Game-Changer: U.S. Navy Turning Seawater Into Fuel (Video)

Could You Soon Be Filling Up With Seawater? US Navy Reveals ‘Game Changing’ Fuel Created From Water – Daily Mail

.

.
The US Navy has developed a radical new fuel made from seawater.

They say it could change the way we produce fuel – and allow warships to stay at sea for years at a time.

Navy scientists have spent several years developing the process to take seawater and use it as fuel, and have now used the ‘game changing’ fuel to power a radio controlled plane in the first test.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as ‘a game-changer’ because it would allow warships to remain at sea for far longer.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years.

Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution, the Navy says.

.

.
Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: ‘It’s a huge milestone for us.

‘We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it.

‘We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel,’ added Cullom.

‘Basically, we’ve treated energy like air, something that’s always there and that we don’t worry about too much.

‘But the reality is that we do have to worry about it.’

They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

The predicted cost of jet fuel using the technology is in the range of three to six dollars per gallon, say experts at the US Naval Research Laboratory, who have already flown a model airplane with fuel produced from seawater.

Dr Heather Willauer, an research chemist who has spent nearly a decade on the project, said:

‘For the first time we’ve been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that’s a big breakthrough,’ she said, adding that the fuel ‘doesn’t look or smell very different.’

Now that they have demonstrated it can work, the next step is to produce it in industrial quantities.

But before that, in partnership with several universities, the experts want to improve the amount of CO2 and hydrogen they can capture.

.

.
‘We’ve demonstrated the feasibility, we want to improve the process efficiency,’ explained Willauer.

Collum is just as excited.

‘For us in the military, in the Navy, we have some pretty unusual and different kinds of challenges,’ he said.

‘We don’t necessarily go to a gas station to get our fuel, our gas station comes to us in terms of an oiler, a replenishment ship.

‘Developing a game-changing technology like this, seawater to fuel, really is something that reinvents a lot of the way we can do business when you think about logistics, readiness.’

A crucial benefit, says Collum, is that the fuel can be used in the same engines already fitted in ships and aircraft.

‘If you don’t want to reeengineer every ship, every type of engine, every aircraft, that’s why we need what we call drop-in replacement fuels that look, smell and essentially are the same as any kind of petroleum-based fuels.’

Drawbacks? Only one, it seems: researchers warn it will be at least a decade before US ships are able to produce their own fuel on board.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: Gulliver, Unbound


.

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car Is Back

The Hydrogen Car Is Back… Again – Popular Mechanics

.

.
The basic principle behind hydrogen fuel cells is fairly simple: Hydrogen atoms are stripped of their electrons to generate electricity and then combined with oxygen to form water as a by-product. Mainstream deployment of fuel-cell vehicles, though, has proved to be complex. Compared with liquid fuels, hydrogen is tough to transport and store. And without a meaningful number of vehicles on the road, there’s been no incentive to build hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Now new initiatives in California and across the U.S. are pushing for a long-awaited expansion of the refueling network. And with the debut of three promising hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles from Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota, consumers will have new options beginning in 2014. Are we finally seeing the dawn of the hydrogen age? Not so fast.

WHY NOW?

The current hydrogen push has less to do with consumer demand than with government incentives that treat fuel-cell vehicles (FCV) as equal to or better than electric vehicles. In California the combination of 300-mile range and fast refueling gives fuel cells the maximum available zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) credits. That makes it easy for a manufacturer to meet the state’s ZEV mandate with fewer cars. On the federal level, both FCVs and EVs get an EPA credit multiplier of 2.0 beginning in 2017, which means that sales of either type of car confer a disproportionate benefit on the ledger for an automaker’s entire fleet. In response, manufacturers have formed several high-profile partnerships, including Ford/Daimler/Renault-Nissan, BMW/Toyota, and GM/Honda to develop the vehicles. On the fueling side, a recent infusion of $20 million of funding per year has expanded the California Fuel Cell Partnership’s plan to 100 statewide refueling stations. The Department of Energy’s H2USA organization wants to use California’s efforts as a blueprint for the rest of the nation.

CAN I BUY A FUEL-CELL CAR?

In the past, fuel-cell vehicles have only been available in the hundreds. The three new FCVs slated for production this year and next will increase the volume to thousands, but they will be available primarily in California, where most of the country’s hydrogen stations exist. According to Alan Baum, an automotive analyst at Baum and Associates, even if the stations proliferate, fuel-cell vehicles, like EVs, won’t dominate the market. “It’s not going to be a widespread technology, and for that matter it doesn’t need to be,” he says. “We’re doing an all-hands-on-deck strategy.”

ARE THE PRACTICAL?

Not according to Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who says fuel cells are more of a marketing ploy than a realistic solution. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn agrees: “Knowing all the problems we have with charging [EVs], where is the hydrogen infrastructure?” Both men have a bias toward electric vehicles, but the infrastructure issue is a big one. With the current cost of a hydrogen filling station at more than $1 million, neither the government nor the corporate world has any plans for a rapid expansion of the filling network. “We’ve got electricity everywhere,” Baum says. “Putting in 240-volt charging units requires some effort and expense, but it’s not game changing. Putting in hydrogen is.”

WHERE DOES THE POWER COME FROM?

.

.
Here’s the abridged version: Compressed hydrogen from the storage tank (A) is stripped of its electrons in the fuel-cell stack (B), creating electricity. A power-control unit (C) orchestrates the flow of energy from the stack to the battery (D), which powers the electric motor that moves the car. The battery ensures full power during acceleration until the fuel cell reaches peak voltage. Got all that?

ARE THEY SAFE?

Yes. Stringent requirements established by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) ensure that the technology is safe. Automakers are required to build robust hydrogen storage tanks that not only hold the fuel at up to 10,000 psi but also withstand arcane-sounding trials such as “bonfire” and “gunshot” tests by the DOT. Tanks are usually made of several layers of carbon fiber wrapped around aluminum or polyethylene liners, and many are also protected by external layers of steel. Regulations covering PRDs (pressure-relief devices) govern both temperatures and pressures at which gas is released, typically well below what is standard for safe operating conditions.

