To contact us Click HERE
The latest EIA data confirm that the US is in the midst of an historic decline in electricity usage. Going back to at least 1973 (the start of the EIA data), the US has used more electricity nearly every year and always used more electricity every 5 years.
But those iron trends are breaking. Electricity end use peaked in 2007 and has dropped slightly since then.
See www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_19.pdf.
Electricity use in 2011 was about 1% less than in 2007 and was a bit lower than in 2010. The once near guaranteed yearly increases in electricity usage are no more. The 2011 drop took place, even though the 2011 GDP was greater than 2010.
Moreover, electricity use in the first 5 months of 2012 was about 2% lower than in the first 5 months of 2011. If that trend holds for the remainder of this year, electricity usage in 2012 will be lower than it was in 2007. And that would be the first time, since the EIA data began in 1973, that electricity usage was lower than 5 years ago. Even the 2009 usage, despite a drop of 4% as a result of the economic collapse, was greater than in 2004.
Indeed, if electricity usage falls 2% during 2012, US electricity usage will be back to about 2005 levels, a remarkable change in the pattern of electricity usage. This remarkable change seems to be a function of much greater efficiency surging through motors, appliances, air conditioning, lighting, and more and slow GDP growth.
30 Eylül 2012 Pazar
9 Billion Gallons Of Sewer Overflows in Pittsburgh Region & $2.8 Billion Clean Up Bill Dwarfs Statewide Gas Drilling Impacts
To contact us Click HERE
A main goal of this blog is to help its readers prioritize the biggest threats to water quality and to understand that, though gas drilling impacts are real, they are well down the list of the most serious causes of pollution of Pennsylvania's waters. A must read is yesterday's Pittsburgh Post Gazette front page story about the massive amounts of sewer overflows that reach rivers in the Pittsburgh region multiple times each year.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/alcosan-sewer-project-gets-little-public-input-653713/.
The annual volume of untreated sewage reaching rivers and streams is reported as 9 billion gallons per year and occurs in 30 to 70 storms annually, according to the Post Gazette. And the bill for stopping this pollution and cleaning up is a staggering $2.8 billion.
To make matters worse, the same problem of untreated sewage flowing into rivers and streams that the Pittsburgh region is confronting is found in many communities across Pennsylvania as well as in New York and other states. While America's sewage overflow problem dwarfs the impacts of gas drilling on water quality, it normally attracts little media attention or sustained public concern. There are no Hollywood stars campaigning to stop these huge amounts of sewage from going into rivers. There are no HBO movies on the problem.
Normally, this huge source of pollution that threatens public health and safety is ignored or draws a yawn.
Congratulations to the Post Gazette for not yawning and for prominently and regularly reporting on its region's struggle with sewer overflows. Such reporting is vital for readers to understand what are the top impacts on water and what are not.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/alcosan-sewer-project-gets-little-public-input-653713/.
The annual volume of untreated sewage reaching rivers and streams is reported as 9 billion gallons per year and occurs in 30 to 70 storms annually, according to the Post Gazette. And the bill for stopping this pollution and cleaning up is a staggering $2.8 billion.
To make matters worse, the same problem of untreated sewage flowing into rivers and streams that the Pittsburgh region is confronting is found in many communities across Pennsylvania as well as in New York and other states. While America's sewage overflow problem dwarfs the impacts of gas drilling on water quality, it normally attracts little media attention or sustained public concern. There are no Hollywood stars campaigning to stop these huge amounts of sewage from going into rivers. There are no HBO movies on the problem.
Normally, this huge source of pollution that threatens public health and safety is ignored or draws a yawn.
Congratulations to the Post Gazette for not yawning and for prominently and regularly reporting on its region's struggle with sewer overflows. Such reporting is vital for readers to understand what are the top impacts on water and what are not.
China Finances $2.5 Billion Texas Coal Carbon Capture Power Plant: What Are The Lessons?
To contact us Click HERE
Conventional wisdom holds that the 2010 demise of cap and trade in Congress killed carbon capture and storage technology in the USA. After all, why spend hundreds of millions of dollars installing CCS technology, when the captured carbon has no monetary value? Yet, the reported death of CCS technology in the USA is premature, ironically as a result of China.
Last week, the Texas Clean Energy Project made a startling announcement that the Chinese Export-Import Bank would finance a $2.5 billion, 400 megawatt coal plant that will capture 90% of its carbon emissions that will then be sold for enhanced oil recovery. http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com. The plant has sold 200 megawatts of its output to CPS Energy, the municipal utility serving San Antonio, and states that its carbon emissions will be one-quarter of a gas plant and one-tenth of a conventional coal unit. The plant also will produce large quantities of urea, enough to raise US production by 20%, and has sold that product to an outfit in Minnesota.
Apart from the Chinese financing, the US Department of Energy is providing $450 million to finance the plant from the nation's Clean Coal Power Initiative.
So what do the latest developments of this project teach? First, carbon capture and storage technology lives in the USA, thanks substantially primarily to Chinese and secondarily DOE financing. The Texas plant will be the first commercial scale operation to deploy CCS here.
Second, the Chinese see both an environmental and economic opportunity in coming years, if they can be world leaders in developing CCS. The Chinese are flush with cash, but they are not wasting it. They plainly judge CCS to be a good bet on the future.
Last week, the Texas Clean Energy Project made a startling announcement that the Chinese Export-Import Bank would finance a $2.5 billion, 400 megawatt coal plant that will capture 90% of its carbon emissions that will then be sold for enhanced oil recovery. http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com. The plant has sold 200 megawatts of its output to CPS Energy, the municipal utility serving San Antonio, and states that its carbon emissions will be one-quarter of a gas plant and one-tenth of a conventional coal unit. The plant also will produce large quantities of urea, enough to raise US production by 20%, and has sold that product to an outfit in Minnesota.
Apart from the Chinese financing, the US Department of Energy is providing $450 million to finance the plant from the nation's Clean Coal Power Initiative.
So what do the latest developments of this project teach? First, carbon capture and storage technology lives in the USA, thanks substantially primarily to Chinese and secondarily DOE financing. The Texas plant will be the first commercial scale operation to deploy CCS here.
Second, the Chinese see both an environmental and economic opportunity in coming years, if they can be world leaders in developing CCS. The Chinese are flush with cash, but they are not wasting it. They plainly judge CCS to be a good bet on the future.
USGS Finds 2% of NY Water Wells Have Explosive Levels Of Methane & 53% Have Detectable Levels
To contact us Click HERE
A benefit of the incredible focus on gas drilling and fracking is greater and long overdue attention to the quality of water in private water wells. And as the facts are gathered about what has been and is in water wells before any drilling is done, the compelling need to clean up private water wells is documented.
In this vein, USGS did a major study of methane levels in New York water wells. The results are striking, including the literally explosive finding that 2% of the wells tested (200) had ignitable levels of methane in them.
Also 9% of the wells had methane readings above the Office of Surface Minining's action level of 10 mg/L. A full 53% of the water wells had detectable levels of methane, and 47% did not. The report's links are:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3391#.UFIa5FHGx8F; and http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1162/pdf/ofr2012-1162_508_09072012.pdf.
To be clear, the USGS findings of methane in New York water wells are pre-gas drilling and have nothing to do with gas drilling. The conclusion that 2% of NY water wells have combustible levels of methane and that 9% have levels above the federal action level is serious and should trigger a major effort to clean up private water wells, whether or not drilling takes place.
In this vein, USGS did a major study of methane levels in New York water wells. The results are striking, including the literally explosive finding that 2% of the wells tested (200) had ignitable levels of methane in them.
Also 9% of the wells had methane readings above the Office of Surface Minining's action level of 10 mg/L. A full 53% of the water wells had detectable levels of methane, and 47% did not. The report's links are:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3391#.UFIa5FHGx8F; and http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1162/pdf/ofr2012-1162_508_09072012.pdf.
To be clear, the USGS findings of methane in New York water wells are pre-gas drilling and have nothing to do with gas drilling. The conclusion that 2% of NY water wells have combustible levels of methane and that 9% have levels above the federal action level is serious and should trigger a major effort to clean up private water wells, whether or not drilling takes place.
Ranking America's Generation Technologies By Capacity & Production: Coal & Nuclear Plants Standout
To contact us Click HERE
America has much more gas-fired generation capacity than anything else, but coal plants rank first in production The difference between capacity and production is a key fact mentioned by some commenters to this blog, so here is a quick review of America's electricity capacity and production.
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
29 Eylül 2012 Cumartesi
Pathetic Facts: 519 Public CNG Stations In USA & Just 11 In PA After 5 Years Of Shale Boom
To contact us Click HERE
What does one say about these pathetic and dangerous facts?
After 5 years of the shale gas boom and low-gas prices, and after 5 years of gasoline prices being consistently above $3, the USA has only 519 and PA just 11 public CNG fueling stations
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_locations.html. Also see http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/maps/mapping-pennsylvanias-natural-gas-fueling-stations/.
The odds of a military strike on Iran in the next 12 months are probably about 50%, and that means the probability of gasoline prices being above $5 in the next year is also about 50%. Even if a war is avoided in the Persian Gulf, inexorably rising world oil demand is pushing global oil prices higher and higher. One result of higher oil prices is lower US GDP growth, as the US economy stalls and even reverses, when Brent pricing hits $125.
The US remains over a barrel of expensive oil in large part, because there is no plan to accelerate greatly the deployment of the CNG fueling infrastructure necessary to enable families and companies to transition from oil.
Here's an idea to end the paralysis. How about the Congress of the United States putting country first by passing the Natural Gas Act (Pickens Plan)? The bill has not even been given a vote in the US House of Representatives and was fillibustered by the Republican minority in the Senate so that the 51 votes it got in that chamber was 9 votes short of the needed 60 super majority.
