Ron Paul on Energy & Environment

All Candidates

Ron Paul is running for president and seeking the Republican nomination.

During his time holding national office, Paul has a 30 lifetime score on the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard. The Scorecard rates national office holders on a scale of 0 to 100 based on their votes on environmental issues on which LCV has taken a position. He scored between 5 and 50 between 2001 and 2006. On a similar scorecard of Republican lawmakers by the Republicans for Environmental Protection, Paul scored 17 out of 100 in 2005 and 2006. (The Daily Green)

Opposes the idea that human pollution is a significant cause of global warming.

Strongly opposes international treaties to cut greenhouse gas emissions like the Kyoto Protocol.

Is neutral on investment in alternative forms of energy.

Strongly supports investment in drilling for oil domestically.

Opposes carbon taxes or credits to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Supports investments in nuclear energy.

Strongly opposes requiring American automakers to meet certain fuel efficiency standards.

Strongly opposes the protection of natural places from development.

Strong opposes initiatives to conserve and recover endangered species.

Strongly opposes greater investment in public transportation.

2007 Interview with Grist magazine for the 2008 presidential race:

"On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that."

"On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment."

[On the Environmental Protection Agency] "You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie."

On global warming: "I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument."

From : "On the Issues"
• Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

• Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)

• Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)

• Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)

• Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)

•Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)

• Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)

• Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)

• Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

• Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

• Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

• Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

• Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)

• Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)

• Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)

• Liberty Candidate: NO tax incentives for US-based [energy] alternatives. (Sep 2010)

• Neglected property rights during the industrial revolution. (Jan 2008)

• Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)

• Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)

• Voted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Jul 2009)

• Voted NO on protecting free-roaming horses and burros. (Jul 2009)

• Voted NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences. (Sep 2008)

• Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)

• Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)

• Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)

• Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

• Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

• Give tax breaks for start-up farms for 10-year commitment. (Jan 2008)

• Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)

(Glass Booth,  The Daily Green, 10/25/2007 )Ron Paul

Tim Pawlenty on Energy & Environment

All Candidates

In January of 2011, Governor Pawlenty was interviewed by Christianity Today. When asked about cap-and-trade schemes, Governor Pawlenty stated that he had looked at the systems when Governor and determined that he would not implement them to address pollution.

Question: During your term as governor, you supported reductions in greenhouse gases and a regional cap and trade plan. What measures should the federal government support to care for the environment?

"All of us should be in favor of reducing pollution, but we need to do that in a way that doesn't wreck the economy. I came to the conclusion after looking at it very carefully that cap and trade is the wrong approach. I think it is a ham-fisted approach that is government-centered and top down, and the burdens it would have visited on the economy were unwise and really unbearable."

At the first Republican Presidential Debate, Fox (host of the debate) replayed a 2007 ad that Pawlenty recorded for the Environmental Defense Fund in which he argues for cap and trade as a solution for climate change. When asked to discuss the ad, Pawlenty abashedly replied, "Do we have to?"

After trying to explain that he didn't actually support cap and trade policy as governor—he just supported the "study" of it—Pawlenty decided to try apologizing:

"I’ve said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I'm sorry," Mr. Pawlenty told the Fox television audience, presumably filled with potential Republican primary voters. "You’re going to have a few clunkers in your record, and we all do, and that’s one of mine. I just admit it. I don’t try to duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away. I’m just telling you, I made a mistake."

Pawlenty has apologized for this before. In March, he told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham that his support for cap-and-trade was a mistake and pointed to other Republican 2012 hopefuls who made similar "mistakes."

"On The Issues"

- Increase supply; diversify sources; drill ANWR. (Jun 2008)

- The more oil supply, the better. (Jun 2008)
- Extend tax incentives for energy efficiency and energy R&D. (May 2008)
- Encourage development of locally owned wind energy sources. (Nov 2006)
- Stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. (Mar 2010)
- Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)

Full Quotes

Tim Pawlenty's Energy Platform as published by New Hampshire Primary Blog:

Supports goal of severing us from foreign oil and maximizing American sources of energy

Let's have drilling in ANWR

Let's have drilling off our coast, particularly with state approval

Let's make sure we have clean coal and use the 250 year supply of coal we have in this country

Let's expand nuclear, make sure that it's safe

Let's use this game changing amount of natural gas that we've now find and discovered within the territorial reach of the United States - enough to power our entire base load energy needs for at least 100 years and maybe two or three hundred years

And then for the renewables, let's do those that make economic rational sense

I've been a strong proponent of renewable fuels, but we need to focus on those things that make economic sense

Ethanol, biodiesel are things that I've strongly supported

Remember when we talk about subsidies, mandates, and the like it doesn't just apply to biofuels. Oil is subsidized. Coal is subsidized. The whole nuclear energy was researched, paid for, commercialized, and to this day is subsidized by the federal government.

If we're going to talk about subsidies, don't just pick on biofuels. Let's put 'em all on the table.

Tim Pawlenty on Cap and trade [from the New Hampshire Primary Blog]:

T-Paw also disavows his past support for cap and trade in the video:

A couple years ago now I completely disavowed that position and said it was wrong and a mistake.