HOW GREEN ARE FUEL CELLS?

It depends on where you look. The only tailpipe emission from an FCV is water, but the process of creating hydrogen fuel – just like that of formulating gasoline or generating current for an electric vehicle – has an environmental impact. More than 90 percent of hydrogen today is created using a natural-gas-reforming process involving steam and methane, which reduces CO2 emissions from “well to wheel” by approximately 60 percent, compared with the process of creating gasoline. So, carbon dioxide is still released into the atmosphere – it just happens before the liquid hydrogen gets to your tank. Incentives and mandates encourage a cleaner hydrogen-creation process: The state of California requires that 30 percent of H2 supplied for transportation come from renewable sources, which can include wind, solar, and biomass material.

WHAT ABOUT REFUELING?

One advantage of FCVs is that they can travel farther and restore range faster than most current EVs. Refueling is simple: Once a nozzle with a snap collar is securely mated and locked to your car, the transfer of hydrogen begins with a brief hissing sound, followed by a 3- to 5- minute fill-up. However, it takes considerably longer for a filling station to restore the pressure required to service the next vehicle, so current setups can only refuel six or so cars per hour.

SO, IS HYDROGEN HAPPENING?

“When you have several major carmakers saying we’re going to invest in this, that’s significant,” Baum says. But vehicles are just one piece of the puzzle. Every other player in the hydrogen supply chain, such as the service station industry, needs to invest heavily. Until then, refueling options and vehicle choices will remain extremely limited, with no guarantee of expansion. Which is to say that hydrogen-fuel-cell cars will be a minor footnote in terms of overall vehicle sales for the foreseeable future. For all but the earliest of adopters, hydrogen as a prominent fuel alternative remains somewhere on the horizon.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Thanks Barack… U.S. Electricity Production Declines As Price Index Soars To New Record

Electricity Price Index Soars To New Record At Start Of 2014; U.S. Electricity Production Declining – CNS

.

.
The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people.

“The electricity index rose 1.8 percent, its largest increase since March 2010,” said BLS in its summary of the Consumer Price Index released Thursday.

.

.
In December, the seasonally adjusted electricity index was 203.740. In January, it climbed to a new high of 207.362.

Back in January 2013, the electricity price index stood at 198.679. It thus climbed about 4.4 percent over the course of a year.

Last month, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity in a U.S. city also hit an all-time January high of 13.4 cents, according to BLS. That marks the first time the average price for a KWH has ever exceeded 13 cents in the month of January, when the price of electricity is normally lower than in the summer months.

.

.
A year ago, in January 2013, a KWH cost 12.9 cents. The increase in the price of a KWH from January 2013 to January 2014 was about 3.9 percent.

During the year, the price of a KWH of electricity usually rises in the spring, peaks in summer, declines in fall, and is at its lowest point in winter. In 2013, the average price of a KWH in each of the 12 months of the year set a record for that particular month. January 2014′s price of 13.4 cents per KWH set a new record for January.

.

.
Historically, in the United States, rising electricity prices have not been inevitable. In the first decades after World War II, the U.S. rapidly increased it electricity production, including on a per capita basis. Since 2007, the U.S. has decreased its electricity production, including on a per capita basis.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when U.S. electricity generation was increasing at a rapid pace, the seasonally adjusted U.S. electricity price index remained relatively stable. In January 1959, the electricity index stood at 29.2, according to BLS. A decade later, in January 1969, it was 30.2—an increase of 3.4 percent over a 10-year span.

That 3.4-percent increase in the index from January 1959 to January 1969 was less than the 4.4 percent the index increased from January 2013 to January 2014.

Over the last seven years, according to the EIA, the U.S. has actually decreased its total net electricity generation, although not in an unbroken downward line from year to year (generation did increase from 2009 to 2010 before going down again in 2011 and 2012).

The EIA has published historical data going back to 1949 on the nation’s annual total net electricity generation, which EIA measures in million kilowatthours.

.

.
In 1949, according to EIA, the U.S. produced 296,124.289 million KWH of electricity. By 1959, it produced 713,378.831 – an increase of 417,254.542 million KWH or about 141 percent.

In 1969, the U.S. produced 1,445,458.056 million KWH – an increase of 732,079.225 or about 103 percent from 1959.

In 1979, the U.S. produced 2,250,665.025 million KWH – an increase of 805,206.969 or about 55.7 percent from 1969.

In 1989, the U.S. produced 2,967,146.087 million KWH – an increase of 716,481.062 or about 31.8 percent from 1979.

In 1999, the U.S. produced 3,694,809.810 million KWH – an increase of 727,663.723 or about 24.5 percent from 1989.

In 2009, the U.S. produced 3,950,330.927 million KWH – an increase of 255,521.117 or about 6.9 percent.

In 2007, according to EIA, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,156,744.724 million KWH of electricity, which, so far, is the historical peak. In 2012, the last year for which full data is available, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,047,765.26 million KWH. That represents a drop of 108,979.464 million KWH – or about 2.6 percent – in the nation’s electricity production since 2007.

CNSNews.com divided the million KWH of electricity generated each year in the United States, according to EIA, by the number of people in the U.S. population as of July of that year (as estimated by the Census Bureau) to derive a number for per capita electricity production (see chart).

As with overall electricity production, per capita production exhibited decelerating growth over the decades, peaked in 2007, and has since declined.

From 1950 to 1959, per capita total electricity generation (in million KWH) grew by 83.11 percent; from 1960 to 1969, it grew by 69.76 percent; from 1970 to 1979, it grew by 33.51 percent; from 1980 to 1989, it grew by 19.25 percent; from 1990 to 1999, it grew by 11.25 percent.