Once again, party first politics. Pathetic and dangerous!
After 5 years of the shale gas boom and low-gas prices, and after 5 years of gasoline prices being consistently above $3, the USA has only 519 and PA just 11 public CNG fueling stations
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas_locations.html. Also see http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/maps/mapping-pennsylvanias-natural-gas-fueling-stations/.
The odds of a military strike on Iran in the next 12 months are probably about 50%, and that means the probability of gasoline prices being above $5 in the next year is also about 50%. Even if a war is avoided in the Persian Gulf, inexorably rising world oil demand is pushing global oil prices higher and higher. One result of higher oil prices is lower US GDP growth, as the US economy stalls and even reverses, when Brent pricing hits $125.
The US remains over a barrel of expensive oil in large part, because there is no plan to accelerate greatly the deployment of the CNG fueling infrastructure necessary to enable families and companies to transition from oil.
Here's an idea to end the paralysis. How about the Congress of the United States putting country first by passing the Natural Gas Act (Pickens Plan)? The bill has not even been given a vote in the US House of Representatives and was fillibustered by the Republican minority in the Senate so that the 51 votes it got in that chamber was 9 votes short of the needed 60 super majority.
Once again, party first politics. Pathetic and dangerous!
Gas & Wind Dominate New Generation in 2012 But New Coal Accounts For 20% Of Total
To contact us Click HERE
From January to August 2012, new natural gas and wind capacity accounted for 70% of the total that began operating. A total of 11,866 megawatts began operating, and new gas and wind plants equaled 4,636 and 3,604 megawatts respectively, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf.
New wind capacity, however, will surpass new gas by the end of the year, as developers raise to finish project prior to the scheduled expiration of the production tax credit in December. America is on course to build about 10,000 megawatts of wind alone this year.
Apart from wind and gas, new coal plants were most of the remainder, 20% of the total, at 2,276 megawatts. New solar capacity was listed at 766 megawatts, but this number does not include the large amount of solar capacity that is distributed and not required to receive FERC approval.
New solar capacity from all projects may exceed new coal capacity in 2012, for the first time in the nation's history. But importantly, as a result of substantially higher capacity factors, the new coal capacity will likely produce 5 to 6 times more electricity than the 2012 new solar capacity.
Rounding out the 2012 new plant capacity to date is 329 megawatts of biomass, 125 megawatts of nuclear, 105 megawatts of geothermal, 13 megawatts of oil (Hawaii??), 9 megawatts of hydro, and 3 of waste heat.
The 2012 new capacity build is lower than in 2011 at the same time. In 2011, 14,212 megawatts of new capacity had opened by August.
America has a total of 1,153,910 megawatts of capacity, according to the FERC data. New plant continues to exceed retirements.
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf.
New wind capacity, however, will surpass new gas by the end of the year, as developers raise to finish project prior to the scheduled expiration of the production tax credit in December. America is on course to build about 10,000 megawatts of wind alone this year.
Apart from wind and gas, new coal plants were most of the remainder, 20% of the total, at 2,276 megawatts. New solar capacity was listed at 766 megawatts, but this number does not include the large amount of solar capacity that is distributed and not required to receive FERC approval.
New solar capacity from all projects may exceed new coal capacity in 2012, for the first time in the nation's history. But importantly, as a result of substantially higher capacity factors, the new coal capacity will likely produce 5 to 6 times more electricity than the 2012 new solar capacity.
Rounding out the 2012 new plant capacity to date is 329 megawatts of biomass, 125 megawatts of nuclear, 105 megawatts of geothermal, 13 megawatts of oil (Hawaii??), 9 megawatts of hydro, and 3 of waste heat.
The 2012 new capacity build is lower than in 2011 at the same time. In 2011, 14,212 megawatts of new capacity had opened by August.
America has a total of 1,153,910 megawatts of capacity, according to the FERC data. New plant continues to exceed retirements.
Stunning Fact: Italy Sells in August Nearly As Many CNG Vehicles As Are On USA Roads
To contact us Click HERE
There is no chicken or egg problem in Italy. The Italians are flocking to CNG vehicles, with 114,226 sold in just August, a monthly amount that is about equal to all the CNG vehicles on US roads.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/09/18/gasoline-sticker-shock-fuels-fiat-natural-gas-auto-sales/.
Why were nearly 1 out of 8 vehicles bought in Italy last month a CNG vehicle? High gasoline prices are one reason.
But just as important are the 900 public CNG fueling stations dotting Italy, an area about 70% the size of California. Italian motorists know that they can refuel with CNG and pay much less when doing so. The result is a booming CNG vehicle market that Fiat serves with a growing variety of models.
By contrast, the US has a total of 519 public CNG stations in our vast nation. The result of effectively no reasonable CNG fueling infrastructure being available to motorists is scant consumer interest in natural gas vehicles, even though natural gas saves around $2 per gallon and pollutes less.
In America, the failure to crack the chicken and egg problem continues. A pathetic and dangerous condition that continues.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/09/18/gasoline-sticker-shock-fuels-fiat-natural-gas-auto-sales/.
Why were nearly 1 out of 8 vehicles bought in Italy last month a CNG vehicle? High gasoline prices are one reason.
But just as important are the 900 public CNG fueling stations dotting Italy, an area about 70% the size of California. Italian motorists know that they can refuel with CNG and pay much less when doing so. The result is a booming CNG vehicle market that Fiat serves with a growing variety of models.
By contrast, the US has a total of 519 public CNG stations in our vast nation. The result of effectively no reasonable CNG fueling infrastructure being available to motorists is scant consumer interest in natural gas vehicles, even though natural gas saves around $2 per gallon and pollutes less.
In America, the failure to crack the chicken and egg problem continues. A pathetic and dangerous condition that continues.
World Temperatures Soar While Fracking Debates Roar
To contact us Click HERE
The world's land temperature in June to August, 2012 reached the highest level ever recorded for those 3 months. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/. That's a fact.
While temperatures soar, the world continues to debate shale gas--the energy resource that has cut carbon emissions more in the USA more than anything else and that has made the USA the world leader in reducing its carbon emissions since 2006.
South Africa, a country that gets 70% of its total energy from coal, announced this month that it would end its fracking moratorium. China another country that gets 70% of its total energy from coal fracked its first shale well this year.
Yet, President Hollande of France said that the French moratorium would continue for the 5 years of his term. And in New York the moratorium continues.
Temperatures soar as fracking debates roar.
While temperatures soar, the world continues to debate shale gas--the energy resource that has cut carbon emissions more in the USA more than anything else and that has made the USA the world leader in reducing its carbon emissions since 2006.
South Africa, a country that gets 70% of its total energy from coal, announced this month that it would end its fracking moratorium. China another country that gets 70% of its total energy from coal fracked its first shale well this year.
Yet, President Hollande of France said that the French moratorium would continue for the 5 years of his term. And in New York the moratorium continues.
Temperatures soar as fracking debates roar.
Ranking America's Generation Technologies By Capacity & Production: Coal & Nuclear Plants Standout
To contact us Click HERE
America has much more gas-fired generation capacity than anything else, but coal plants rank first in production The difference between capacity and production is a key fact mentioned by some commenters to this blog, so here is a quick review of America's electricity capacity and production.
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
28 Eylül 2012 Cuma
Stunning & Bad Fact: PA Unemployment Rate No Longer Less Than US After Rising To 8.1%
To contact us Click HERE
For nearly a decade, Pennsylvania's unemployment rate had been below, and often considerably below, the national unemployment rate. That was the case for nearly every month of Governor Rendell's two terms, and Pennsylvania was a national leader in creating jobs in 2010. Those days are sadly gone.
Pennsylvania's unemployment rate rose again in August from 7.9% to 8.1% and now matches the US rate of 8.1%. articles.philly.com/2012-09-20/news/33978393_1_national-unemployment-rate-jobless-rate. The consequences of devastating education cuts, mistaken budget priorities, and backwards economic development policie enacted over the last two years are now crippling Pennsylvania's economy.
Relying on the natural gas industry alone to bring prosperity to Pennsylvania is unfair to the industry and a colossal misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Pennsylvania's economy. Pennsylvania's unemployment situation is worsening, despite the real boost from gas production, because state policies are undermining education, health care, transportation, and clean energy industries among many. Pennsylvania is no longer making adequate investments in infrastructure and other strategic assets that create short-term employment and long-term competitiveness.
Next door in New Jersey, austerity economics is working just as it is Pennsylvania, with New Jersey's unemployment rate rising to 9.9%. Though it has fervent supporters, austerity economics undermines job creation and weakens the middle class. It has failed in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania.
As President Clinton says: "But the problems with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you've got to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have. It doesn't work that way. Building an economy; rebuilding the economy is hard, practical nuts and bolts work."
The enormous cuts to public education in Pennsylvania were an ideological choice and fully avoidable. Those cuts put tens of thousands of teachers directly out of work. And when a teacher loses a job, a waitress or a store clerk will too as the loss of purchasing power in communities kills thousands of non-education jobs.
The education cuts are one reason, among many mistakes in the last two years, that the days, when Pennsylvania's unemployment rate was always below the national average, ended in August. But education cuts and the failure to make strategic investments in transportation and infrastructure are a double whammy. They hurt now and damage the future by undermining our children's and state's readiness and productivity.
Pennsylvania's unemployment rate rose again in August from 7.9% to 8.1% and now matches the US rate of 8.1%. articles.philly.com/2012-09-20/news/33978393_1_national-unemployment-rate-jobless-rate. The consequences of devastating education cuts, mistaken budget priorities, and backwards economic development policie enacted over the last two years are now crippling Pennsylvania's economy.