I wrote a letter to Congress saying don't pass cap and trade. The country doesn't support it. The Congress doesn't support it. I don't support it. It's a bad idea. It's ham-fisted.

All of the likely, or I should say leading, 2012 candidates at one point or another embraced the same thing.

I made a mistake. I've got some clunkers in my record like everybody does who's been in an executive position

I considered it, concluded it was wrong, and disavowed that position a couple years ago

Tim Pawlenty on global warming and climate change

Yeah, well, they don't call it, first of all, America warming. It's global warming to the extent that it exists.

You have China, India, and other places just saying we're not going to do it.

If you start with the proposition of climate change, the climate is always changing. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The real question is "Why is it changing?" and how much of that - if any - is attributable to human behavior.

There is a great scientific debate whether any of it, a little, some, a lot is caused by human behavior.

The bottom line is that I think the weight of the science indicates that if there is any human behavior involved it is a modest amount.

I think climate change occurs, but I think the bulk of it is mostly natural historic trends in the climate.

And I think there is some suggestion that humans have caused some of it, but the answer isn't to then to have government come in with this top-down cap and trade scheme.

Let the markets work, let technology work, let peoples' preferences work and they'll figure out the best way to address it.

(The Political Guide, 5/11/2011, Mother Jones, 5/6/2011, New Hampshire Primary Blog, 4/3/2011)

Newt Gingrich On Energy & Environment

All Candidates

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrinch believes global warming is man-caused and needs solutions to directly address the problem.  This position is giving him trouble as a presidential candidate seeking the Republican nomination.  An ad with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already being used against him.

The 2008 ad was cut for Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection

Newt Gingrich, in a South Carolina Rotary Club speech, said and "all out" approach to energy policy should include natural-gas drilling off that state’s coast, and development of oil shale in Western states.

“We have natural gas off South Carolina which will create jobs in South Carolina and an export product for America. New jobs will grow in the Port of Charleston around natural gas just as new jobs will grow in an offshore industry – high paying, high value jobs.”

Newt Gingrinch at CPAC 2011:

"We should end the Environmental Protection Agency's war against American oil and gas."

"We should also stop the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to cripple the development of gas found in shale."

"We need to develop effective clean coal pilot projects that prove the concept we can use coal because we have more energy in coal than Saudi Arabia has energy in oil and it is utterly, totally foolish to say to say that the United States is not going to aggressively develop clean coal."

"They should also streamline the nuclear regulatory process to enable us to build nuclear power plants."

 "We should also insist on flex-fuel cars and blender pumps." [Gingrich supports ethonal development]

"Now in order to have an American Energy policy, we need to replace the Environmental Protection Agency with a new fundamentally different Environmental Solutions Agency. For my friends in the media, I would like to emphasize replace. This is not about tear down, destroy, eliminate, walk away, let the environment be destroyed, sell out to corporate interest, and all that bologna."

" I believe that incentives, innovators, and entrepreneurs will solve environmental problems, and improve the environment better than the bureaucrats, regulators and litigators."

"On The Issues" provides more informtion on Gingrich's energy positions:

- 2008 petition drive: Drill here, Drill now, Pay less. (Feb 2011)

- New nuclear plants would reduce 2 billion tons of CO2 a year. (Feb 2011)
- Kyoto treaty is bad for the environment and bad for America. (Dec 2006)
- Focus on incentives for conservation & renewable resources. (Dec 2006)
- Stop scare tactics about drilling in Alaska. (Dec 2006)
- Gas tax sounds OK in DC, but not outside Beltway. (Jul 1998)
- Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)
- Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)

Full Quotes

And environmental positions:

- Replace EPA with new Environmental Solutions Agency. (Feb 2011)

- Greatest enviro dangers are poverty & command bureaucracy. (Sep 2007)
- Combine healthy environment and a healthy economy. (Dec 2006)
- Early 1980s: co-sponsored Endangered Species Act. (Jun 1995)
- Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act. (Oct 1993)

Full Quotes


Gingrinch's American Solutions group, a nonprofit organization that champions conservative principles,  received a combined $1,550,000 in donations in 2010 from Peabody Energy, American Electric Power, Devon Energy, and Arch Coal, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

(Yahoo News, 5/11/2011)

Donald Trump on Energy & Environment

Update: 5-16-2011 He announced that he is not running.  Dang.  There goes the big fun.

All Candidates

Donald Trump says he would take over the Iraq oil fields in order to reduce gasoline prices.  Trump also says he would prevent OPEC from dominating oil prices.

According to the New York Post, Trump said to the 500 members of the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester:

"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore.  Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity."

"On The Issues" quotes Donald:

"I think it's incredible that we're going slow on drilling. I think it's beyond anything I've ever seen that we're going slow on drilling. There are always going to be problems. You're going to have an oil spill. You clean it up and you fix it up and it'll be fine.

I have people in the business and they say it's almost impossible to get a permit to drill. So you can imagine how hard it is to get nuclear and other things but they say it's almost impossible. If you look at natural gas, we're the Saudi Arabia times 100 of natural gas--but we don't use it."

Donald Trump built a 'green' resort in Puerto Rico.   The project ,Trump International Golf Club & Residences, Puerto Rico (TIPR), has already established itself as one the top golf courses and residential resorts in the Caribbean, the property’s focus has been on a different kind of “green” of late - that of eco-friendly development.