From 2000 to 2009, per capita total net electricity generation in the United States declined by 4.45 percent.

In 2007, when U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,744.724 million KWH, per capita production also peaked at 0.013799 million KWH for each of the 301,231,207 people in the country as of July of that year.

In 2012, the U.S. generated 4,047,765.26 million KWH for a population of 313,914,040—for a per capita production of 0.012895. That means per capita electricity production in the U.S. declined by about 6.6 percent in five years.

The downward trend in U.S. electricity production continued into 2013. The EIA’s latest Monthly Energy Review, which includes data through October 2013, indicates that in the first ten months of 2013, the U.S. generated a total of 3,392,101 million KWH of electricity, down from the 3,407,155 million KWH produced in the first 10 months of 2012.

The Monthly Energy Review also indicates that a large part of the decline in U.S. electricity generation has come from a decrease in the electricity produced by coal – which has not been replaced by a commensurate increase in the electricity produced by natural gas or the “renewable” sources of wind and solar.

In 2007, the year U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,745 million KWH, coal accounted for 2,016,456 million KWH of that production – or 48.5 percent of it. Natural gas, then the nation’s second largest generator of electricity, accounted for 896,590 million KWH of total production – or about 21.6 percent.

In 2007, wind generated 34,450 million KWH – or about 0.8 percent of the nation’s supply that year. Solar generated 612 million KWH – or about 0.0147 percent of the national supply.

By 2012, when U.S. electricity generation had dropped to 4,047,765 million KWH, coal generated only 1,514,043 million KWH – or 37.4 percent of the national supply.

Between 2007 and 2012, the nation’s annual coal-fired electricity generation declined by about 25 percent, or 502,413 million KWH. The combined increases in natural gas, wind and solar did not make up for this decline. In 2012, natural gas produced 1,225,894 million KWH, up 329,304 million KWH from 2007; wind produced 140,822, up 106,372 million KWH from 2007; and solar produced 4,327 million KWH, up 3,715 million KWH from 2007.

The combined 439,391 million KWH increase in electricity generation from natural gas, wind and solar did not cover the 502,413 million KWH decline in the electricity generated by coal.

Coal was not the only source that produced less electricity in 2012 than in 2007, according to the EIA data.

Electricity from nuclear power plants dropped from 806,425 million KWH in 2007 to 769,331 in 2012 – a decline of 37,094 million KWH or 4.6 percent.

Electricity generated from petroleum sources dropped from 65,739 million KWH in 2007 to 23,190 million KWH in 2012—a decline of 42,549 million KWH or about 64.7 percent.

Conventional hydroelectric means of generating electricity hit their peak in 1997, a decade before overall electricity generation peaked in the United States. In that year, the U.S. produced 385,946 million KWH of electricity through conventional hydroelectric power. By 2012, that had dropped to 276,240 million KWH, a decline of 109,706 million KWH or 28.4 percent.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Anti-Fracking Leftists Arrested For Gluing Themselves To Gas Pumps… At The Wrong Gas Station

Fracking Protesters Arrested For Gluing Themselves To The Wrong Petrol Pumps – Big Peace

On Monday, four members of an anti-fracking group wound up in jail for using bicycle locks and glue to fasten themselves to gas pumps at a petrol station in Great Lever, England. The group sacrificed themselves in order to protest the hydraulic fracking activities of Total, a French petroleum company.

.
…………………..

.
But, to their embarrassment, the group sacrificed themselves to the wrong petrol station, which was no longer owned by Total. The petrol station was owned by Certas Energy, who neglected to take down the signs after buying the station.

The petrol station’s manager, Reezwan Patel commented that some protesters were peaceful, but that those who shackled themselves to the pumps “were stupid and have cost us a lot of money.” He added that, “We had to close for six hours, so with the loss of customers and the damage to the pumps, it could be a couple of thousand pounds we have lost.”

The four activists were not only ridiculed by Reezwan but also were excoriated by the local environmental group, the Bolton Green Party. The party chairman, Alan Johnson exclaimed, “I was very annoyed, and I have to stress that these people have nothing to do with our protest. We were there to protest peacefully, and warn people about the dangers of fracking, and these people have put themselves, and others, in danger with what they did.”

Throughout Bolton, a borough of Greater Manchester, anti-fracking groups have been rallying to protest hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in the UK. Fracking is controversial because of the potential risks the process may have on the environment and the water supply.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Statist Control Freaks Update: Only 6 More Days Before Incandescent Bulbs Are Banned In U.S.

Time To Stock Up On Incandescent Bulbs Before They Go Out Permanently – The Foundry

If your New Year’s resolution is to change your light bulbs, don’t worry – the federal government’s here to help.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the federal government will ban the use of 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs. The light bulb has become a symbol in the fight for consumer freedom and against unnecessary governmental interference into the lives of the American people.

.

.
In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law an energy bill that placed stringent efficiency requirements on ordinary incandescent bulbs in an attempt to have them completely eliminated by 2014. The law phased out 100-watt and 75-watt incandescent bulbs last year.

Proponents of government-imposed efficiency standards and regulations will say, “So what? There are still plenty of lighting options on the shelves at Home Depot; we’re saving families money; and we’re reducing harmful climate change emissions.”

The “so what” is that the federal government is taking decisions out of the hands of families and businesses, destroying jobs, and restricting consumer choice in the market. We all have a wide variety of preferences regarding light bulbs. It is not the role of the federal government to override those preferences with what it believes is in our best interest.

Families understand how energy costs impact their lives and make decisions accordingly. Energy efficiency has improved dramatically over the past six decades – long before any national energy efficiency mandates.

If families and firms are not buying the most energy-efficient appliance or technology, it is not that they are acting irrationally; they simply have budget constraints or other preferences such as comfort, convenience, and product quality. A family may know that buying an energy-efficient product will save them money in the long term, but they have to prioritize their short-term expenses. Those families operating from paycheck to paycheck may want to opt for a cheaper light bulb and more food instead of a more expensive light bulb and less food.