Relying on the natural gas industry alone to bring prosperity to Pennsylvania is unfair to the industry and a colossal misunderstanding of the size and diversity of Pennsylvania's economy. Pennsylvania's unemployment situation is worsening, despite the real boost from gas production, because state policies are undermining education, health care, transportation, and clean energy industries among many. Pennsylvania is no longer making adequate investments in infrastructure and other strategic assets that create short-term employment and long-term competitiveness.
Next door in New Jersey, austerity economics is working just as it is Pennsylvania, with New Jersey's unemployment rate rising to 9.9%. Though it has fervent supporters, austerity economics undermines job creation and weakens the middle class. It has failed in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania.
As President Clinton says: "But the problems with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence. So you've got to mold the evidence to get the answer that you've already decided you've got to have. It doesn't work that way. Building an economy; rebuilding the economy is hard, practical nuts and bolts work."
The enormous cuts to public education in Pennsylvania were an ideological choice and fully avoidable. Those cuts put tens of thousands of teachers directly out of work. And when a teacher loses a job, a waitress or a store clerk will too as the loss of purchasing power in communities kills thousands of non-education jobs.
The education cuts are one reason, among many mistakes in the last two years, that the days, when Pennsylvania's unemployment rate was always below the national average, ended in August. But education cuts and the failure to make strategic investments in transportation and infrastructure are a double whammy. They hurt now and damage the future by undermining our children's and state's readiness and productivity.
Ranking America's Generation Technologies By Capacity & Production: Coal & Nuclear Plants Standout
To contact us Click HERE
America has much more gas-fired generation capacity than anything else, but coal plants rank first in production The difference between capacity and production is a key fact mentioned by some commenters to this blog, so here is a quick review of America's electricity capacity and production.
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
Important Fact: 69% of Sportsmen Say US Should Reduce Carbon Emissions
To contact us Click HERE
A major poll of sportsmen, those who hunt and fish, found that 50% are conservatives, 42% are Republicans, 32% Independents, and 18% Democrats. And 69% of sportsmen want the US to reduce carbon emissions. Thanks to gas, renewables, and efficiency, the US is doing so.
www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2012/09-25-12-Sportsmen-Poll-Public-Lands-Protection-Trumps-Energy-Production.aspx.
US emissions are back to 1992 levels or below, after declines in 4 of the last 5 years.
The poll also found that if confronted with a choice of fossil fuel production or protecting public lands, 49% of sportsmen would protect public lands and 35% would put fossil fuel production first.
Sportsmen are a key constituency that is disproportionately Republican. Yet, the views of Sportsmen on climate and public land protection are at odds with the position taken by the Republican party. Their is growing tension between more and more rank and file Republicans and what their candidates and elected officials are doing or not doing about at least climate. This bares watching.
www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/Wildlife/2012/09-25-12-Sportsmen-Poll-Public-Lands-Protection-Trumps-Energy-Production.aspx.
US emissions are back to 1992 levels or below, after declines in 4 of the last 5 years.
The poll also found that if confronted with a choice of fossil fuel production or protecting public lands, 49% of sportsmen would protect public lands and 35% would put fossil fuel production first.
Sportsmen are a key constituency that is disproportionately Republican. Yet, the views of Sportsmen on climate and public land protection are at odds with the position taken by the Republican party. Their is growing tension between more and more rank and file Republicans and what their candidates and elected officials are doing or not doing about at least climate. This bares watching.
Stunning Facts: Net Metering Or Spinning Backwards Electricity Meters Jumps 61% Nationally & 350% In PA!
To contact us Click HERE
A sharply growing number of electricity meters are spinning backwards. That's what happens when a homeowner or business installs typically a solar system at his or her property and "net meters' the output.
Net metered energy facilities are booming nationally and especially in Pennsylvania. Nationally the number of net metered projects grew 61% in 2010, jumping to 155,841. Net metered projects operated in 49 states and 694 utility service territories. http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/greenpricing/pdf/green_pricing.pdf. Only Tennessee apparently forbids net metering. Most net metering takes place on residential and commercial accounts.
Net metering growth was explosive in Pennsylvania during 2010, skyrocketing 350%, with the number of net metered facilities up from 650 in 2009 to 2,971 in 2010. Pennsylvania ranked second in the growth rate of net metered projects, trailing only Maine.
Nationally, California accounted for more than half of all projects with 86,495. Colorado ranked second at 9,776.
In 2011 through to today, the net metering boom nationally continues and even may have accelerated. America now may have between 250,000 and 300,000 net metered energy facilities. The overwhelming majority of which are solar.
Net metered energy facilities are booming nationally and especially in Pennsylvania. Nationally the number of net metered projects grew 61% in 2010, jumping to 155,841. Net metered projects operated in 49 states and 694 utility service territories. http://www.eia.gov/renewable/annual/greenpricing/pdf/green_pricing.pdf. Only Tennessee apparently forbids net metering. Most net metering takes place on residential and commercial accounts.
Net metering growth was explosive in Pennsylvania during 2010, skyrocketing 350%, with the number of net metered facilities up from 650 in 2009 to 2,971 in 2010. Pennsylvania ranked second in the growth rate of net metered projects, trailing only Maine.
Nationally, California accounted for more than half of all projects with 86,495. Colorado ranked second at 9,776.
In 2011 through to today, the net metering boom nationally continues and even may have accelerated. America now may have between 250,000 and 300,000 net metered energy facilities. The overwhelming majority of which are solar.
Cumulative Consumer PA Gas Savings Rise To $3200 Since 2008 & Average 42.5%
To contact us Click HERE
The stunning drop in natural gas prices from $13 in 2008 to less than $3 today for a thousand cubic feet has saved consumers big money in just gas bills. Kathryn Klaber calculates the cumulative consumer savings at $3,200 and that gas utility rates at Pennsylvania's 9 major gas utilities are down on average 42.5% since 2008. http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20120928_Marcellus_find_transforms_Pa_.html. That's about right. But the number does not include any consumer savings in lower electricity bills that have resulted as well from the big drop in gas prices.
These natural gas savings have been enormously important to families with incomes at or below the Pennsylvania median level of about $49,000 before taxes and have been literally the difference between having heat or not, during the winter for thousands of poor Pennsylvanians. For poor families, government heating assistance programs have delivered in most cases much less than half of the financial assistance provided by the $3,200 in lower gas prices.
The impact of high energy costs on public safety and health is too often ignored. Yet, the tragic truth is that utility shut-offs cause desperate families to turn to dangerous heating and lighting substitutes that have caused numerous fires that have killed more than 50 Pennsylvanians over the last 25 years.
That fact should not be lost in discussions about gas production and energy policy.
These natural gas savings have been enormously important to families with incomes at or below the Pennsylvania median level of about $49,000 before taxes and have been literally the difference between having heat or not, during the winter for thousands of poor Pennsylvanians. For poor families, government heating assistance programs have delivered in most cases much less than half of the financial assistance provided by the $3,200 in lower gas prices.
The impact of high energy costs on public safety and health is too often ignored. Yet, the tragic truth is that utility shut-offs cause desperate families to turn to dangerous heating and lighting substitutes that have caused numerous fires that have killed more than 50 Pennsylvanians over the last 25 years.
That fact should not be lost in discussions about gas production and energy policy.
27 Eylül 2012 Perşembe
PA Loses Jobs For 5 Straight Months: Gas Alone Is Not Enough!
To contact us Click HERE
Pennsylvania has lost jobs every month since March, 2012--five straight months of job losses. In fact, the Commonwealth has lost cumulatively 19,400 since March. www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm.
And the Pennsylvania job losses come, despite a rising national tide in the same period. Since March 2012, more than 600,000 jobs have been created across America.
Job losses in Pennsylvania and job creation nationally means that the "Pennsylvania Advantage" is gone. No longer does Pennsylvania have an unemployment rate well below the nation's, as had been the case for a decade.
Pennsylvania's unemployment rate has jumped from 7.4% in April 2012 to 8.1% in August and now equals the national rate. The current trends could well mean that Pennsylvania will soon have an unemployment rate higher than the nation, something that has not been a fact for a very long time.
Pennsylvania's string of bad economic numbers drives home the point that the gas boon alone is not enough to bring prosperity to Pennsylvania, especially when state government slashes budgets for education and does not make needed investments in transportation. The gas industry provides a welcome, needed boost.
But it cannot erase strategic budgeting and economic development mistakes.
Moreover, Pennsylvania's population and economy must have more than 6 million jobs, and gas alone is never going to come close to providing full employment. Another way to make this point would be: Pennsylvania is not North Dakota or Kuwait.
And the Pennsylvania job losses come, despite a rising national tide in the same period. Since March 2012, more than 600,000 jobs have been created across America.
Job losses in Pennsylvania and job creation nationally means that the "Pennsylvania Advantage" is gone. No longer does Pennsylvania have an unemployment rate well below the nation's, as had been the case for a decade.
Pennsylvania's unemployment rate has jumped from 7.4% in April 2012 to 8.1% in August and now equals the national rate. The current trends could well mean that Pennsylvania will soon have an unemployment rate higher than the nation, something that has not been a fact for a very long time.
Pennsylvania's string of bad economic numbers drives home the point that the gas boon alone is not enough to bring prosperity to Pennsylvania, especially when state government slashes budgets for education and does not make needed investments in transportation. The gas industry provides a welcome, needed boost.
But it cannot erase strategic budgeting and economic development mistakes.
Moreover, Pennsylvania's population and economy must have more than 6 million jobs, and gas alone is never going to come close to providing full employment. Another way to make this point would be: Pennsylvania is not North Dakota or Kuwait.
