Ted Kennedy Opposes "Big Wind"

One thing I strive hard not to be is a hypocrite. If I suggest that we need to conserve energy or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, you can bet I am striving to walk the talk. I have very little tolerance for political leaders who ask people to make sacrifices they are unwilling to make, or otherwise display hypocrisy. Hypocrisy just really gets under my skin.

I watch very little TV, but I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And I get it here in Scotland, albeit a day delayed. Last month, I was watching an episode, and Jason Jones did a segment on Ted Kennedy’s opposition to a wind farm. This was the first I had heard about this. Why was Kennedy opposed? Because it was near his home.

As Jones reported:

“It looked bad for the native population, until one man stood up … Yes. Ted Kennedy – noted man from Nantucket and co-sponsor of dozens of renewable energy bills – took a stand—against the wind farms.”

While I was working on this, I ran across the clip, so you can see it for yourself. If you want to see textbook hypocrisy, here you go. Ted Kennedy, supporter of alternative energy – as long as it doesn’t affect his property value.

The skit would have been funnier if it didn’t tick me off so much. Watthead, a fellow energy blogger, commented at the time:

Cape Wind – The Story Behind the Daily Show Video

I read a number of articles on the controversy following the airing of the clip, and it supported the implications from the Daily Show clip: Ted Kennedy was looking out for his self-interest, and that of a small but wealthy minority.

And I just happened to read another article on the controversy today, which is what prompted me to write this essay:

William Delahunt’s ‘Deepwater’ Deceptions

The article says subscription only, but is available as of this writing. The article explains that an effort is underway to deflect criticism from those who oppose the wind project by suggesting deepwater technology may be a better option:

FOR WELL OVER A YEAR now, Congressman William Delahunt and his chief aide, Mark Forest, have been telling constituents that “deepwater” wind technology is a viable alternative to Cape Wind, the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt offshore wind-energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound in front of Delahunt constituent Edward M. Kennedy’s Hyannisport home.

“This is not spin,” the congressman wrote in a local newspaper.

It most certainly is.

“Deepwater wind” refers to wind-turbine technology that could safely be built in deep ocean waters. Waters roughly 10 meters deep are currently the norm for offshore-wind-power technology but Delahunt suggests that wind turbines in waters 35 to 45 meters are commercially viable.

Maybe in two decades, experts say, but certainly not any time soon.

And then the reason for the deepwater deception:

Why is Congressman Delahunt misleading the public?

Deepwater wind is the favorite “alternative” of the wealthy folk who oppose the ambitious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound. This project has been delayed for more than six years, primarily because of inexcusable political meddling.

These politically engendered delays have substantially harmed Congressmen Delahunt’s constituents. Steel workers, electrical workers, members of the carpenters and painters unions — all these and others would be employed during the wind project’s construction process. Other maritime-industry unions would be employed throughout the life of the project to provide operation and maintenance services.

I just hate that kind of crap. But I feel a little bit better after writing about it.

By the way, let me know if the video works for you. I got it started, paused it until it had downloaded, and then watched it. But let me know if you have problems with it.

Update: Author Wendy Williams, who exposed this hypocrisy in the first place, dropped by and left a comment below. Her book on this subject is: Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.

Ted Kennedy Opposes "Big Wind"

One thing I strive hard not to be is a hypocrite. If I suggest that we need to conserve energy or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, you can bet I am striving to walk the talk. I have very little tolerance for political leaders who ask people to make sacrifices they are unwilling to make, or otherwise display hypocrisy. Hypocrisy just really gets under my skin.

I watch very little TV, but I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And I get it here in Scotland, albeit a day delayed. Last month, I was watching an episode, and Jason Jones did a segment on Ted Kennedy’s opposition to a wind farm. This was the first I had heard about this. Why was Kennedy opposed? Because it was near his home.

As Jones reported:

“It looked bad for the native population, until one man stood up … Yes. Ted Kennedy – noted man from Nantucket and co-sponsor of dozens of renewable energy bills – took a stand—against the wind farms.”

While I was working on this, I ran across the clip, so you can see it for yourself. If you want to see textbook hypocrisy, here you go. Ted Kennedy, supporter of alternative energy – as long as it doesn’t affect his property value.

The skit would have been funnier if it didn’t tick me off so much. Watthead, a fellow energy blogger, commented at the time:

Cape Wind – The Story Behind the Daily Show Video

I read a number of articles on the controversy following the airing of the clip, and it supported the implications from the Daily Show clip: Ted Kennedy was looking out for his self-interest, and that of a small but wealthy minority.

And I just happened to read another article on the controversy today, which is what prompted me to write this essay:

William Delahunt’s ‘Deepwater’ Deceptions

The article says subscription only, but is available as of this writing. The article explains that an effort is underway to deflect criticism from those who oppose the wind project by suggesting deepwater technology may be a better option:

FOR WELL OVER A YEAR now, Congressman William Delahunt and his chief aide, Mark Forest, have been telling constituents that “deepwater” wind technology is a viable alternative to Cape Wind, the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt offshore wind-energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound in front of Delahunt constituent Edward M. Kennedy’s Hyannisport home.