Some may read this and think: Chill out – it’s just a light bulb. But it’s not just a light bulb. Take a look at the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program. Basically anything that uses electricity or water in your home or business is subject to an efficiency regulation.

When the market drives energy efficiency, it saves consumers money. The more the federal government takes away decisions that are better left to businesses and families, the worse off we’re going to be.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How Obama’s EPA Plans To Kill Jobs And Reduce Your Income

How The EPA Plans To Kill Jobs And Reduce Your Income – The Foundry

How’s your heating bill? If you feel like you’re not paying enough, you’re in luck.

.
……….

.
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing new regulations on power plants – regulations that will kill jobs, jack up your energy costs, and even end up reducing families’ income because of the impact on the prices of everything you buy.

As Heritage experts Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna, and David Kreutzer explain:

<blockquotThese regulations will act as a major energy tax that would negatively impact American households. Americans will suffer through higher energy bills, but also through higher prices for goods and services, slowing the economy and crippling the manufacturing sector.

…It will cost more to heat, cool, and light homes, and to cook meals. These higher energy prices will also have rippling effects throughout the economy. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products rises.

The EPA’s war is against coal, which is the main source of electricity for 21 states. In their research, Heritage experts analyzed a phase-out of coal (thanks to the EPA’s regulations) between 2015 and 2038.

Here are their dire warnings. By the end of 2023, they project:

* Employment falls by nearly 600,000 jobs (270,000 in manufacturing).
* Coal-mining jobs drop 30 percent.
* A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,200 per year, and its total income drops by nearly $24,400 over the entire period of analysis.

And for what?

Certainly not helping the environment. The authors sum it up: “President Obama’s climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the climate.”

They explain that “regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have no meaningful effect on global climate change. The EPA admitted this in its own proposed rule.”

So – hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, thousands in lost income, higher prices across the board—and “no noticeable climate impact.” That’s what these regulations mean.

It’s important to remember that these rules are being developed by unelected bureaucrats at the whim of the Obama Administration. We’ve already learned that the Administration delayed a number of controversial regulations, including energy-related ones, conveniently until after the 2012 election. Why? Because they’re harmful to Americans.

The authority to make such sweeping changes doesn’t belong to these unelected bureaucrats, the Heritage experts say. Congress should take back its power and prevent these rules from inflicting harm on the economy – and our wallets.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Mexican Lawmaker Antonio Garcia Conejo Strips Before Congress In Protest Of Energy Bill


.

New Invention Harvests Electricity From Background Radiation

New Invention ‘Harvests’ Electricity From Background Radiation And Could Be Used To Beam Power To Remote Locations Or Recharge Phones Wirelessly – Daily Mail

Engineers at Duke University have designed a breakthrough gadget that ‘harvests’ background microwave radiation and converts it into electricity, with the same efficiency as solar panels.

The development, unveiled on Thursday, raises exciting possibilities such as recharging a phone wirelessly and providing power to remote locations that can’t access conventional electricity.

And the researchers say that their inexpensive invention is remarkably versatile. It could be used to capture ‘lost’ energy from a range of sources such as satellite transmissions, sound signals or Wi-Fi.

.

The Duke engineers used metamaterials, which their press release describes as ‘engineered structures that can capture various forms of wave energy and tune them for useful applications.’

They say the device harvested microwaves with an efficiency of 36.8 percent, similar to modern solar cells that capture light energy.

A report that will appear in the journal Applied Physics Letters in December states that this invention is capable of converting microwave signals to enough direct current voltage to recharge a cell phone battery.

The gadget, created by undergraduate engineering student Allen Hawkes, graduate student Alexander Katko and lead investigator Steven Cummer, consists of five fiberglass and copper conductors wired together on a circuit board.

It is capable of providing 7.3V of electricity. As the press release points out, current USB chargers provide around 5V.

Hawkes said: ‘We were aiming for the highest energy efficiency we could achieve. We had been getting energy efficiency around 6 to 10 percent, but with this design we were able to dramatically improve energy conversion to 37 percent, which is comparable to what is achieved in solar cells.’

.

His colleague, Katko, added: ‘It’s possible to use this design for a lot of different frequencies and types of energy, including vibration and sound energy harvesting.

‘Until now, a lot of work with metamaterials has been theoretical. We are showing that with a little work, these materials can be useful for consumer applications.’

Possible uses for the new technology include building metamaterial into homes to ensure Wi-Fi signals are not just lost.

Electrical products could also have a device attached to increase efficiency by ensuring that excess power is not wasted.

In theory, the invention could also be used to beam signals from phone towers that could then be converted into electricity.

Electronic devices could be recharged wirelessly or electricity sent to remote areas without power cables.

.

The researchers explained that a series of the power-harvesters could even capture signals from satellites passing overhead.

This could allow for electricity in hostile environments such as mountaintops or deserts. Cummer said: ‘Our work demonstrates a simple and inexpensive approach to electromagnetic power harvesting.

‘The beauty of the design is that the basic building blocks are self-contained and additive. One can simply assemble more blocks to increase the scavenged power.’

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Statist Democrats just cannot help themselves

Even as Obamacare is redefining dismal Democrats are exploring new ways to screw America up

Senate Democrats have begun a renewable energy blitz, with two bills mandating an increase in renewable use through 2025.

Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Mark Udall of Colorado introduced a bill last week that would require that 25 percent of the country’s power come from renewable energy sources by 2025.

Another bill introduced by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey would require the country to get 25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025. Like the Udall bill, the Markey legislation would allow companies to purchase renewable energy credits to comply with the mandate. Companies that don’t comply would be forced to pay a fine.