Sunday NYT Data Center & Power Story Goes Hyperbolic: Here Is The Side Of The Story Not Fit To Print
To contact us Click HERE
The NYT's Sunday front page story with color picture on the power needs and impacts of data centers has all the ingredients of what today's NYT offers--business or government doing nasty things, assaults on the environment, bad news. The piece follows tightly this formula for success but is hyperbolic and distorted.
www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?smid=tw-share.
Let's start with the basic theme that data centers are using enormous amounts of electricity and how the reporter builds it. The reporter first tells us that data centers around the world use 30 billion watts of electricity or the equivalent of 30 nuclear power plants. I am sure that sounds like huge amounts to those not familiar with the electricity industry.
Of course, what is not said is often as important as what is said. Not said in the article is that the world has over 470 nuclear plants, and that nuclear power provides less of the world's electricity than hydro by itself.
But hydro is far from the major source of power for the world. Coal is the world's single, biggest source of electricity.
When all the hyperbole and obfuscation is stripped away, the world's use of electricity for data centers is probably less than 1% of global electricity consumption. And let's remember that 1% of power makes modern commerce and life possible. The 1% of electricity used at data centers may be the most productive use of electricity on earth!
After his reference to the 30 billion watts of power used globally by data centers, then the reporter darkly quotes a former utility official who says the power use is "unsustainable" and the industry will "hit the wall." That statement is not just hyperbolic. It is totally ridiculous statement and as false as calling the shale gas boom a "Ponzi Scheme!"
Total US electricity consumption is actually lower today than it was in 2006. The country has substantial excess generation capacity, without building anything more.
But the country is building more generation capacity. In fact, new power capacity is outpacing power plant retirements by two to one or more.
The electricity demand of data centers is not a problem at all for the US electric industry to meet. That's why the electric industry does recruit them!
About half way through the sea of ink in this story, the reader is finally told that data centers use about 2% of US power. Why not say that right up front? Well, it is a less scary frame for the whole piece, is it not?
The article nearly dismisses the fact that the internet sharply cuts energy use in other ways. The reporter tells us that the industry claimed it would cut down on paper but then writes that the paper industry uses billions of kilowatt-hours each year. That's it.
Ask the US Postal Service what the impact of the internet has been on postal volumes. Look at your own use of electronic bill paying, banking, and shopping.
How about electronic computing? The rise of the home office? How about the gasoline and diesel avoided in transportation. None of that is mentioned.
And since the data center industry is the bad guy in this piece, there is no mention of the industry's use of solar and fuel cells that run on gas. Instead, the article focuses on the use of diesel generators. Those are a step back. And it would be much better if gas-fired, micro-turbines or fuel cells were deployed to take the place of diesel generators.
This article, however, is another example of a NYT reporter being given months to investigate an issue and to read thousands of documents, as the reporter tell us. The sheer investment of time requires that the reporter bring forth something other than a mouse. The structure of these big projects contain pressure for bias and false drama.
And so we have another example--this time data centers--of the NYT producing hyperbole and painting a distorted picture for its readers.
www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?smid=tw-share.
Let's start with the basic theme that data centers are using enormous amounts of electricity and how the reporter builds it. The reporter first tells us that data centers around the world use 30 billion watts of electricity or the equivalent of 30 nuclear power plants. I am sure that sounds like huge amounts to those not familiar with the electricity industry.
Of course, what is not said is often as important as what is said. Not said in the article is that the world has over 470 nuclear plants, and that nuclear power provides less of the world's electricity than hydro by itself.
But hydro is far from the major source of power for the world. Coal is the world's single, biggest source of electricity.
When all the hyperbole and obfuscation is stripped away, the world's use of electricity for data centers is probably less than 1% of global electricity consumption. And let's remember that 1% of power makes modern commerce and life possible. The 1% of electricity used at data centers may be the most productive use of electricity on earth!
After his reference to the 30 billion watts of power used globally by data centers, then the reporter darkly quotes a former utility official who says the power use is "unsustainable" and the industry will "hit the wall." That statement is not just hyperbolic. It is totally ridiculous statement and as false as calling the shale gas boom a "Ponzi Scheme!"
Total US electricity consumption is actually lower today than it was in 2006. The country has substantial excess generation capacity, without building anything more.
But the country is building more generation capacity. In fact, new power capacity is outpacing power plant retirements by two to one or more.
The electricity demand of data centers is not a problem at all for the US electric industry to meet. That's why the electric industry does recruit them!
About half way through the sea of ink in this story, the reader is finally told that data centers use about 2% of US power. Why not say that right up front? Well, it is a less scary frame for the whole piece, is it not?
The article nearly dismisses the fact that the internet sharply cuts energy use in other ways. The reporter tells us that the industry claimed it would cut down on paper but then writes that the paper industry uses billions of kilowatt-hours each year. That's it.
Ask the US Postal Service what the impact of the internet has been on postal volumes. Look at your own use of electronic bill paying, banking, and shopping.
How about electronic computing? The rise of the home office? How about the gasoline and diesel avoided in transportation. None of that is mentioned.
And since the data center industry is the bad guy in this piece, there is no mention of the industry's use of solar and fuel cells that run on gas. Instead, the article focuses on the use of diesel generators. Those are a step back. And it would be much better if gas-fired, micro-turbines or fuel cells were deployed to take the place of diesel generators.
This article, however, is another example of a NYT reporter being given months to investigate an issue and to read thousands of documents, as the reporter tell us. The sheer investment of time requires that the reporter bring forth something other than a mouse. The structure of these big projects contain pressure for bias and false drama.
And so we have another example--this time data centers--of the NYT producing hyperbole and painting a distorted picture for its readers.
Ranking America's Generation Technologies By Capacity & Production: Coal & Nuclear Plants Standout
To contact us Click HERE
America has much more gas-fired generation capacity than anything else, but coal plants rank first in production The difference between capacity and production is a key fact mentioned by some commenters to this blog, so here is a quick review of America's electricity capacity and production.
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
Prius Plug-Ins Reach 6,000 In US & 15,000 Globally
To contact us Click HERE
August was not just a good month for the Volt or the Leaf but also for sales of the Prius plug-in models. Sales were 1,047 cars, up 52% from July. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09/augustpevsales-20120905.html.
More than 15,000 plug-in Prius models have been sold globally as of August. US sales were 6,068 of that total or about 40% of the world market.
Gasoline pricing is impacting US consumer interest in plug-ins, with August seeing escalating fuel prices, and more plug-in sales.
More than 15,000 plug-in Prius models have been sold globally as of August. US sales were 6,068 of that total or about 40% of the world market.
Gasoline pricing is impacting US consumer interest in plug-ins, with August seeing escalating fuel prices, and more plug-in sales.
Reviewing Earthworks Report Ripping State Enforcement Of Oil & Gas Rules: More Hatchet Than Lantern
To contact us Click HERE
Enforcing oil and gas regulations is vital to producing gas, protecting the environment, and building a culture of safety throughout the gas industry. With the stakes high on the quality of regulation, enforcement must be a key topic about which professional, objective discussion is needed.
And so, despite the jarring cover page, I hopefully began reading the Earthworks report entitled, "Breaking All The Rules." I hoped it would provide a real analysis of the current strengths and weaknesses of enforcement activity.
Most unfortunately, for it is a lost opportunity to have a real dialogue that could lead to necessary further improvements in regulation, the Earthworks Report is a partisan document. The Report is more hatchet than lantern and betrays the seriousness its topic should command.
For example, if you favored stronger enforcement and learned that a state had increased its budget for oil and gas oversight from $700,000 to $12.5 million from 2008 to 2010; raised inspections from 7,236 in 2002 to 22,600 in 2011; increased staffing; increased the number of regulatory citations issued to the gas industry from 1,153 in 2002 to 4,069 in 2011; had tripled the maximum daily fine; and had inspected every shale well and most multiple times, would you have something, anything, positive to say about that state's effort to regulate the gas industry?
The foregoing is a quick summary of Pennsylvania's regulatory record and most of that data is buried in Earthworks' Report. www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FINAL-US-enforcement-sm.pdf. Yet, the report is unrelentingly negative from its cover page to its end. It assiduously avoids crediting any strengths or positive trends no matter that Pennsylvania increased its enforcement budget 18 fold, increased inspections three-fold, increased the number of citations to industry more than three-fold. The Report stays on its message that state enforcement of gas rules is in crisis and bad.
For example, thanks to the comprehensive information about violations that is available to the public in Pennsylvania, the Report at pages 39 and 42 lists companies that do poorly on a couple metrics used by the Report. The Report, however, does not list the companies that do well on those same metrics.
Too many environmentalists make a mistake, and commonly do so, by looking only at companies performing badly and not at those companies performing well. Indeed, in terms of increasing safety, holding up for public praise those companies doing well, and understanding why they are, is as important as highlighting those performing badly.
The Report also manipulates the reader in a variety of ways, including by choosing to do most of its analysis on 2010 data, though 2011 data is available in many cases. For example, the reader will be told repeatedly in the report that Pennsylvania conducted 15,000 inspections, the 2010 number, and most of the Report's analysis uses the 15,000 inspection number for Pennsylvania.
Yet, buried in an Appendix, the reader learns that the 2011 inspection number jumped again--up to 22,670. And after being told that Pennsylvania has 65 inspectors on page 23, the persistent reader will learn again in an Appendix at the end of the report that Pennsylvania had 88 inspectors in 2011, though the Report never tells the reader that Pennsylvania increased the gas oversight staff from 88 in 2008 to 210 in 2010, opened 2 new gas drilling oversight offices, equipped staff with infrared cameras, and deployed mobile testing labs.