“This is not spin,” the congressman wrote in a local newspaper.

It most certainly is.

“Deepwater wind” refers to wind-turbine technology that could safely be built in deep ocean waters. Waters roughly 10 meters deep are currently the norm for offshore-wind-power technology but Delahunt suggests that wind turbines in waters 35 to 45 meters are commercially viable.

Maybe in two decades, experts say, but certainly not any time soon.

And then the reason for the deepwater deception:

Why is Congressman Delahunt misleading the public?

Deepwater wind is the favorite “alternative” of the wealthy folk who oppose the ambitious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound. This project has been delayed for more than six years, primarily because of inexcusable political meddling.

These politically engendered delays have substantially harmed Congressmen Delahunt’s constituents. Steel workers, electrical workers, members of the carpenters and painters unions — all these and others would be employed during the wind project’s construction process. Other maritime-industry unions would be employed throughout the life of the project to provide operation and maintenance services.

I just hate that kind of crap. But I feel a little bit better after writing about it.

By the way, let me know if the video works for you. I got it started, paused it until it had downloaded, and then watched it. But let me know if you have problems with it.

Update: Author Wendy Williams, who exposed this hypocrisy in the first place, dropped by and left a comment below. Her book on this subject is: Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.

Ted Kennedy Opposes "Big Wind"

One thing I strive hard not to be is a hypocrite. If I suggest that we need to conserve energy or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, you can bet I am striving to walk the talk. I have very little tolerance for political leaders who ask people to make sacrifices they are unwilling to make, or otherwise display hypocrisy. Hypocrisy just really gets under my skin.

I watch very little TV, but I love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And I get it here in Scotland, albeit a day delayed. Last month, I was watching an episode, and Jason Jones did a segment on Ted Kennedy’s opposition to a wind farm. This was the first I had heard about this. Why was Kennedy opposed? Because it was near his home.

As Jones reported:

“It looked bad for the native population, until one man stood up … Yes. Ted Kennedy – noted man from Nantucket and co-sponsor of dozens of renewable energy bills – took a stand—against the wind farms.”

While I was working on this, I ran across the clip, so you can see it for yourself. If you want to see textbook hypocrisy, here you go. Ted Kennedy, supporter of alternative energy – as long as it doesn’t affect his property value.

The skit would have been funnier if it didn’t tick me off so much. Watthead, a fellow energy blogger, commented at the time:

Cape Wind – The Story Behind the Daily Show Video

I read a number of articles on the controversy following the airing of the clip, and it supported the implications from the Daily Show clip: Ted Kennedy was looking out for his self-interest, and that of a small but wealthy minority.

And I just happened to read another article on the controversy today, which is what prompted me to write this essay:

William Delahunt’s ‘Deepwater’ Deceptions

The article says subscription only, but is available as of this writing. The article explains that an effort is underway to deflect criticism from those who oppose the wind project by suggesting deepwater technology may be a better option:

FOR WELL OVER A YEAR now, Congressman William Delahunt and his chief aide, Mark Forest, have been telling constituents that “deepwater” wind technology is a viable alternative to Cape Wind, the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt offshore wind-energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound in front of Delahunt constituent Edward M. Kennedy’s Hyannisport home.

“This is not spin,” the congressman wrote in a local newspaper.

It most certainly is.

“Deepwater wind” refers to wind-turbine technology that could safely be built in deep ocean waters. Waters roughly 10 meters deep are currently the norm for offshore-wind-power technology but Delahunt suggests that wind turbines in waters 35 to 45 meters are commercially viable.

Maybe in two decades, experts say, but certainly not any time soon.

And then the reason for the deepwater deception:

Why is Congressman Delahunt misleading the public?

Deepwater wind is the favorite “alternative” of the wealthy folk who oppose the ambitious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound. This project has been delayed for more than six years, primarily because of inexcusable political meddling.

These politically engendered delays have substantially harmed Congressmen Delahunt’s constituents. Steel workers, electrical workers, members of the carpenters and painters unions — all these and others would be employed during the wind project’s construction process. Other maritime-industry unions would be employed throughout the life of the project to provide operation and maintenance services.

I just hate that kind of crap. But I feel a little bit better after writing about it.

By the way, let me know if the video works for you. I got it started, paused it until it had downloaded, and then watched it. But let me know if you have problems with it.

Update: Author Wendy Williams, who exposed this hypocrisy in the first place, dropped by and left a comment below. Her book on this subject is: Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound.