Here they go again. They simply never learn. They cannot make something happen by legislating it so. IF renewable energy becomes  affordable, and practical, and reliable enough, then yes, people will buy it. That is how the market works. But legislation cannot FORCE reliability, or affordability or practicality. A law cannot force people to abandon energy sources in favor of others. Renewable energy will have to earn increased business, Democrats need to come to grips with this reality.

 

Federal Solar Auction Gets ZERO Bidders… Leftist Media Do Their Best To Sweep The Story Under The Rug

Federal Solar Auction Gets No Bidders; AP (Just A Local Story) And Politico (Deceptive Headline) React Predictably – NewsBusters

Green energy is supposedly the future. Why, solar energy will break out and become a major energy source any year now, or any decade now. Or maybe never. It has been the subject of national attention ever since President Obama made it a cornerstone of his 2008 presidential campaign. Of course, what Obama claims is in energy policy has worked out to be more a of a growth-constraining, government money-wasting endeavor than anything else.

The Denver Post carried the original story on Thursday of how the federal government’s first attempt at a solar auction went. The headline was accurate: “1st auction of solar rights on public lands in Colorado draws no bids.” That’s right. Zero. Post reporter Mark Jaffe’s first sentence was charitable but acceptable: “The plan to auction rights to federal land across the West for solar-power plants got off to a rocky start Thursday when no bidders showed up for the first auction in Colorado.” Too bad that two establishment press outlets which were in a position to communicate this news to the nation failed to adequately do so.

From all appearances, the Associated Press failed completely, treating the the matter as a local story. Searches on “solar auction” and “solar Colorado” (each not in quotes) at the APs national site returned no results and no results, respectively, even though those those words are in that locally carried story:

.

As was the case in August when it minimized the significance of almost no activist interest in promoting “Action August” agenda items at the permanent Obama administration campaign’s Organizing For Action, Alex Guillen at the Politico apparently felt the need to downplay the completeness of the failure. So in his Morning Energy report, he went with a deceptive headline:

BLM’S FIRST SOLAR AUCTION GETS CLOUDY RECEPTION: The Bureau of Land Management’s first-ever competitive lease auction for parcels in two Colorado Solar Energy Zones yesterday drew no bids, even though five developers expressed interest in the land.

According to the Post, those five developers “filed preliminary applications for the three San Luis Valley parcels.” Given their failure to bid, whether those entities ever had genuine expressions of interest is debatable.

Jaffe at the Post relayed the pathetic excuses (bolds are mine):

Uncertainties about the solar market and federal rules probably were major factors in the auction’s failure, industry officials said.

…”We are going to have to regroup and figure out what didn’t work,” said Maryanne Kurtinaitis, renewable-energy program manager for the BLM in Colorado.

“It is always tough to be the first out of the chute. This is a learning experience,” Kurtinaitis said.

The parcels are in solar-energy zones – areas designated for fast-track development because they have access to transmission and are not in environmentally sensitive areas.

The bureau has created 19 solar zones in six Western states covering about 300,000 acres.

…The tepid response probably was the result of market uncertainties, said Ken Borngrebe, environmental-permitting manager for Tempe, Ariz.-based solar developer First Solar.

…”It may come down to the lack of confidence in the market for solar today,” Borngrebe said.

Ya think?

The Obama administration’s failed attempts to force-feed alternative energy to a nation which mostly doesn’t want it or need it have been legion. Though this exercise doesn’t seem to have cost taxpayers large amounts of money like the legion of failed green energy loans, it is humiliating – which is why the AP and Politico engaged in the protection efforts.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s Department Of Energy Discriminated Against Veterans, Retaliated Against Whistleblowers

Report: Department Of Energy Discriminated Against Veterans – Washington Free Beacon

A new report from federal watchdogs reveals that discrimination against military veterans at the Energy Department and retaliation against whistleblowers who spoke out about the practice were more widespread than previously believed and could cost taxpayers millions.

.

The report, released Tuesday by DOE’s inspector general, revealed that a top legal official explicitly advised human resources officials at the department’s Bonneville Power Administration on how to disadvantage veterans in its hiring practices.

BPA then attempted to completely remove two employees from the federal service after they questioned the hiring practices.

Problems at BPA are more widespread than just those two instances, according to the IG.

“In short, there was a massive breakdown in procedures, processes, and management attentiveness at several levels of Bonneville’s operation,” the IG found.

The report reinforces criticism of BPA by congressional investigators, who in August held a hearing investigating similar allegations from the department’s IG.

“Today’s report offers shocking new details about the Bonneville Power Administration’s illegal hiring practices that discriminated against veterans and the agency’s culture of intimidation toward whistleblowers,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement.

According to the report, a staff attorney at Bonneville “provided guidance that likely facilitated” hiring practices that disadvantaged veterans.

Federal regulations require that veterans receive preferential treatment in federal hiring.

The BPA attorney instructed officials at Bonneville’s human capital management office “to modify the announcement [of a vacant position] so that the veteran would be unlikely to qualify… Bonneville subsequently executed the plan and, as predicted, the veteran did not qualify.”

Bonneville insisted it adjusted its hiring criteria “only for expediency to reduce the candidate pool to manageable levels.”

That explanation, the IG report said, “defied logic.”

Additional reviews of Bonneville hiring practices by DOE and the Office of Personnel Management found that Bonneville had employed “overly restrictive qualifications to improperly eliminate qualified applicants from job consideration,” the IG noted.

“Thus, the case highlighted here may reflect a more extensive problem,” it warned.

DOE deputy general counsel Eric Fygi rejected allegations that the department had instructed whistleblowers not to speak with Issa or his staff about these practices in a letter to Issa before the August hearing.

“Rather, Bonneville was informed that this was a serious matter and that any external questions were to be coordinated with the appropriate headquarters offices,” Fygi wrote.

However, the IG report released this week found that DOE officials “tolerated and/or failed to address what appeared to be a culture of intimidation and mistrust” at Bonneville’s human capital management office.

That finding appears to substantiate allegations by whistleblowers who told Issa that they “fear retaliation.”