Again, the analysis in the Report uses the much lower inspection and inspector numbers of 2010, because they produce a "better" result for the authors. These are but two examples of many manipulations.
Still another slanting involves the difference in the well totals in 2010 and 2011. The 2011 data shows that the number of active wells with production in Pennsylvania fell to 55,812 from 69,626 in 2010. But when crunching its main number to slam state regulation--the percentage of all wells inspected--the report uses 2010 data, the bigger and out of date number.
For the authors of the report determined to mine the most negative case, 2010 is a better year than 2011. After all, 2010 in Pennsylvania had both a much lower number of inspections than in 2011 and much higher number of wells.
Indeed, to slant its basic frame even more, the report calculates its percentage of wells inspected by using not just the 2010 data that creates a much higher percentage but by using a bigger category of gas wells. That category is "active" gas wells that includes about 22,000 wells that are not producing.
In 2010, the "active" gas wells in Pennsylvania were 91,167 of which 69,626 had production. By comparison, the active wells in 2011 were down to 77,898 and those with production fell to 55,812.
If 2011 data and "producing wells" were used for Pennsylvania, the Report would have found that Pennsylvania inspected all shale gas wells and about 30% or more of all producing wells, instead of reporting that Pennsylvania did not inspect 91% of gas wells.
And let's discuss for a moment what most producing gas wells really are in Pennsylvania. They are shallow, small production wells that have been operating in many cases for 20, 30, 40, 50 or more years. They are often so small to barely register. And most certainly they are not the shale gas wells that is the focus of attention and concern.
The Report's discussion of Pennsylvania contains many other errors. The list is too long to discuss here and includes a major mistake about DEP funding levels. But I must note that the Report does not put in its analysis the $4.1 million placed in escrow accounts for 18 families in Dimock, as a result of enforcement action to compensate them for gas migrating to their properties due to mistakes in gas drilling.
In addition to Pennsylvania, the Report also looks at Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Texas. Enforcement can and should be improved in all of these states. The topic of enforcement is critical. It deserves a real lantern that sheds light.
And so, despite the jarring cover page, I hopefully began reading the Earthworks report entitled, "Breaking All The Rules." I hoped it would provide a real analysis of the current strengths and weaknesses of enforcement activity.
Most unfortunately, for it is a lost opportunity to have a real dialogue that could lead to necessary further improvements in regulation, the Earthworks Report is a partisan document. The Report is more hatchet than lantern and betrays the seriousness its topic should command.
For example, if you favored stronger enforcement and learned that a state had increased its budget for oil and gas oversight from $700,000 to $12.5 million from 2008 to 2010; raised inspections from 7,236 in 2002 to 22,600 in 2011; increased staffing; increased the number of regulatory citations issued to the gas industry from 1,153 in 2002 to 4,069 in 2011; had tripled the maximum daily fine; and had inspected every shale well and most multiple times, would you have something, anything, positive to say about that state's effort to regulate the gas industry?
The foregoing is a quick summary of Pennsylvania's regulatory record and most of that data is buried in Earthworks' Report. www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FINAL-US-enforcement-sm.pdf. Yet, the report is unrelentingly negative from its cover page to its end. It assiduously avoids crediting any strengths or positive trends no matter that Pennsylvania increased its enforcement budget 18 fold, increased inspections three-fold, increased the number of citations to industry more than three-fold. The Report stays on its message that state enforcement of gas rules is in crisis and bad.
For example, thanks to the comprehensive information about violations that is available to the public in Pennsylvania, the Report at pages 39 and 42 lists companies that do poorly on a couple metrics used by the Report. The Report, however, does not list the companies that do well on those same metrics.
Too many environmentalists make a mistake, and commonly do so, by looking only at companies performing badly and not at those companies performing well. Indeed, in terms of increasing safety, holding up for public praise those companies doing well, and understanding why they are, is as important as highlighting those performing badly.
The Report also manipulates the reader in a variety of ways, including by choosing to do most of its analysis on 2010 data, though 2011 data is available in many cases. For example, the reader will be told repeatedly in the report that Pennsylvania conducted 15,000 inspections, the 2010 number, and most of the Report's analysis uses the 15,000 inspection number for Pennsylvania.
Yet, buried in an Appendix, the reader learns that the 2011 inspection number jumped again--up to 22,670. And after being told that Pennsylvania has 65 inspectors on page 23, the persistent reader will learn again in an Appendix at the end of the report that Pennsylvania had 88 inspectors in 2011, though the Report never tells the reader that Pennsylvania increased the gas oversight staff from 88 in 2008 to 210 in 2010, opened 2 new gas drilling oversight offices, equipped staff with infrared cameras, and deployed mobile testing labs.
Again, the analysis in the Report uses the much lower inspection and inspector numbers of 2010, because they produce a "better" result for the authors. These are but two examples of many manipulations.
Still another slanting involves the difference in the well totals in 2010 and 2011. The 2011 data shows that the number of active wells with production in Pennsylvania fell to 55,812 from 69,626 in 2010. But when crunching its main number to slam state regulation--the percentage of all wells inspected--the report uses 2010 data, the bigger and out of date number.
For the authors of the report determined to mine the most negative case, 2010 is a better year than 2011. After all, 2010 in Pennsylvania had both a much lower number of inspections than in 2011 and much higher number of wells.
Indeed, to slant its basic frame even more, the report calculates its percentage of wells inspected by using not just the 2010 data that creates a much higher percentage but by using a bigger category of gas wells. That category is "active" gas wells that includes about 22,000 wells that are not producing.
In 2010, the "active" gas wells in Pennsylvania were 91,167 of which 69,626 had production. By comparison, the active wells in 2011 were down to 77,898 and those with production fell to 55,812.
If 2011 data and "producing wells" were used for Pennsylvania, the Report would have found that Pennsylvania inspected all shale gas wells and about 30% or more of all producing wells, instead of reporting that Pennsylvania did not inspect 91% of gas wells.
And let's discuss for a moment what most producing gas wells really are in Pennsylvania. They are shallow, small production wells that have been operating in many cases for 20, 30, 40, 50 or more years. They are often so small to barely register. And most certainly they are not the shale gas wells that is the focus of attention and concern.
The Report's discussion of Pennsylvania contains many other errors. The list is too long to discuss here and includes a major mistake about DEP funding levels. But I must note that the Report does not put in its analysis the $4.1 million placed in escrow accounts for 18 families in Dimock, as a result of enforcement action to compensate them for gas migrating to their properties due to mistakes in gas drilling.
In addition to Pennsylvania, the Report also looks at Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Texas. Enforcement can and should be improved in all of these states. The topic of enforcement is critical. It deserves a real lantern that sheds light.
26 Eylül 2012 Çarşamba
Federal Judge Dismisses Challenge To DRBC Drilling Regulations But...
To contact us Click HERE
A federal judge sitting in New York has dismissed on procedural grounds the challenge by drilling opponents to the DRBC's gas drilling rulemaking. The judge apparently dismissed the suit on standing and ripeness grounds and did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Those claims asserted DRBC is a federal agency and must do a federal Environmental Impact Study (EIS) before adopting any drilling rules.
What does this mean? This kicks the heart of the matter down the road but does not dispose of it one way or another. Plaintiffs will be able to refile when and if regulations are finalized and applied.
As such, the court's decision today not to reach the merits of the claims may well add to delay and not shorten time needed for judicial process.
What does this mean? This kicks the heart of the matter down the road but does not dispose of it one way or another. Plaintiffs will be able to refile when and if regulations are finalized and applied.
As such, the court's decision today not to reach the merits of the claims may well add to delay and not shorten time needed for judicial process.
Ranking America's Generation Technologies By Capacity & Production: Coal & Nuclear Plants Standout
To contact us Click HERE
America has much more gas-fired generation capacity than anything else, but coal plants rank first in production The difference between capacity and production is a key fact mentioned by some commenters to this blog, so here is a quick review of America's electricity capacity and production.
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
According to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, America has 1,153,910 megawatts.
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/aug-2012-energy-infrastructure.pdf. And that huge total comprises 10 different types of generation.
Measured by capacity, America has more gas-fired generation--482,800 megawatts--than any other type. Coal ranks second at 340,780 megawatts; nuclear third at 106,770 megawatts; hydro fourth at 98,060 megawatts; oil fifth at 51,700 megawatts; wind fifth at 50,770 megawatts; biomass sixth at 14,390 megawatts; geothermal seventh at 3,610 megawatts; and solar ninth at 3,200 megawatts. The FERC solar number does not include a substantial amount of solar distributed generation.
Capacity numbers are important, but they are not the same as production. Indeed, there can be real differences between a technology's percentage of the nation's capacity and the percentage of electricity that it produces.
For example, though America has more gas-fired generation capacity than any other type and 41.84% of our total capacity, gas currently generates about 30% of our electricity and ranks second in actual power production.
Despite having 29.53% of America's capacity and ranking second, coal generates still the most electricity of any source, about 36%, though it has lost substantial market share to gas.
Nuclear power has just 9.25% of our capacity but generates a bit less than 20% of our electricity. Every 1% of nuclear capacity produces 2% of America's power. The nuclear plants of the nation are real work horses.
Hydro is 8.5% of our capacity and produces about 7% to 8% of our electricity. Wind is now 4.4% of our capacity and is producing a bit less than 4% of the nation's power. Biomass is about 1.25% of our capacity and generates a similar amount of our electricity.
Oil is still 4.48% of our capacity but now generates 1% or less of our electricity.