Donald J. Trump states,

“Today, our goal as one of the largest real estate companies in the world is to be conscious of the impact development has on the environment and to proceed accordingly; and we’re very proud that our property in Puerto Rico is taking this initiative so seriously.”

Donald Trump has endorsed Ambit Energy.  Ambit Energy is a  retail energy company that manages all aspects of the customer's utility transactions, from transmission providers to Web-based account management tools, to billing and collections.  (ABC News, 4/18/2011, Ecopolitology, 2/15/2011, On The Issues, AAEA Hollywood, 7/13/2010, HubPages,

UCS Makes Reasonable Nuke Recommendation at Hearing

Union of Concerned Scientists Says Nuke Plants Should Have 16 Hours of Reserve Battery Power

Center recommends 24 Hours of Battery Power

David Lochbaum

David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that some nuclear plants keep four hours of battery power in case primary and secondary power systems fail is not sufficient.  Lochbaum recommended at the congressional hearing that plants should extend battery capacity to 16 hours, giving workers more time to restore cooling power. The Center recommends 24 hours of extended capacity.

These recommendations are in response to the loss of backup power at the Fukushim Daiichi nuclear power facility in Japan.  At Fukushima, a powerful earthquake knocked out primary power, and a subsequent tsunami wiped out backup diesel generators. On-site batteries depleted within eight hours, leaving workers with no power to cool the cores of three nuclear reactors. After they ran out of battery power, there was no way to cool the reactors and hydrogen explosions and serious damage resulted at three of the reactors.  If U.S. nuclear power plants should lose primary and backup power — as happened in March at the Fukushima Daiichi facility in Japan — batteries are designed to kick in and prevent nuclear fuel from melting.

U.S. nuclear plants are required to maintain two backup diesel generators for each reactor.

At Fukushima, water drained from spent fuel pools and the fuel heated up, releasing intense radiation that hampered work at the site. The exposed fuel also might have triggered the explosions that seriously damaged the buildings housing reactors Units 1, 3 and 4.  At the hearing, Lochbaum recommended that U.S. plant operators transfer fuel from water-cooled pools to safer, passively air-cooled storage units called dry casks. A dry cask storage unit at Fukushima, which contains more used fuel than the water pools, has remained safe and has released no radiation despite the disaster.

The Center believes Yucca Mountain should be developed as soon as possible in order to transfer spend fuel from America's nuclear reactors.  The Center disagrees with the Obama administration's decision to shutter Yucca Mountain.  A “blue ribbon” Energy Department commission established by Obama in January 2010 is studying how the country should manage its nuclear waste. In draft recommendations unveiled Friday, commission members said that the country should build an above-ground dry cask facility for “interim” nuclear waste storage.  The delay in utilizing Yucca Mountain is unnecessarily putting America at risk.  Such a facility would consolidate nuclear waste and relieve pressure to pack more fuel into the pools at each of the nation’s 104 nuclear plants.  (Wash Post, 5/14/2011)

GAO Report Says DOE YUCCA Closure Inappropriate

According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress states that the Department of Energy decided to shut down the Yucca Mountain repository for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons.

The Center agrees.  Center President Norris McDonald visited the Yucca Mountain site in 2002 and he believes it is the perfect location as our national repository for nuclear waste.  The Center also believes Yucca Mountain  is an ideal site for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

It is ironic and very sad that a Noble Prize winning physicists, DOE Secretary Steven Chu, is promoting a political decision instead of a scientific decision.  The report, released Tuesday, concluded that DOE had not fully complied with all regulations in its hasty shutdown of the project.  DOE strongly disagreed with much of the report in a 14-page letter to the GAO.

A Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission is researching alternatives to Yucca Mountain. The Center presented testimony before the commission.  That could include reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, but there would still be high-level waste residues from the process, plus weapons waste from Hanford and other sites, that would need to be disposed of, the report said.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu's "judgment is not that Yucca Mountain is unsafe or that there are flaws in the license application, but rather that it is not a workable option and that alternatives will better serve the public interest," DOE said in a filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.  Secretary Chu fails to explain why and how the Yucca site is 'not a workable option.'  He should just state that it is not workable because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes Yucca Mountina for political reasons and thus the Obama administration is obliged to punt on this site.  Science be damned.

The Center agrees with the GAO assessment that:

"...termination would also restart the costly and time-consuming process of finding a permanent disposal repository or some other solution for spent nuclear fuel and could take decades and billions of additional dollars." 

The GAO report put spending at almost $15 billion between the start of work to pick a repository site in 1983 through submitting a license application to the NRC for Yucca Mountain.  DOE already has spent about $9 billion from a money collected from utilities while nuclear power plants are operating.

The Center agrees with the GAO report conclusion that: "Shutting down the Yucca Mountain project also may have further damaged DOE's credibility."  (The News Tribune, 5/11/2011)

NRC Okays Calvert Cliffs Nuke Plant Environmental Review

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says an environmental review hasn’t found anything to prevent licensing of a third nuclear reactor at the Calvert Cliffs power plant in Lusby, Maryland.  The NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Baltimore District released the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Friday. The corps of engineers will use the information in making its federal permit decision.