“These BPA employees will not speak to the committee because they are afraid of losing their jobs,” Issa told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement at the time.

BPA acting administrator Elliot Mainzer called the IG’s findings in its Tuesday report “deeply troubling.”

“The department and BPA are fully committed to addressing the problems with our human capital management program and providing recourse to the many individuals, including veterans, who were impacted by our flawed hiring practices,” Mainzer said in a statement.

He stressed that he and BPA are committed “to a workplace free of retaliation, particularly against those who raise concerns.”

The report also faulted DOE leadership, which it said did not exercise its proper oversight role and hence allowed illicit hiring practices to continue.

“More aggressive actions on the department’s part could have aided in preventing, or at least detecting, and remediating these problems at Bonneville,” the IG found.

Issa vowed to continue his committee’s investigation into the matter “to ensure that veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and that whistleblowers are not threatened when exposing wrongdoing.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Another Obama Success Story… Bankrupt Solar Firm Will Cost $3.7M To Clean-Up Site

Another Obama Success Story… Bankrupt Solar Firm Will Cost $3.7 Million To Clean-Up Site – Gateway Pundit

.

The Obama Administration is linked to the failed Abound Solor company.

Via The Business Report:

Cleanup of the former production facility contaminated and abandoned by bankrupt Abound Solar Inc. is estimated to cost as much as $3.7 million, according to documents obtained by the Business Report.

As lawyers, regulators, bankruptcy officials and the landlord spar over the case, the building lies in disrepair, too contaminated to lease.

The building, at 9586 E. Interstate 25 Frontage Road, was occupied by Abound Solar from 2008 through 2012 and has remained unoccupied since the company failed. In the interim, local government officials and the building’s owner have attempted to compel Abound Solar’s bankruptcy trustee, Wilmington, Del.-based Joeffrey Burtch, to clean the building, contaminated with the metal cadmium. The Business Report obtained documents about the building from a Colorado Open Records Act request to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

80% of Obama’s green energy loans went to donors – at least 19 companies went bust. This is criminal.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Yet Another Obama-Funded Green Energy Company Files For Bankruptcy

More Flops In Electric Car Industry – American Interest

Two years after the Solyndra bankruptcy scandal, bad green energy investments are still dogging the Obama administration. The latest is Ecotality, which had manufactured charging stations for electric vehicles. It has just filed for bankruptcy and is preparing to auction off all of its assets. Apparently, the electric car market didn’t take off quite as fast as expected, and like many of its peers, Ecotality wasn’t able to bring in enough revenue to get off the ground.

.

Ecotality is different from the rest, however, in that it received a $99.8 million grant from the federal government in 2009. It still owes $6.5 million to its largest unsecured creditor, the Energy Department. It looks as though the federal grant was the only thing keeping the company afloat for the past few years: the company cites the cancellation of government payments as the main reason for its bankruptcy. Once again, it seems, the government will be taking a loss on its green “investments.”

This isn’t nearly as big a catastrophe as Solyndra, which involved some egregious shady behavior. But this should serve as yet another reminder that the government is not a VC firm and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, particularly when the technology involved is so untested. If the government wants to spur innovation, funding for basic R&D is the way to go.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s Insane And Unconstitutional War On Coal Continues

EPA Carbon Limits Lower Boom On Coal – Watchdog

Leave it to the Environmental Protection Agency to come up with regulatory standards so restrictive that the technology to meet them has yet to be commercially tested.

.

As expected, the EPA on Friday unveiled its revised proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. And as expected, coal-fired power plants will fail to meet the limits without some very expensive technology to capture and store carbon emissions.

“There’s the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology,” notes a story in USA Today.

As the piece points out, there are least two such carbon storage power plants under construction – one in Canada’s Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi’s Kemper County, scheduled to open in May.

But the coal-fired power industry need only look to Mississippi for a cautionary tale. The $4.7-billion project has been saddled with at least $1 billion in cost overruns, “a stew of legal battles, a revolt by ratepayers and a credit downgrade for the local utility,” according to Bloomberg News story published Thursday.

And, as the story points out, consumers ultimately will foot the bill for the expensive technology in the 582-megawatt plant, the first of its kind to be built on a commercial scale.

“By some measures, it may be one of the most expensive power plants ever built for the watts of energy it will generate,” Bloomberg notes. “The utility got approval to recoup $2.88 billion in costs from ratepayers. In addition, the Department of Energy pledged $270 million, and the company qualified for a federal tax credit of $133 million. The costs of the new lignite mine and carbon dioxide pipelines are additional.”

Coal industry officials earlier this week told Watchdog.org the restrictive limits on CO2 could kill coal, and with it, many of the 800,000 good-paying jobs it supports.

“That is the area that is really going to put this conversation at the forefront,” said Nancy Gravatt, spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, which represents coal and mineral mining companies nationwide. “This puts thousands of middle-class jobs at risk, and it’s akin to an energy tax on consumers. The hardest hit would be those on fixed incomes, like retirees.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a “moral obligation to the next generation” to protect the environment. She said the proposal is a “necessary step to address a public health challenge,” according to the USA Today story. McCarthy, in a speech Friday morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., said the proposed standards create a “path forward” for the coal industry, and that the CO2 limits are both achievable and flexible.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a statement basically said the EPA blew it.

“The EPA had the chance to craft a regulation that recognized the value of the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy endorsed by President Obama, and ensured that standards were achievable and based upon commercially and economically viable technology. Instead, they have released yet another major regulation that will hamper economic growth and job creation, and could lead to higher energy costs for American families and businesses,” said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s vice president for Government Affairs.

“It is clear that the EPA is continuing to move forward with a strategy that will write off our huge, secure, affordable coal resources by essentially outlawing the construction of new coal plants.”

Jo Ann Emerson, former Missouri Republican congresswoman and now CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, earlier this week said the administration is “gambling with the economic well-being of future generations and our nation’s economy.”