This Week in Petroleum 9-26-07

Three weeks ago I wrote that I expected gas prices to rise, which is unusual for this time of year:

I predict that prices will continue to rise. I think they have to. I also think we will see the ramifications of present inventory levels for quite some time. On the other hand, we did go into the end of 2003 with inventories in this range, so we do have some history suggesting that levels can recover without requiring sharply higher prices. But don’t bet on it.

The Energy Information Administration, the same outfit that puts out This Week in Petroleum on Wednesdays, publishes a gasoline price survey on Mondays. The report can be found at:

Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices

This week’s report showed that gasoline prices, which normally start to free-fall at this time of year, indeed headed back up this week. The last couple of TWIPs have shown that gasoline inventories are slowly growing (which will favor lower prices) but inventory levels are still incredibly low (which will support a higher price level). What I think we will see are pretty healthy prices through the winter, and then we will start a Spring climb again from a higher base. This should again lead to record high prices by May of next year.

Gasoline prices in California have risen more than the national average. The L.A. Times commented on the “unusual September climb”:

Gasoline prices still rising

Drivers took a hit at the pumps over the last week, the Energy Department said Monday, as gasoline continued its unusual September climb in most of the nation and U.S. diesel prices topped $3 a gallon for the first time in more than a year.

The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in California rose 5.7 cents to $2.961, which was 20.1 cents above the year-earlier price, according to the Energy Department’s weekly survey of filling stations. Nationally, gasoline rose 2.5 cents to $2.812 a gallon. That was 43.4 cents above the price in the same period a year earlier.

TWIP

This week’s numbers were contrary to most expectations, but there isn’t too much to get excited about. Refinery utilization was down, but that is to be expected as some areas have started fall turnarounds. If you look at the history, the end of September almost always sees utilization fall by several percentage points. Gasoline demand is reportedly up over this time last year, but is falling as might be expected for this time of year. The important items from this week’s report (to me):

U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.0 million barrels per day during the week ending September 21, down 339,000 barrels per day from the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 86.9 percent of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production fell compared to the previous week, averaging 8.7 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel production rose last week, averaging 4.1 million barrels per day.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) rose by 1.8 million barrels compared to the previous week. Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.6 million barrels last week, and are well below the lower end of the average range. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 1.6 million barrels, and are in the upper half of the average range for this time of year.

Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.4 million barrels per day, or 0.4 percent above the same period last year.

Analysts had expected a fall in crude inventories, a smaller increase in gasoline inventories, and most notably for refinery utilization to be around 89% (instead of 87%).

This Week in Petroleum 9-26-07

Three weeks ago I wrote that I expected gas prices to rise, which is unusual for this time of year:

I predict that prices will continue to rise. I think they have to. I also think we will see the ramifications of present inventory levels for quite some time. On the other hand, we did go into the end of 2003 with inventories in this range, so we do have some history suggesting that levels can recover without requiring sharply higher prices. But don’t bet on it.

The Energy Information Administration, the same outfit that puts out This Week in Petroleum on Wednesdays, publishes a gasoline price survey on Mondays. The report can be found at:

Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices

This week’s report showed that gasoline prices, which normally start to free-fall at this time of year, indeed headed back up this week. The last couple of TWIPs have shown that gasoline inventories are slowly growing (which will favor lower prices) but inventory levels are still incredibly low (which will support a higher price level). What I think we will see are pretty healthy prices through the winter, and then we will start a Spring climb again from a higher base. This should again lead to record high prices by May of next year.

Gasoline prices in California have risen more than the national average. The L.A. Times commented on the “unusual September climb”:

Gasoline prices still rising

Drivers took a hit at the pumps over the last week, the Energy Department said Monday, as gasoline continued its unusual September climb in most of the nation and U.S. diesel prices topped $3 a gallon for the first time in more than a year.

The average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gasoline in California rose 5.7 cents to $2.961, which was 20.1 cents above the year-earlier price, according to the Energy Department’s weekly survey of filling stations. Nationally, gasoline rose 2.5 cents to $2.812 a gallon. That was 43.4 cents above the price in the same period a year earlier.

TWIP

This week’s numbers were contrary to most expectations, but there isn’t too much to get excited about. Refinery utilization was down, but that is to be expected as some areas have started fall turnarounds. If you look at the history, the end of September almost always sees utilization fall by several percentage points. Gasoline demand is reportedly up over this time last year, but is falling as might be expected for this time of year. The important items from this week’s report (to me):

U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.0 million barrels per day during the week ending September 21, down 339,000 barrels per day from the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 86.9 percent of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production fell compared to the previous week, averaging 8.7 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel production rose last week, averaging 4.1 million barrels per day.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) rose by 1.8 million barrels compared to the previous week. Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 0.6 million barrels last week, and are well below the lower end of the average range. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 1.6 million barrels, and are in the upper half of the average range for this time of year.

Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged nearly 9.4 million barrels per day, or 0.4 percent above the same period last year.

Analysts had expected a fall in crude inventories, a smaller increase in gasoline inventories, and most notably for refinery utilization to be around 89% (instead of 87%).