Publishing the environmental impact report is only part of the overall license review and the NRC is still working on its final safety evaluation report. The NRC says it’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is also investigating a challenge of the environmental review. NRC is also examining whether the applicant for the license, Unistar, meets NRC requirements regarding foreign ownership.  Electricite de France is the principle partner in Unistar and they need a majority owner from the USA to qualify for a nuclear license.  A foreign company cannot be a principle owner of an American nuclear power plant. (The Daily Record, 5/13/2011)

German Politics Getting Stupid on Nuclear Power

German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to quickly phase out nuclear energy, but the chancellor faces a power struggle with the energy industry. Merkel wants to avoid at all costs the impression that she is cutting deals with the major German utilities, RWE, E.on, Vattenfall and EnBW.

The nuclear phase-out carries enormous legal risks for the German government. If the industry sues the government for compensation, the potential damages could quickly shoot into the double-digit billions.

Speculation has it that none of the eight older plants that were shut down as part of Merkel's post-Fukushima nuclear "moratorium" will ever return to operation. Germany's other nine nuclear reactors will also be shut down for good around 2020.

The government is placing its hopes in two arguments. First, the utilities have no alternative, given that the former SPD/Green Party coalition also demanded a rapid phase-out. Second, the coalition will sweeten the deal for the energy industry with the prospect of a profitable switch to gas and renewable energy. (Spiegle Online, 5/10/2011)

CDC Documents Asthma Increases - Baffled By Cause

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for May 6 examines the incidence of asthma with data from 2001 to 2009. For all people, asthma’s prevalence in the population has increased from 7.3 percent in 2001 from 8.2 percent in 2009.

The CDC can’t account for the increase in asthma, but it does say that the different prevalence rates could be attributed to environmental exposures that are common triggers for asthma, a chronic respiratory disease. Those exposures include air pollution—indoor and outdoor---mold, tobacco smoke and pet dander. And those triggers are more prevalent in the housing and neighborhoods where the highest rates of asthma tend to cluster.

Asthma rates are steadily climbing across the country and Women’s rates were 9.7 percent compared to 7.7 percent for all adults. Children’s rate is now 9.6 percent, but among African-American children younger than 18, 17 percent have asthma.

In California, asthma prevelance is nearly 14 percent.

Richmond, California has been an asthma hot spot for a number of years and has drawn the scrutiny of many health professionals and environmental advocates. A 2009 report from the advocacy group Communities for a Better Environment surveyed Richmond residents about their health concerns and found that 17 percent of Richmond’s children had asthma—the same as the national figures for black kids just released by the CDC.

The Richmond survey also found that the rate of asthma there was positively related to the length of time a person lived in the city. While the overall prevalence was 9.1 percent, adults who had lived there for 15 years or longer had an asthma rate of 45 percent.

Contra Costa County overall has an even higher rate of childhood asthma, which affects 19 percent of kids ages 1 to 14, according to the county’s Community Health Indicators for 2010. Again, African-American kids fare worst: nearly 21 percent have asthma, compared to about 13 percent of white and Latino kids; and 14.5 percent of Asian American kids have asthma in Contra Costa County.

Alameda county’s asthma prevalence is similarly high, with 24.5 percent of kids aged 5 to 17 suffering from asthma and a lifetime prevalence for all ages of nearly 17 percent, according to The Health of Alameda County Cities and Places, a 2010 report from the county’s public health department.

In California, asthma prevelance is nearly 14 percent for adults.

Americans are suffering from asthma in record numbers, according to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in 10 children and almost one in 12 Americans of all ages now has asthma. According to the report, from 2001 to 2009 the prevalence of asthma increased among all demographic groups studied, including men, women, whites, blacks and Hispanics. Black children are most acutely affected: the study found that 17 percent of black children — nearly one in five — had a diagnosis of asthma in 2009, up from 11.4 percent, or about one in nine, in 2001.

While 7.7 percent of adults were found to have asthma, the rate was higher among women (9.7 percent) and among poor adults of both sexes (10.6 percent). Asthma costs grew to about $56 billion in 2007, up from about $53 billion in 2002, the report said, though annual deaths attributed to asthma declined to about 3,500 in 2007, from a peak of about 5,500 deaths in 1996. (Bay Citizen, 5/9/2011, NYT, 5/3/2011)

Center Supports Oil Companies Just Like Citizens at the Pump

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

By Norris McDonald

The Center supports the United States oil industry.  We believe they provide the product that drives the American economy at a reasonable price. The Center supports the efficient use of natural resources and the production and delivery of these resources at reasonable prices.  If this involves federal subsidies and exhorbitant profits for the oil companies, so be it.

Americans are hypocrites when it comes to oil.  They vilify the oil companies while devouring their product.  If you hate oil companies, STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCT.  And don't give me "we need their product so they should be required to provide it to us even if it means a loss to them.  You want cheap gas?  Give the oil companies everything they want to keep oil cheap.

With gas prices at record levels, Senate Democrats have decided now is the time to go after the nation’s five largest oil companies. They are proposing eliminating tax breaks for the companies that they argue will save $21 billion over the next decade.