“As not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities, electric co-ops are deeply concerned about maintaining affordable, reliable electricity. It’s worth noting that residents of rural communities already spend more per capita on energy than anywhere else,” Emerson said in a statement.

Environmentalists, of course, rejoiced.

“In the words of our Vice-President, this is a BFD,” celebrated the Sierra Club in a blog post.

“If finalized as written, the draft will make it impossible to build a new, conventional, climate-destroying coal plant in the U.S. With climate-related disasters already landing on the doorsteps of millions of Americans, from Western wildfires to Superstorm Sandy, this new protection comes as welcome news.

Jason Hayes, associate director of the American Coal Council, fully expects the proposal to be challenged in court.

“The same thing that happened with the CSAPR Rule… Everyone was going forward before it was remanded by the D.C. court,” Hayes told Watchdog.org Friday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 vacated the EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule, often pronounced Casper, and the associated implementation plans and remanded the rule back to the EPA following widespread criticism.

The coal industry and other critics of the EPA’s proposal predict the strict limits will batter a U.S. economy struggling to recover, and stall the strides the industry has made in cutting CO2 output.

“Regulators are setting the bar so high that, even the new plants with the most advanced technologies would not be allowed,” Hal Quinn, CEO and president of the National Mining Association, said in a video released Friday. “Without coal our utility bills will be higher, our industries less competitive, electricity reliability compromised, and of course tens of thousands of jobs lost.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Massive Tax And Securities Fraud: Biofuels Firm Cheated Victims Out Of $100M

Biofuels Firm’s Fraud Cheated Victims Of $100M, Feds Say – Indianapolis Business Journal

Federal prosecutors announced charges Wednesday connected to a Henry County biofuel refinery as part of a massive tax and securities fraud investigation, saying the operation cheated victims out of more than $100 million.

.

………………………………U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett

The fraud is alleged to be the biggest instance of tax and securities fraud in Indiana history.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation last year into E-biofuels LLC in Middletown. E-biofuels filed for bankruptcy in April 2012. Its parent company, Evansville-based Imperial Petroleum Inc., received subpoenas from the SEC and a grand jury that May, according to a regulatory filing.

Imperial had to hand over an array of documents relating to E-biofuels’ accounting, purchases and sales of biodiesel, and tax credits and other incentives received from government agencies, the filing said.

“The purpose of the subpoena is to determine whether any federal laws have been violated,” the filing said.

Charging documents released Wednesday afternoon cited 88 counts against seven people and three corporations. Charges included allegations of conspiracy, wire fraud, false tax claims, false statements under the Clean Air Act, obstruction of justice, money laundering and securities fraud.

Prosecutors allege that E-biofuels actually wasn’t producing biofuel. Instead, it was purchasing fuel and selling it to customers as its own product for a profit.

E-biofuels also fraudulently collected on about $35 million in federal tax breaks reserved for biofuel producers, according to charging documents.

Brothers Chad and Craig Ducey launched E-biofuels in 2007. The plant was supposed to produce 10 million gallons of biodiesel per year. Lawsuits against the company indicate that it did not reach that mark.

Chad Ducey is a Fishers resident and Craig Ducey lives in Fortville, according to a bankruptcy filing. Both are named as defendants in the fraud case. They, along with co-defendants Chris Ducey and Brian Carmichael, were the primary operators of E-biofuels, according to charging documents.

The four men conspired with co-defendants Joseph Furando and Evelyn Katirina Pattison—two executives with a pair of related New Jersey-based companies—to purchase lower-grade fuel from third parties and then pretend that it was high-grade fuel from the E-biofuels plant.

The government alleges that the defendants sold more than 35 million gallons of the inferior fuel between July 2009 and May 2012. Unwitting customers paid an inflated price. All told, they were defrauded of more than $55 million.

Imperial bought E-biofuels in 2010 for $3.75 million in Imperial’s thinly traded stock and $15 million in debt. In a regulatory filing from April 30, 2012, Imperial said that 99.6 percent of its revenue stemmed from E-biofuels.

The government alleges that Jeffrey Wilson, the president and CEO of Imperial, knew that E-biofuels was purchasing biodiesel from third parties instead of making its own. He hid this fact from investors, sharholders and outside auditors. He also made false statements in Imperial’s annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC.

Imperial’s accounting firm resigned in August 2012, citing concerns its auditors could not rely on the company’s financial reporting for E-biofuels, according to an SEC filing. The filing did not specify what the problems were.

Carmichael reportedly has offered to plead guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. If convicted, he faces up to five years in federal prison.

The six other defendants face up to 20 years in federal prisoon on some counts, as well as significant fines. The three companies indicted Wednesday also face significant fines and other regulatory action.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Regime Caught Violating The Law… Again

Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law On Nuke Site – Times Dispatch

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been violating federal law by delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada, a court ruled Tuesday.

.

By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the commission to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department’s application for a waste site at Yucca Mountain.

In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the NRC was “simply flouting the law” when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles from Las Vegas.

The action violates a law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste repository.

“The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented.

“It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Kavanaugh wrote.

An NRC spokesman said Tuesday that the agency was reviewing the decision.

The decision was hailed by supporters of the Yucca site, which has been the focus of a dispute that stretches more than three decades. The government has spent $15 billion on the site but has never completed it. No waste is stored there.

South Carolina and Washington state filed a lawsuit seeking to force the NRC to rule on the Yucca Mountain application. The states have large nuclear waste sites that would use the Yucca repository.

Under pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the administration abandoned the project early in the president’s first term.

Reid called the court decision “fairly meaningless.” Congress has cut funding for Yucca and is unlikely to restore it, Reid said. The site has drawn nearly unanimous opposition from Nevada elected officials.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Fact-Checkers Give President Asshat Failing Grade On Keystone Claims

Fact-Checkers Give President Failing Grade On Keystone Claims – Shopfloor

President Obama made waves this week as he defied his own State Department by claiming the Keystone Pipeline would only create 2,000 jobs, while chuckling at the thought of such a low number.

