New York Bight. Or we could be hearing more from Maryland, with two projects making their way forward with state support. Or Virginia, with a pilot 12 megawatt project. Or Delaware, or North Carolina, or… Lots of future to watch—and make happen—even as we celebrate the immediate past. Because, given our need for clean energy and good jobs, and given the incredible potential of offshore wind, we’ll be wanting a lot more days like yesterday.

With wind and solar prices beating the cost of fossil-fuel generation in many places, we have a great opportunity to replace and modernize our energy supply with more renewables—and we can do so reliably. The Union of Concerned Scientists congratulates grid operators who have demonstrated that replacing old generation with wind and solar does not cause reliability problems. In the United States and in Europe, grids have run without coal, and with wind at 60% of the total mix. The director of reliability assessment of the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation has stated that with planning, any level of renewables on the grid could work. Renewables and storage substitute for conventional generation To really nail the energy transition, and increase the buildout of wind and solar, renewables and storage will have to substitute for conventional generation in increasingly technical ways. In fact, several grid practices are vitally important for growth of large-scale renewables. They include: expanded transmission, increased operational flexibility (for example: incorporating renewable forecasts with existing schedules), and increased coordination with neighboring utility areas through centralized dispatch or consolidation. Operators making steady progress with these practices have hit renewable energy production records. Value beyond wind and solar contributions today The number one product from wind and solar today is Energy. The wind blows, cheap energy flows. The sun shines, cheap energy results. The grids that host lots of renewables demonstrate that variability is not a show stopper. The economics of power contracts, renewable energy credits, and production tax credits all reward maximized energy production. The challenges can be seen when demand is not so high, and the renewables are more abundant. The grid still requires a physical balance of supply and demand. In those times grid prices are low or negative based on marginal cost of the next unit. Very low prices can signal curtailment risk and discourage buyers and sellers from adding more renewables. UCS took up analysis of several scenarios with over 50% annual energy from renewables to find how to reduce predicted curtailment. Our examination identified practices that can lower the curtailment of wind and solar as renewable energy becomes a larger part of the energy mix. Market prices for wind and solar beating fossil fuel prices demonstrates technology advances. Adding more wind and solar, or adding more gas? When studies and decisions consider new energy supplies, they start with the present power system. Discussing the value and impact of a new plant investment, assuming nothing else changes, is a necessary early step. But what happens next is very important. Any new supply, (gas, wind, solar, coal, or nuclear), has integration and transmission needs which are managed with a range of strategies. Understanding when a new plant will operate, how much transmission is needed, whether there will be exports to neighboring utility areas—those are all are central considerations to finding the value of the new plant. Some solutions, like building new transmission to deliver from supply-rich areas to population centers with demand, require time and money. Limiting over-supply by dispatch and turning down more expensive supplies is expected and normal but can reach the point where too much of a good thing becomes its own challenge. A lot of new wind in an area with plenty of hydro and existing wind, for example, needs transmission and export options if there aren’t any fossil-fuel units to turn down. What is role of fossil fuel in oversupply and curtailments? Whenever demand is not at its highest, some generation is idle. When grid operators believe that flexibility and ancillary services are available only from fossil units, they keep fossil generation running, even if that crowds out renewable generation. To get this flexible reserve from a gas generator, the unit is turned on and run at least at its minimum level. For combustion turbines, that minimum production level is generally 35% of generator capability and 70% for a combined cycle plant. Because that flexibility is only available with the unit producing at or above those levels of energy, running combined cycle units at 70% will crowd out renewables, causing more curtailment. This has been verified in Hawaii and California, as well as replicated in studies. How does this affect the future growth of wind and solar? Expectations of curtailment will discourage both the buyers and seller of future renewable generation. When existing contract structures focus on maximum energy production, the value proposition is to sell more commodity into increasingly well-supplied situations. In these cases, both supply and demand interests are bypassing the opportunity to operate renewable resources for ancillary services and reserves. Where a utility has more insight and ability to adapt reserves practices, more techniques can be developed to make greater use of the renewables. As more wind and solar are built, we will see high penetrations of renewables with relatively lower demand and resulting lower prices during more hours. These are the times when the ability to obtain ancillary or essential services from renewable generation is most important and most beneficial to pushing gas offline. This also coincides with when the risk of curtailment is greatest. What’s holding back the solutions we can implement? It’s not an issue of technology. Storage and renewable energy technologies can provide essential services, ancillary services, or reserves. These capabilities in wind and solar have been demonstrated by technology providers, illustrated by industry experts, and even narrated by the California ISO to its Board. The trajectory of advanced storage on the grid, providing reserves and services around the world, is narrated in these slides. Where do we go from here? The contracts and revenue structures used today are the obstacle. Bilateral agreements between buyers and sellers to a different contract would make the difference. Examples from the industry offer alternatives. Contracts for conventional generation function without assuming all revenue is based on production. Contracts for energy storage are emerging for capacity and performance, with revenues separated from total hours of utilization. When confronting the challenge of expanding the role of wind and solar in the energy supply, the revenue model used by other technologies that provide services other than commodity energy will be useful. For folks that want to take this gradually, perhaps start with a contract that splits the payments during the year. In the months with curtailment risk, capacity payments make sense. The rest of the year, use energy payments to maximize production. As the grid supply changes, and wind and solar are a larger fraction of the supply, the buyers and sellers of renewable energy will want to maintain the highest values for the renewables installations. A key strategy for pushing the fossil energy out of the dispatch is to make the fossil generators redundant and unnecessary. When the fossil units are being used for ancillary services, and wind or solar is curtailed, let’s make the problem become the solution. Cut the fossil generation, use the curtailment of the renewables, and thereby increase the demand for more wind and solar.