The Center opposes efforts to take subsidies away from oil companies.  Any increases expenses to oil companies will be passed on to consumers. 

Democrats are betting that by going after Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips they will be able to blunt GOP efforts to solve the nation’s deficit and debt problems without new taxes and show they are doing something about high gas prices.

This is politics gone amok.  And the Center rejects this political posturing.

Democrats are hoping to focus voter anger on high gas prices on the very profitable oil companies receiving taxpayer subsidies. However, the oil companies believe they are being singled out unfairly.  And we agree.  How can the public villify the oil companies at the same time that they are addicts to their product?

If you hate oil companies, simply stop buying their product. (NewsMax, 5/11/2011)

William K. Reilly Speaks at Resources For The Future

Resources for the Future

Invites you to a

Policy Leadership Forum

William K. Reilly

Co-Chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling

"One Year After the Deepwater Horizon Disaster: The Path to Safe Offshore Drilling"

Monday, May 16, 2011

William K. Reilly is a founding partner of Aqua International Partners, a private equity fund dedicated to investing in companies engaged in water and renewable energy, and a senior advisor to TPG, an international investment partnership. Reilly served as co-chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (2010-2011). He was the first Payne Visiting Professor at Stanford University (1993-1994), administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993), president of the World Wildlife Fund (1985-1989), president of The Conservation Foundation (1973-1989), and director of the Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth (1972-1973). He also served as head of the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio in 1992.

Reilly also holds the positions of chairman emeritus of the Board of the World Wildlife Fund, energy and environment chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center Energy Project, and chair of the Advisory Board for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. He is a director of the Packard Foundation, the American Academy in Rome, and the National Geographic Society. He also serves on the Board of Directors of DuPont, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Caribbean International. In 2007, Reilly was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He holds a B.A. degree from Yale, J.D. from Harvard, and M.S. in Urban Planning from Columbia University.

When: Monday, May 16, 2011, 12:45 - 2 p.m.

A light lunch will be available at 12:30 p.m.

Where: Resources for the Future

1616 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20036

Join the live webcast at www.rff.org/live  beginning at 12:45 p.m.

Registration is required.

To RSVP for this event, please visit RFF's event registration page.

Japan Backs Off Of Its Nuclear Power Plant Building Plans

Japan has announced that it will abandon a plan to obtain half of its electricity from nuclear power and will instead promote renewable energy and conservation as a result of its ongoing nuclear crisis.

[Translation: Japan will use much more liquified natural gas]

Nuclear plants supply about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity, and the government had planned to raise that to 50 percent by 2030.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan also announced that he would take a pay cut beginning in June until the Fukushima nuclear crisis is resolved.  The Center has been calling for Kan to resign for mishandling the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.

Kan's judgment is also suspect due to the following quote:

“I believe the government bears a major responsibility for having promoted nuclear energy as national policy. I apologize to the people for failing to prevent the nuclear accident.” 

Huh?  Promoting nuclear power provided Japan with incredible economic develop without spewing smog forming and greenhouse gases.  Nuclear power is not the culprit.  The horrible decision-making about the Act of God is what Kan should be apologize for.  Japan should have started completely sealing that site just as soon as they suspected a hydrogen explosion occur.

About 80,000 people living within a 12-mile radius of the plant were evacuated from their homes March 12, with many now living in gymnasiums. (Wash Post, 5/10/2011)

EPA Cement Manufacturing Air Pollution Rule

Cement Kilm

 Today EPA reaffirmed that its 2010 cement manufacturing air pollution standards are sound, protective and cost-effective. This rule will slash emissions of harmful mercury, acid gases and fine particle pollution by more than 90 percent -- preventing thousands of heart attacks and aggravated cases of asthma and up to 2,500 premature deaths.

The agency will not delay implementing these standards while it considers potential minor changes that would further clarify and simplify the rules. As EPA considers these minor changes, EPA will seek opportunities for further clarification, simplification, or flexibility without sacrificing important health protection from emissions of mercury, soot and other harmful air pollutants.

Background

Based on a thorough review of petitions submitted by industry and environmental groups, EPA is agreeing to reconsider certain minor technical aspects of its August 2010 air toxics and new source performance standards for Portland cement manufacturing. EPA will reconsider aspects of the rules it determined did not receive adequate opportunity for public notice and comment, along with several issues raised by industry that the agency believes may have technical merit. The agency is denying requests to reconsider other issues raised in the petitions, including requests that EPA reconsider the standards in their entirety.

Both rules will remain in place while EPA reconsiders these issues, to ensure that public health protections resulting from these rules are not delayed. Combined, the two rules are expected to dramatically cut emissions of mercury, particle pollution and other pollutants. Mercury can damage children’s developing brains, and particle pollution is linked to a wide variety of serious health effects, including aggravated asthma, heart attacks, and premature death. The rules are estimated to yield between $7 and $19 in public health benefits for every dollar spent. Additional public health benefits are expected as a result of controls on mercury and other air toxics. (EPA)

More information on the August 2010 cement standards:

More information on the Reconsideration

Japan Utility Closes Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant

The Japanese power companpy Chubu Electric has agreed to temporarily close the Hamaoka nuclear power plant until it can be fortified against a massive tsunami.  The Hamaoka plant supplies power to central Japan.  Japan gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear power.  Chubu's decision was in response to a request by Prime Minister Naoto Kan.