.

Manufacturers and millions of unemployed Americans aren’t amused by his dismissal of the jobs-creating potential of this project. In addition to the 20,000 construction jobs that the pipeline would create, tens of thousands of jobs would be created in the supply chain.

These are the manufacturers that make the steel, valves, compressor stations and heavy equipment necessary to make the pipeline become a reality. Numerous economic opportunities associated with the pipeline would benefit other manufacturers, laborers, small businesses and communities throughout and around Keystone’s supply chain. The President’s comments conveniently ignore these facts.

Now, two national fact-checking organizations have rated the President’s claims as false.

According to the Washington Post Fact-Checker, by ignoring State Department Estimates that the Keystone Pipeline could support over 42,000 jobs a year the President “seems to be signaling that even his own government does not produce the most realistic estimate that should be used by reporters.”

The Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-check site PolitiFact notes that the President “went out of his way to downplay” the jobs impact of this project, and when asked provided “no supporting evidence.” PolitiFact also points out that the “the construction process itself would create nearly twice as many jobs as the President said.”

Americans are frustrated with Washington’s inaction, and the debate surrounding the Keystone XL is a prime example of inexcusable bureaucracy and Washington misdirection. It’s time for the Administration to complete its review and approve the pipeline to put Americans back to work.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Green Energy Companies In D.C. And Maryland Accused Of Ripping Off Poor, Minority Customers

Green Energy Companies Accused Of Ripping Off Poor, Minority Customers – Daily Caller

Green power companies supplying energy to District of Columbia and Maryland residents are under scrutiny for allegedly luring customers with promises of cheaper monthly energy bills – then jacking up the prices.

.

Complaints against green energy companies delivering power to D.C. and Maryland residents are on the rise, The Washington Post reports.

The D.C. Office of the People’s Counsel has recorded 145 consumer complaints against seven green power providers this year. Approximately 75 percent of those complaints come from wards that are overwhelmingly minority and have high poverty rates. According to the OPC, many people filing complaints are senior citizens.

“Clearly, the problem is wider than just one provider,” Sandra Mattavous-Frye, the people’s counsel, told the Post. “This is a big issue. There should be an industry-wide investigation.”

Many of those complaints – 29 this year – are against a company called Starion Energy, which supplies power in D.C. and eight eastern states. One of Starion’s customers, Lisa Ford, was promised a monthly electric bill cut in half after she switched over to the company.

However, that’s not what happened to Ford’s bills – they increased from $96 per month in her first bill to $149 per month by her third.

“They lied to me – without a shadow of a doubt,” said Ford, who lives in subsidized housing and makes around $23,000 per year.

The Post notes that many other customers have the same complaints about Starion: “Instead, their bills have increased – some by more than 50 percent, according to their complaints. Consumers also have alleged deceptive practices, including company representatives failing to disclose billing and cancellation terms in addition to rogue sales tactics.”

In May, the D.C. Public Service Commission launched an investigation into Starion’s business practices.

Maryland residents are also complaining about green energy suppliers. The Maryland Public Service Commission received 206 complaints from customers against three green energy suppliers. Complaints have skyrocketed since last year when MPUC got 119 and got only 51 complaints in 2011.

“It’s an ongoing problem, particularly with misleading or deceptive marketing tactics,” Theresa Czarski, deputy people’s counsel for Maryland, told the Post. “There’s constant stuff going on with these suppliers.”

Complaints against Starion stood at a whopping 175 this year, up from only 9 in 2011.

“We don’t tolerate any unethical business practices,” Robert Bassett, compliance manager at Starion. “And we don’t market with a promise of any guaranteed savings. We don’t use the word ‘discount.’ ” He declined to discuss Ford’s complaint or any other individual’s.

Basset told the Post that “there are measures in place to ensure that representatives don’t sell something they can’t deliver.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

DOE Sitting On Natural Gas Projects That Could Create Nearly 500,000 Jobs And Over $70B In Revenue

Report: Energy Department Sitting On Billions Of Dollars In Natural Gas Projects – Washington Free Beacon

The United States could add thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity by speeding up approval of the 20 remaining liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals currently being reviewed by the Energy Department, according to a report released Thursday.

.

A report by American Council for Capital Formation estimated LNG exports would create up to 452,300 jobs between 2016 and 2035. Over the same period, the United States could add between $15. 6 billion and $73.6 billion annually to the gross domestic product.

“Each project can take five years or more to move from approval to export flow,” the report stated. “Without a faster approval process, it is unlikely that the United States will achieve the economic and job growth benefits that would arise from the higher production of natural gas since other countries may gain market share at our expense.”

The advent of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” has opened up huge natural gas deposits in the United States, and the country now has the potential to become a net exporter of natural gas by 2016, according to energy forecasts.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking earlier this year at a congressional hearing, said the department “will expeditiously work through the remaining applications… reviewing each one on a case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest.”

Moniz said there would “absolutely” be decisions on the export terminals sometime this year.

However, increased natural gas exports have been opposed by environmental groups, who argue the long-term environmental impacts are still unclear, and manufacturers, who fear spikes in energy prices.

The ACCF report argues exports will allow the free market to determine prices and accomplish the Obama administration’s energy goals.

“The administration has an opportunity to advance the president’s goal to double exports within five years by utilizing one of our most vital and plentiful natural resources in a manner that carries comprehensive benefits for our economy both today and far into the future,” the report reads “DOE should allow free markets to determine how much LNG is exported and allow free trade of this valuable resource to aid our recovering economy. From corn to cars to wheat, exports have proven to be a net positive boost for the U.S. economy and LNG exports shouldn’t be treated differently.”

The Energy Department declined to comment on the report and directed the Washington Free Beacon to Moniz’ earlier statements.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.