As this review shows, nuclear and coal plants produce a greater share of the nation's electricity than their portion of the nation's capacity total. Despite low gas prices, gas still produces considerably less than its share of the nation's capacity, as do oil plants. Renewables tend to produce a percentage of power close to their percentage of the capacity total.
Reviewing America's electricity capacity and supply confirms the size and diversity of the nation's electricity generation. Those are real strengths for America!
Volt Outsells Half Of US Cars: Ranks 133 of 262 Models
To contact us Click HERE
Time to ruin Rush Limbaugh's day again. The Chevy Volt is outselling half of all US cars.
www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0922/Failure-Hardly-Chevy-Volt-outsells-half-of-all-US-cars.
The Volt ranks 133 out of 262 cars sold. In their respective first years, the Volt also outsold the Prius, the phenomenally successful onfidently predicted would be a commercial flop.
History may be repeating itself.
www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/0922/Failure-Hardly-Chevy-Volt-outsells-half-of-all-US-cars.
The Volt ranks 133 out of 262 cars sold. In their respective first years, the Volt also outsold the Prius, the phenomenally successful onfidently predicted would be a commercial flop.
History may be repeating itself.
Stunning Fact: $160 Million Or Equivalent Of $2,555 Per Person Paid In Gas Royalties In Bradford County
To contact us Click HERE
Gas royalties are rolling into Bradford County, a leading shale gas county in Pennsylvania. According to one calculation, $160 million has been paid in royalties to landowners there, where 512 gas wells are producing.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/09/25/drilling-generates-160-million-in-bradford-county.
Given that Bradford county had a population in 2010 of 62,622, or about 1 of every 200 Pennsylvanians, the $160 million total works out to the equivalent of $2,555 per person within the county. Of course, royalty payments went not to every resident but to less than 1% of those in the county.
Both the amount of royalties paid and the number of residents in Bradford county that will receive a royalty check will soon increase significantly, since a total of 1,856 wells have already been drilled. But 1,344 of those wells were not counted as producing, when the $160 million royalty total was calculated.
Landowners who lease their property for gas drilling also get a lease payment that is separate and apart from any royalties received.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/09/25/drilling-generates-160-million-in-bradford-county.
Given that Bradford county had a population in 2010 of 62,622, or about 1 of every 200 Pennsylvanians, the $160 million total works out to the equivalent of $2,555 per person within the county. Of course, royalty payments went not to every resident but to less than 1% of those in the county.
Both the amount of royalties paid and the number of residents in Bradford county that will receive a royalty check will soon increase significantly, since a total of 1,856 wells have already been drilled. But 1,344 of those wells were not counted as producing, when the $160 million royalty total was calculated.
Landowners who lease their property for gas drilling also get a lease payment that is separate and apart from any royalties received.
Another Analysis Of The Role Of Gas In Plummeting US Carbon Emissions
To contact us Click HERE
Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations weighs in on the role of gas in reducing US carbon emissions. http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/09/25/why-have-u-s-carbon-dioxide-emissions-plummeted/comment-page-1/#comment-166725.
Michael's analysis discusses at length my September 17, 2012 posting on the same topic. See johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/09/natural-gas-is-responsible-for-about-77.html. I have also commented twice on Michael's analysis at his blog.
The role of gas in reducing carbon emissions differs in different time periods. It was significant in 2011 but even bigger in 2012, for a number of reasons, including gas is displacing even more coal generation in 2012 than in 2011, and renewable electric production is down in 2012 compared to 2011.
The plummeting of carbon emissions in the US is real and not a result of magic. Gas is at the heart of the good news, and it is sad to see some deny that fact, as others deny the reality of climate change.
Michael's analysis discusses at length my September 17, 2012 posting on the same topic. See johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/09/natural-gas-is-responsible-for-about-77.html. I have also commented twice on Michael's analysis at his blog.
The role of gas in reducing carbon emissions differs in different time periods. It was significant in 2011 but even bigger in 2012, for a number of reasons, including gas is displacing even more coal generation in 2012 than in 2011, and renewable electric production is down in 2012 compared to 2011.
The plummeting of carbon emissions in the US is real and not a result of magic. Gas is at the heart of the good news, and it is sad to see some deny that fact, as others deny the reality of climate change.
25 Eylül 2012 Salı
IT Consultants, Personnel Recruiters and Non-Compete - Non- Solicitation Agreements in Pennsylvania
To contact us Click HERE
I am a Personnel Recruiter: Is My Non-Compete - Non-Solicitation Agreement Enforceable?
Over the years, the business of IT Consulting has expanded and expanded so that, today, many companies routinely retain temporary workers who are IT specialists under a contract with a personnel supply firm.
This typically results in two separate contracts: 1) a contract between the end user (the company requiring manpower) and the recruitment firm wherein the end user agrees to pay the recruitment firm a fee over a fixed period of time in exchange for provision by the recruitment firm of temporary workers needed to complete a given project; and, 2) a contract between the recruitment firm and individuals who agree to go to the end user for a specified time frame and provide services on such projects pursuant to an independent contractor agreement.
In other cases, recruitment firms provide permanent employees to corporate clients and are paid a one time fee.
This Post is not intended to discuss the overall enforceability of the non-compete agreement between you and your former employer. Rather, it is designed to address two common issues faced by employees who, having found work subsequent to leaving their former employer, desire to understand the boundaries for contacting candidates and clients of their former firm.
Click Here to read our Post on general rules relating top the enforcement of non-compete agreements in Pennsylvania.
I Have Been Recruiting IT Candidates for Years: May I Contact Them After I Leave My Pennsylvania Employer?
Over time, people who work for recruitment firms develop relationships both with candidates (i.e. individuals potentially suited for various positions) and clients (i.e. corporations who require candidates). Most people who work as personnel recruiters are required by their employers to execute non-compete agreements as a condition of employment.
Upon departing from employment to strike out on a new venture, such persons often call me and ask: can I contact the candidates that were part of the data base of my old firm? The answer is: a qualified yes.
If you can locate, identify and contact such candidates via social media such as Facebook, Linked-In, etc., then you are likely going to be fine.
However, one may not utilize the data base of a former employer to identify and contact such candidates.
Human Resource Consultant: May I Contact the Clients of my Former Employer if I Have a Non-Compete or Non-Solicitation Contract in PA?
In the context of the subjects discussed in this Post, contacting and/or doing business with corporate clients who purchased manpower from your prior employer is a much dicier proposition for persons bound by non-compete agreements. That is so because corporate clients are the ones that pay recruitment firms for the candidates they provide. Hence, any time a former employer learns that its former employee is doing business with one of its corporate clients, a dispute will likely blossom.
Here is one rub.
The IT field is extremely specialized, yet the vocabulary used to identify the specializations remains undeveloped. Hence, the prohibitions in a typical non-compete agreement in the IT consulting industry are usually overbroad, and thus, paradoxically, vague. For example, your old employer recruited only software engineers. Does that mean that you cannot recruit and provide a software programmer to a corporate client of your former employer?
Here is another rub.
Your old employer typically "leases" independent contractors to its corporate clients for specified time periods, typically designed to provide manpower for only so long as it takes a given project to be completed. Your new employer, on the other hand, supplies only recruits for permanent hire by corporate clients. Is it a violation of your non-compete to provide such services when, in fact, your new employer does not truly "compete with your prior employer?
How to Avoid a Lawsuit Over my Pennsylvania Non-Compete Agreement
The bottom line is: IT personnel recruitment is a complicated business, and non-compete agreements in this field are often overly broad and potentially unenforceable in whole or in part. However, former employers often will not hesitate to sue if they believe their financial interests are being compromised by a former employee. And, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop your former employer from filing a lawsuit, even a baseless lawsuit, if that is what it wants to do. Therefore, the best approach is to develop a careful strategy that enables you at once to continue working in your chosen profession while minimizing the risk of suit or, if suit is unavoidable, the risk of a successful suit by your former employer.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
I am a Personnel Recruiter: Is My Non-Compete - Non-Solicitation Agreement Enforceable?Over the years, the business of IT Consulting has expanded and expanded so that, today, many companies routinely retain temporary workers who are IT specialists under a contract with a personnel supply firm.
This typically results in two separate contracts: 1) a contract between the end user (the company requiring manpower) and the recruitment firm wherein the end user agrees to pay the recruitment firm a fee over a fixed period of time in exchange for provision by the recruitment firm of temporary workers needed to complete a given project; and, 2) a contract between the recruitment firm and individuals who agree to go to the end user for a specified time frame and provide services on such projects pursuant to an independent contractor agreement.
In other cases, recruitment firms provide permanent employees to corporate clients and are paid a one time fee.
This Post is not intended to discuss the overall enforceability of the non-compete agreement between you and your former employer. Rather, it is designed to address two common issues faced by employees who, having found work subsequent to leaving their former employer, desire to understand the boundaries for contacting candidates and clients of their former firm.
Click Here to read our Post on general rules relating top the enforcement of non-compete agreements in Pennsylvania.
I Have Been Recruiting IT Candidates for Years: May I Contact Them After I Leave My Pennsylvania Employer?
Over time, people who work for recruitment firms develop relationships both with candidates (i.e. individuals potentially suited for various positions) and clients (i.e. corporations who require candidates). Most people who work as personnel recruiters are required by their employers to execute non-compete agreements as a condition of employment.
Upon departing from employment to strike out on a new venture, such persons often call me and ask: can I contact the candidates that were part of the data base of my old firm? The answer is: a qualified yes.
If you can locate, identify and contact such candidates via social media such as Facebook, Linked-In, etc., then you are likely going to be fine.
However, one may not utilize the data base of a former employer to identify and contact such candidates.
Human Resource Consultant: May I Contact the Clients of my Former Employer if I Have a Non-Compete or Non-Solicitation Contract in PA?