The Center has been very critical of Kan's leadership concerning the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.  He refuses to seal the plant and that is unacceptable.

Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station

Chubu Electric said the shutdown could last about two years until safety steps are completed.  Chubu Electric said it would look to buy more liquefied natural gas and oil to make up for lost capacity.

The Hamaoka plant provides power to half of the 18 plants that make Toyota vehicles in Japan and all four of Suzuki Motor Corp's domestic car and motorcycle factories.  The coverage area also includes auto plants of Honda Motor Co and Mitsubishi Motors Corp, as well as Sharp Corp's Kameyama LCD factory and Toshiba Corp's Yokkaichi semiconductor plant.  (Scientific American, 5/9/2011)

Constellation Shareholders Sue over Exelon Merger

There They Go Again.  Shareholders Sued Over the Warren Buffet Merger Too

Constellation Energy Group shareholders have filed six lawsuits in Baltimore City Circuit Court since the power company announced in late April that it had agreed to sell itself to Chicago-based Exelon Corp. for $7.9 billion in an all-stock deal.  In a filing Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Constellation said the class-action lawsuits allege the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties because the deal does not maximize shareholder value.

Within a day of the deal's announcement, law firms were seeking plaintiffs in filing class-action lawsuits challenging the proposed union, which would create the largest U.S. competitive energy provider and one of the largest utility systems in the country.

Constellation's regulated utility is Baltimore Gas & Electric, while Exelon has two regulated utilities, one in Chicago and another in Philadelphia.

Constellation said in the filing that it was unable to offer an estimate of possible losses related to the proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits. (Baltimore Sun, 5/9/2011)

Department of Energy to Investigate Hydraulic Fracturing

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a group of environmental, industry and state regulatory experts who will make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations - harnessing a vital domestic energy resource while ensuring the safety of our drinking water and the health of the environment. President Obama directed Secretary Chu to convene this group as part of the President's "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" - a comprehensive plan to reduce America's oil dependence, save consumers money, and make our country the leader in clean energy industries.

A group of experts with experience in industry, environmental groups and state regulatory agencies will form a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board to conduct the review, and will work to identify, within 90 days of beginning their work, any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing. They will also develop, within six months of beginning their work, consensus recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment.

Membership of the group includes:

John Deutch, Institute Professor at MIT (Chair)

Stephen Holditch, Head of the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund

Kathleen McGinty, Former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Susan Tierney, Managing Principal, Analysis Group

Daniel Yergin, Chairman, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates

Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University

(DOE)

Wood Pulp Is Used As A Food Additive

Next Time You See 'Dietary Fiber' on a Food Label, You'll Know What It Is

Powdered cellulose: minuscule pieces of wood pulp or other plant fibers that coat the product and keep it from clumping by blocking out moisture. One of an array of factory-made additives, cellulose is increasingly used by the processed-food industry, producers say. Food-product makers use it to thicken or stabilize foods, replace fat and boost fiber content, and cut the need for ingredients like oil or flour, which are getting more expensive.

Cellulose products, gums and fibers allow food manufactures to offer white bread with high dietary fiber content, low-fat ice cream that still feels creamy on the tongue, and allow cooks to sprinkle cheese over their dinner without taking time to shred.

Powdered cellulose is made by cooking raw plant fiber—usually wood—in various chemicals to separate the cellulose, and then purified. Modified versions go through extra processing, such as exposing them to acid to further break down the fiber. Nutritionists say cellulose—which gives plants their structure—is a harmless fiber that can often cut calories in food. Insoluble dietary fibers like cellulose aren't digestible by humans so add bulk to food without making it more fattening.

Cellulose can serve as a good source of dietary fiber for people who don't eat enough fruits, vegetables or whole grains, Ms. Slavin says. The USDA's most recent dietary guidelines recommend young women get 28 grams a day of fiber and young men consume 38 grams.

The Food and Drug Administration sets limits on the amount of cellulose in certain foods like cheese spreads and jams. The USDA also limits the amount of cellulose in meat products to about 1% to 4%, depending on the type, in order to meet the agency's standards for protein content. (WSJ, 5/4/2011)

Chris Christie, Like Other Northeast States, Diverts CO2 Funds

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's proposed budget takes money from global warming funds dedicated to clean energy conversion and puts them into highway-widening and development projects promoting fossil fuel consumption, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Christie also wants to seize recycling funds to pay for general state operations.  The Assembly Budget Committee will consider Gov. Christie’s proposed environmental budget at a hearing on Thursday, May 5.

Gov. Christie also has threatened to unilaterally take New Jersey out of the 10-state Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). In 2008, the state passed the Global Warming Solutions Fund Act which requires that “up to 100%” of revenues from the sale of carbon credits under RGGI be used to fund energy efficiency, renewable energy, innovative greenhouse gas reduction technologies and other measures to reduce energy demands and costs for low- and moderate-income New Jersey citizens.

Notwithstanding these requirements, Christie raided green funds last year to address budget gaps. For the upcoming 2011-12 fiscal year, however, he ramps up the diversions, but to support construction projects and development programs:

• Approximately $1.3 million from the Global Warming Solutions Fund will finance a newly created Office of Economic Growth and Green Energy.

• Nearly $7 million from the Global Warming Solutions Fund would be taken to support New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s roadway widening project from Interchange 6 to Interchange 9 “to pay for the costs of replanting trees and impacts of the deforestation” from road expansion. Similar diversion of these revenues last year to pay for Turnpike widening re-forestry sparked outrage; and

• $20 million will be taken out of the State Recycling Fund this year ($7 million was diverted last year) and placed in the state General Fund. The Recycling Fund is funded by a garbage disposal surcharge to support municipal and county recycling programs.

(PEER)

Doc Hastings Pushing Energy Bills To Address High Gas Prices

Doc Hastings

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) has pushed three bills through his committee aimed at boosting oil and gas production in the gulf as well as off both coasts and the Arctic.

The Center opposes expanded drilling on the East and West coasts, but supports drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but not close to the Florida coast.

One bill would:

1) Overhaul the permitting process to make it faster, which in some cases means jettisoning the more exacting reviews put in place after the BP spill.

2) Require the interior secretary to act on a permit to drill within 30 days; if no decision is made after a maximum of 60 days, the permit would be granted.

3) Restart within 30 days gulf permits that were approved last year before the spill. Eleven exploration wells that were suspended in the gulf have been given permission to drill again, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Another bill would:

1) Expand drilling by establishing the first national production goal as part of Interior’s five-year offshore leasing plan; it would include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest-known oil and gas reserves.

Interestingly, oil companies have yet to produce oil and gas on the majority of the 75 million acres where they hold federal leases. (Wash Post, 5/3/2011)

3 EPA Hearings on National Mercury Standard

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold three public hearings in May on the proposed mercury and air toxics standards. The new power plant mercury and air toxics standards would require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year.

WHAT: Public hearings on proposed mercury and air toxics standards

WHEN: May 24 and 26, 2011

Each hearing will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 8 p.m. (local time)

WHERE: May 24: Chicago, Ill.
Crowne Plaza Chicago Metro
799 W. Madison St.
Chicago, Ill. 60611

May 24: Philadelphia, Pa.
Westin Philadelphia
99 S. 17th Street at Liberty Place

Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
May 26: Atlanta, Ga.
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Ga. 30303-8960

The public may register to speak at a specific time at a hearing by contacting Pamela Garrett at 919-541-7966 or registering in person on the day of a hearing. EPA also will accept written comments on the proposed standards until July 5, 2011. EPA will finalize the rule by November 2011.

More information on the hearings and instructions for submitting written comments

EPA to Hold Boiler MACT Hearings on Reconsideration

EPA will hold three public hearings to be held for its proposed rule to address National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units.

The public hearings will be held on May 24th in Philadelphia and Chicago and May 26th in Atlanta. The Chicago, IL, hearing will be held at the Crowne Plaza Chicago Metro in Ballroom D. The Philadelphia, PA, hearing will be held at the Westin Philadelphia in the Georgian Room. The May 26, hearing will be held in the EPA Region IV offices at the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (AFC) in Atlanta, GA. The three public hearings will convene at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 8:00 p.m. (local time). (EPA)

EPA Seeks Small Entity Participation on 2 Upcoming Air Rules

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting small businesses, governments, and not-for-profit organizations to participate as small entity representatives (SERs) for two Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panels to establish standards for vehicle emissions and update emission standards for refineries. Reducing pollution from vehicles and refineries is important to EPA’s mission to protecting the health of all Americans.

The first panel for Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards will focus on developing a rule that proposes new standards for vehicles and gasoline, and will consider changes to fuel certification for all categories of gasoline-powered highway vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment.

The second panel for the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards will focus on developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for multiple pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to establish a federal panel for rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The panels will include federal representatives from the Small Business Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and EPA. The panel members ask a selected group of SERs to provide advice and recommendations on behalf of their company, community, or organization to inform the members about the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities.

EPA seeks self-nominations directly from small entities that may be subject to the rules’ requirements. Other representatives, such as trade associations that exclusively or at least primarily represent potentially regulated small entities, may also serve as SERs.

Self-nominations may be submitted through the links below and must be received by May 16, 2011.

For SER self nominations

Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk

Japan Prime Minister Should Resign Re Fukushima Daiichi

Center Calls for Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan To Step Down

Naoto Kan

The actions of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Japanese government after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster have been illogical and dangerous to citizens of the world and the environment.  An Act of God might have caused the disaster, but human error is exacerbating the situation.  Radiation has been needlessly released to the atmosphere and ocean.  It appears, under current leadership, that such releases will continue. TEPCO is trying to stabilize the reactors evidently in some futile attempt to salvage the 6-reactor facility.  Some in the Japanese parliament, the Diet, are also calling for Prime Minister Kan to step down.

TEPCO has announced that  it will strengthen defenses at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant against any future earthquakes and triple the size of the available labor force to limit workers' radiation exposure. Yet this facility is highly radioactive with the potential to continue to dump radioactive isotopes into the air and ocean. 