In the context of the subjects discussed in this Post, contacting and/or doing business with corporate clients who purchased manpower from your prior employer is a much dicier proposition for persons bound by non-compete agreements. That is so because corporate clients are the ones that pay recruitment firms for the candidates they provide. Hence, any time a former employer learns that its former employee is doing business with one of its corporate clients, a dispute will likely blossom.
Here is one rub.
The IT field is extremely specialized, yet the vocabulary used to identify the specializations remains undeveloped. Hence, the prohibitions in a typical non-compete agreement in the IT consulting industry are usually overbroad, and thus, paradoxically, vague. For example, your old employer recruited only software engineers. Does that mean that you cannot recruit and provide a software programmer to a corporate client of your former employer?
Here is another rub.
Your old employer typically "leases" independent contractors to its corporate clients for specified time periods, typically designed to provide manpower for only so long as it takes a given project to be completed. Your new employer, on the other hand, supplies only recruits for permanent hire by corporate clients. Is it a violation of your non-compete to provide such services when, in fact, your new employer does not truly "compete with your prior employer?
How to Avoid a Lawsuit Over my Pennsylvania Non-Compete Agreement
The bottom line is: IT personnel recruitment is a complicated business, and non-compete agreements in this field are often overly broad and potentially unenforceable in whole or in part. However, former employers often will not hesitate to sue if they believe their financial interests are being compromised by a former employee. And, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop your former employer from filing a lawsuit, even a baseless lawsuit, if that is what it wants to do. Therefore, the best approach is to develop a careful strategy that enables you at once to continue working in your chosen profession while minimizing the risk of suit or, if suit is unavoidable, the risk of a successful suit by your former employer.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
Recruiters and Non-Compete Agreements in Pennsylvania
To contact us Click HERE
If You Are a Recruiter, You Have Probably Signed a Non-Compete Agreement
Nowadays, many companies are electing to hire independent contractors for specified projects as opposed to hiring employees on a full-time basis. This is good news for recruiters. However, virtually any recruiter that is hired is required to sign a non-compete agreement, which typically includes a non-solicitation clause.
Pennsylvania Courts Will Enforce a Non-Compete Agreement Only if Doing So is Necessary to Protect the Legitimate Business Interests of Your Former Employer
A standard non-compete agreement prohibits you from working for a competitor of your former employer for a period of time usually ranging from 1-2 years.
A standard non-solicitation agreement will prohibit you from doing business with any of the corporate clients or individual candidates of your former employer for a similar time frame.
In most situations, courts will not enforce non-competition covenants because they are not truly needed to protect your former employer's business interests. After all, it is a big world, and how is one more recruiter in the vast sea of recruiters going to hurt your old company?
Click Here to read our recent Post concerning the practicalities of such clauses where IT Recruiters are concerned.
Click Here to read our comprehensive post on the enforceability of non-competition agreements in general.
Pennsylvania Courts Will Enforce a Non-Solicitation Agreement if You Are Taking Clients From Your Old Firm and Causing it to Lose Money
The above headline says a mouthful, and one must parse through and understand each sub-proposition to understand the essence of Pennsylvania law where non-compete/non-solicitation agreements are concerned.
Here is a simple rubric:
Joe Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm but does not do business with corporate clients or candidates of old firm: non-compete generally will not be enforced;
Jane Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm and does business with corporate clients of old firm but not candidates: non-compete generally be enforced;
Joe Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm and does do business with individual candidates but not corporate clients of old firm: non-compete generally will not be enforced if Joe found candidates via social networks such as Linked-In, as opposed to via use of old employer's database that he had downloaded and kept after his job ended.
There Are Many Permutations to Pennsylvania Non-Compete Law
The fact is, each and every situation is essentially unique, and avoiding a lawsuit is the key goal, even if it means your earnings are deflated for a while. Even so, you must understand that, no matter what you do, there is nothing anyone can do to stop your former employer from filing a lawsuit if that is what it wants to do.
Consequently, the best offense is a very sound strategy. One must think through and carefully plan one's steps so that, if a lawsuit cannot be avoided, you may emerge victorious.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
If You Are a Recruiter, You Have Probably Signed a Non-Compete AgreementNowadays, many companies are electing to hire independent contractors for specified projects as opposed to hiring employees on a full-time basis. This is good news for recruiters. However, virtually any recruiter that is hired is required to sign a non-compete agreement, which typically includes a non-solicitation clause.
Pennsylvania Courts Will Enforce a Non-Compete Agreement Only if Doing So is Necessary to Protect the Legitimate Business Interests of Your Former Employer
A standard non-compete agreement prohibits you from working for a competitor of your former employer for a period of time usually ranging from 1-2 years.
A standard non-solicitation agreement will prohibit you from doing business with any of the corporate clients or individual candidates of your former employer for a similar time frame.
In most situations, courts will not enforce non-competition covenants because they are not truly needed to protect your former employer's business interests. After all, it is a big world, and how is one more recruiter in the vast sea of recruiters going to hurt your old company?
Click Here to read our recent Post concerning the practicalities of such clauses where IT Recruiters are concerned.
Click Here to read our comprehensive post on the enforceability of non-competition agreements in general.
Pennsylvania Courts Will Enforce a Non-Solicitation Agreement if You Are Taking Clients From Your Old Firm and Causing it to Lose Money
The above headline says a mouthful, and one must parse through and understand each sub-proposition to understand the essence of Pennsylvania law where non-compete/non-solicitation agreements are concerned.
Here is a simple rubric:
Joe Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm but does not do business with corporate clients or candidates of old firm: non-compete generally will not be enforced;
Jane Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm and does business with corporate clients of old firm but not candidates: non-compete generally be enforced;
Joe Employee joins new firm competitive with old firm and does do business with individual candidates but not corporate clients of old firm: non-compete generally will not be enforced if Joe found candidates via social networks such as Linked-In, as opposed to via use of old employer's database that he had downloaded and kept after his job ended.
There Are Many Permutations to Pennsylvania Non-Compete Law
The fact is, each and every situation is essentially unique, and avoiding a lawsuit is the key goal, even if it means your earnings are deflated for a while. Even so, you must understand that, no matter what you do, there is nothing anyone can do to stop your former employer from filing a lawsuit if that is what it wants to do.
Consequently, the best offense is a very sound strategy. One must think through and carefully plan one's steps so that, if a lawsuit cannot be avoided, you may emerge victorious.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
The Wizard Will See You Today - Anyone Can File a Lawsuit
To contact us Click HERE
In Pennsylvania, Anyone is Allowed to File a Lawsuit for Any Reason
To a lawyer, what I am about to say is axiomatic.
For most of my clients, what I am about to say causes an "Aha" moment.
Here we go:
1) No Civil Police
Fact: There are no civil police that you can call if you believe you are being subjected to behavior that is unlawful according to civil laws.
Meaning....? If you are being harassed at work, or threatened with a baseless lawsuit by your former employer, you cannot call anyone to make your antagonist stop what it is doing.
Compare: If a robber is in your house, and you call the police, they will (hopefully!) come immediately to stop the crime.
2) No Bar to Door to Court
One files a lawsuit by walking into a courthouse, paying a fee and filing a Complaint. No one reviews the Complaint to see if it is worthwhile or sound before it is filed. If you have a Complaint, and have a check, the lawsuit will be filed - every time.
3) What Does This Mean to Me?
Civil disputes are best worked out prior to the filing of a lawsuit. If they cannot be worked out, no one can stop another person from filing a lawsuit, no matter what the circumstances.
So....
If you are being treated unfairly at work, there are strategies you can employ to remedy the situation, but there is no "authority figure" that you can call that will make your employer stop what it is doing. In many such situations, the smart thing to do is to retain an attorney, and then develop and execute a sound strategy that you protect all of your rights to remedies such as unemployment compensation, severance, COBRA, a lawsuit alleging discrimination, etc., etc.
NOTE: There is a process called an injunction proceeding that can be utilized via the filing of a lawsuit wherein one asks that the offensive behavior be stopped. However, such suits can be quite expensive.
If you are being threatened with a lawsuit for violating a non-compete agreement, there is no one that you can call to examine the matter and determine who is right/wrong and whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Rather, you must try and work it out yourself or, perhaps more prudently, via counsel.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
In Pennsylvania, Anyone is Allowed to File a Lawsuit for Any ReasonTo a lawyer, what I am about to say is axiomatic.
For most of my clients, what I am about to say causes an "Aha" moment.
Here we go:
1) No Civil Police
 |
| The Police Will Not Stop... |
 |
| ...this Type of Behavior |
Compare: If a robber is in your house, and you call the police, they will (hopefully!) come immediately to stop the crime.
2) No Bar to Door to Court
 |
| Unlike the Wizard, the Courts Accept all Callers |
3) What Does This Mean to Me?
Civil disputes are best worked out prior to the filing of a lawsuit. If they cannot be worked out, no one can stop another person from filing a lawsuit, no matter what the circumstances.
So....
If you are being treated unfairly at work, there are strategies you can employ to remedy the situation, but there is no "authority figure" that you can call that will make your employer stop what it is doing. In many such situations, the smart thing to do is to retain an attorney, and then develop and execute a sound strategy that you protect all of your rights to remedies such as unemployment compensation, severance, COBRA, a lawsuit alleging discrimination, etc., etc.
NOTE: There is a process called an injunction proceeding that can be utilized via the filing of a lawsuit wherein one asks that the offensive behavior be stopped. However, such suits can be quite expensive.
If you are being threatened with a lawsuit for violating a non-compete agreement, there is no one that you can call to examine the matter and determine who is right/wrong and whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Rather, you must try and work it out yourself or, perhaps more prudently, via counsel.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
"Headhunters" and Non-Compete Agreements in Pennsylvania - Some Things to Keep in Mind
To contact us Click HERE
Human Resource Recruiters in Pennsylvania Are Usually Bound by Non-Compete Agreements
Yet, the personnel recruitment industry is a highly fluid one wherein recruiters frequently move from job to job on a regular basis. How may one retain one's freedom to choose a new employer or business endeavor when one has executed a seemingly airtight non-compete agreement?
Click Here to read our recent discussion on this issue, which includes links to other Posts on a variety of related topics.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
Human Resource Recruiters in Pennsylvania Are Usually Bound by Non-Compete AgreementsYet, the personnel recruitment industry is a highly fluid one wherein recruiters frequently move from job to job on a regular basis. How may one retain one's freedom to choose a new employer or business endeavor when one has executed a seemingly airtight non-compete agreement?
Click Here to read our recent discussion on this issue, which includes links to other Posts on a variety of related topics.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
The Worst Predictions of All Time!
To contact us Click HERE
Yes, yes, this Post has nothing to do with Employment Law, I know! But, I found an 1999 article from Herbert I. London called "Piercing the Gloom and Doom" and enjoyed it so much, I thought I would pass it along.
Here are some of my favorites, as per Mr. London's article:
In 1905, Grover Cleveland said, "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote."
Social scientist David Riesman declared, in 1967, "If anything remains more or less unchanged, it will be the role of women."
"You ain’t going nowhere, son. You ought to go back to driving a truck," said Jim Denny, manager of the Grand Ole Opry, in firing Elvis Presley after a performance in 1954.
In the1830s, Dionysius Lardner, author of The Steam Engine Explained andIllustrated, said, "Rail travel at high speeds is not possible becausepassengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
"Thistelephone has too many shortcomings to be considered as a means ofcommunication," said the president of Western Union in 1876. "Thedevice is of inherently no value to us."
Thepresident of Michigan Savings Banks advised Henry Ford’s lawyer not to investin the Ford Motor Company because, he said, "The horse is here to stay,the automobile is a novelty."
In1921, radio pioneer David Sarnoff said, "The wireless music box has noimaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody inparticular?"
Darryl Zanuck observed, in 1946, "Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
In1926, Lee DeForest, inventor of the vacuum tube, said, "Whiletheoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially andfinancially I consider it an impossibility."
"Heavier-than-airflying machines are impossible," said Lord Kelvin, president of theBritish Royal Society and one of the nineteenth century’s greatest experts onthermodynamics.
The Reverende Milton Wright, "If God wanted us to fly, He would have given us wings; He would have made us angels; He would have made us birds. Let me assure you, you will not see people fly." Three months later, Wright’s two sons, Orville and Wilbur, flew the first airplane, from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
"Arocket will never be able to leave the earth’s atmosphere," stated the NewYork Times in 1936.
"Spacetravel is utter bilge," said a British astronomer in 1956.
"Thereis no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," said NobelPrize-winning physicist Robert Milliken in 1923.
"Takingthe best left-handed pitcher in baseball and converting him into a rightfielder is one of the dumbest things I ever heard," said Tris Speaker in1919. He was talking about Babe Ruth.
The chairman of IBM said, "I think there is a world market for about five computers," in 1943.
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home," said the president of Digital Electronic Corporation in 1977.
In1929, Yale economist Irving Fisher said, "Stock prices have reached whatlooks like a permanently high plateau." Two weeks later, the stock marketcrashed.
MGMexecutive Irving Thalberg had this for Louis B. Mayer regarding Gone With theWind: "Forget it, Louie, no Civil War picture ever made a nickel."
Thedirector of Blue Book Modeling Agency advised Marilyn Monroe in 1944, "Youbetter learn secretarial work or else get married."
"Wedon’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out anyway," saidthe president of Decca Records, rejecting the Beatles in 1962.
"Wewill bury you," predicted Nikita Kruschev in 1958.
Which one is your favorite?
Yes, yes, this Post has nothing to do with Employment Law, I know! But, I found an 1999 article from Herbert I. London called "Piercing the Gloom and Doom" and enjoyed it so much, I thought I would pass it along.
Here are some of my favorites, as per Mr. London's article:
 |
| Uh, Mr. President..... |
 |
| Reisman Never Saw This Coming... |
Social scientist David Riesman declared, in 1967, "If anything remains more or less unchanged, it will be the role of women."
 |
| Nowhere Man?! |
 |
| Let's Just Stick to Telegrams... |
Thepresident of Michigan Savings Banks advised Henry Ford’s lawyer not to investin the Ford Motor Company because, he said, "The horse is here to stay,the automobile is a novelty."
 |
| Like a Pet Rock.... |
Darryl Zanuck observed, in 1946, "Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
 |
| BORRRR-INGGGG.... |
"Heavier-than-airflying machines are impossible," said Lord Kelvin, president of theBritish Royal Society and one of the nineteenth century’s greatest experts onthermodynamics.
 |
| Na na na na na, Pops! |
"Arocket will never be able to leave the earth’s atmosphere," stated the NewYork Times in 1936.
 |
| Prepare to be Amazed! |
"Spacetravel is utter bilge," said a British astronomer in 1956.
"Thereis no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom," said NobelPrize-winning physicist Robert Milliken in 1923.
 |
| Trisk, Trisk.... |
The chairman of IBM said, "I think there is a world market for about five computers," in 1943.
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home," said the president of Digital Electronic Corporation in 1977.
In1929, Yale economist Irving Fisher said, "Stock prices have reached whatlooks like a permanently high plateau." Two weeks later, the stock marketcrashed.
 |
| How About $Millions? |
 |
| or Else Become an Icon.... |
 |
| Right, then.... |
"Wewill bury you," predicted Nikita Kruschev in 1958.
Which one is your favorite?
23 Eylül 2012 Pazar
IT Consultants, Personnel Recruiters and Non-Compete - Non- Solicitation Agreements in Pennsylvania
I am a Personnel Recruiter: Is My Non-Compete - Non-Solicitation Agreement Enforceable?Over the years, the business of IT Consulting has expanded and expanded so that, today, many companies routinely retain temporary workers who are IT specialists under a contract with a personnel supply firm.
This typically results in two separate contracts: 1) a contract between the end user (the company requiring manpower) and the recruitment firm wherein the end user agrees to pay the recruitment firm a fee over a fixed period of time in exchange for provision by the recruitment firm of temporary workers needed to complete a given project; and, 2) a contract between the recruitment firm and individuals who agree to go to the end user for a specified time frame and provide services on such projects pursuant to an independent contractor agreement.
In other cases, recruitment firms provide permanent employees to corporate clients and are paid a one time fee.
This Post is not intended to discuss the overall enforceability of the non-compete agreement between you and your former employer. Rather, it is designed to address two common issues faced by employees who, having found work subsequent to leaving their former employer, desire to understand the boundaries for contacting candidates and clients of their former firm.
Click Here to read our Post on general rules relating top the enforcement of non-compete agreements in Pennsylvania.
I Have Been Recruiting IT Candidates for Years: May I Contact Them After I Leave My Pennsylvania Employer?
Over time, people who work for recruitment firms develop relationships both with candidates (i.e. individuals potentially suited for various positions) and clients (i.e. corporations who require candidates). Most people who work as personnel recruiters are required by their employers to execute non-compete agreements as a condition of employment.
Upon departing from employment to strike out on a new venture, such persons often call me and ask: can I contact the candidates that were part of the data base of my old firm? The answer is: a qualified yes.
If you can locate, identify and contact such candidates via social media such as Facebook, Linked-In, etc., then you are likely going to be fine.
However, one may not utilize the data base of a former employer to identify and contact such candidates.
Human Resource Consultant: May I Contact the Clients of my Former Employer if I Have a Non-Compete or Non-Solicitation Contract in PA?
In the context of the subjects discussed in this Post, contacting and/or doing business with corporate clients who purchased manpower from your prior employer is a much dicier proposition for persons bound by non-compete agreements. That is so because corporate clients are the ones that pay recruitment firms for the candidates they provide. Hence, any time a former employer learns that its former employee is doing business with one of its corporate clients, a dispute will likely blossom.
Here is one rub.
The IT field is extremely specialized, yet the vocabulary used to identify the specializations remains undeveloped. Hence, the prohibitions in a typical non-compete agreement in the IT consulting industry are usually overbroad, and thus, paradoxically, vague. For example, your old employer recruited only software engineers. Does that mean that you cannot recruit and provide a software programmer to a corporate client of your former employer?
Here is another rub.
Your old employer typically "leases" independent contractors to its corporate clients for specified time periods, typically designed to provide manpower for only so long as it takes a given project to be completed. Your new employer, on the other hand, supplies only recruits for permanent hire by corporate clients. Is it a violation of your non-compete to provide such services when, in fact, your new employer does not truly "compete with your prior employer?
How to Avoid a Lawsuit Over my Pennsylvania Non-Compete Agreement
The bottom line is: IT personnel recruitment is a complicated business, and non-compete agreements in this field are often overly broad and potentially unenforceable in whole or in part. However, former employers often will not hesitate to sue if they believe their financial interests are being compromised by a former employee. And, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop your former employer from filing a lawsuit, even a baseless lawsuit, if that is what it wants to do. Therefore, the best approach is to develop a careful strategy that enables you at once to continue working in your chosen profession while minimizing the risk of suit or, if suit is unavoidable, the risk of a successful suit by your former employer.
I am John A. Gallagher, a non-compete employment lawyer with 21 years of experience located in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Call 610-647-5027 for a free telephone consultation, or send me an e-mail.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)