The Center has been recommending the immediate sealing of the site.  Massive loads of boron should be dumped around reactors 1,2,3 & 4.  Reactors 5 & 6 were offline at the time of the tsunami and might be salvaged.  A 200-foot sarcophagus should then cover the four damaged reactors.  The sarcophagus should consist of boron, sand, dirt, cement, concrete and other hardened rubble from the area.

TEPCO is taking a number of steps to guard against a new earthquake of up to magnitude 8. The original March 11 quake was calculated at magnitude 9, one of the most powerful ever recorded. A one-digit increase in magnitude on the Richter scale represents a 10-fold increase in intensity. In its plan, the utility will build a 6½-foot wall on the southeastern side of the Daiichi site, which is about 33 feet above sea level. This would block a 33-foot tsunami, which projections say could be made by a magnitude-8 quake.

Tepco also plans to seal one of the two ditches near the sea with concrete to prevent radiation-contaminated water in the trenches from overflowing into the ocean. Tepco expects to complete the wall by mid-June and sealing by the end of May, a spokesman said. The company didn't specify the cost.

The utility also said it was preparing to triple the size of the available work force to 3,000 people through recruitment of those with experience in the nuclear-power sector. At present, approximately 1,000 employees and subcontractors are working in a dangerous environment to try to bring the damaged reactors to a safe condition.

An opinion poll by Kyodo News on Saturday showed that 76% of respondents said Mr. Kan isn't exercising sufficient leadership in dealing with the situation, a rise from 63.7% in a previous poll in late March. The telephone survey, conducted Friday and Saturday, also showed 23.6% of the respondents think Mr. Kan should resign immediately, up from 13.8% in the previous survey.  (WSJ, 5/1/2011)

Exelon To Purchase Constellation Energy Group

Exelon, the biggest U.S. operator of nuclear power plants agreed to purchase Constellation Energy Group Inc. (CEG) of Baltimore for about $7.9 billion in stock, giving the Chicago-based company stakes in five more reactors. Constellation’s nuclear assets will help Exelon boost profitability as environmental regulations increase costs for energy producers that own coal plants.

The purchase of Constellation, of Baltimore, Md., gives Exelon an interest in five more reactors at three sites: the two-unit Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland, the two-unit Nine Mile Point plant in New York and single-reactor R.E. Ginna plant in New York.

Constellation had sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a giant new reactor at its existing Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant site in Maryland. Constellation originally chose an advanced reactor designed by French-based Areva Inc. for the project. But Constellation backed away from the project last year after determining that the costs associated with a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy carried too high a premium.

In November 2009, Constellation sold a 49% interest in its nuclear business to EDF Group, the big French-based utility company. It was accompanied by another agreement allowing Constellation's utility, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., to purchase 85% to 90% of the power from the units to meet the needs of the utility's customers. Under a deal struck in 2010, the utility's purchase of power will drop to about half the nuclear output, after 2015, leaving a large amount that can be sold at market prices.

The takeover, which will mark the end of John Rowe’s 11-year stint as Exelon’s chief executive officer. Constellation Chief Executive Mayo Shattuck will be the executive chairman of the combined company, while Exelon Chief Operating Office Christopher Crane will be chief executive. (Bloomberg, 4/29/2011, WSJ, 4/28/2011)

Norris McDonald , John Rowe

The merger of Exelon and Constellation must be approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the New York Public Service Commission and the companies' shareholders.

A Message From The White House on Gasoline Prices

Good morning,

This week, as gas prices hit four dollars a gallon, oil companies like ExxonMobil announced skyrocketing profits -- while still receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

There's something wrong with this picture, and in this video President Obama outlines the steps we're taking to make it right:


A few weeks ago, I emailed you about rising gas prices, and I want to give you a quick update on three important steps:

Ending oil and gas subsidies. Oil companies are receiving $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies that don't make sense and that we can't afford. That's why President Obama has called on Democrats and Republicans in Congress to stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry so that we can afford to invest in the clean energy economy of tomorrow.

Stopping oil market fraud. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a working group focused on rooting out the cases of fraud in the oil markets that might affect gas prices (the President discussed this in his Weekly Address last Saturday).

Reducing our dependence on oil. Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, President Obama recently unveiled his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future that set a goal of reducing our imports of foreign oil by a third in a little over a decade. To do this we have to increase our domestic energy production, reduce our demand for oil by building cleaner, more efficient vehicles, and fully utilize alternatives to oil in the transportation sector like natural gas and advanced biofuels.

These are difficult issues to tackle, and it's going to take all of us working together to move forward. For years, politicians in Washington have kicked this problem down the road, but we simply cannot afford the price of inaction any longer.

Sincerely,

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

Lithium Air Battery

Lonnie Johnson Develops New Battery Technology Via His Company: Excellatron

The performance of conventional lithium battery systems is limited by the fundamental capacities of both the cathode and anode used in these batteries. The best cathode materials in lithium ion batteries have a specific capacity of less than 200mAh/g. The most widely used anode material, graphitic or soft carbon, has a specific capacity of 372mAh/g. Metal/air batteries have a much larger specific energy than most of the available primary and rechargeable batteries. These batteries are unique in that the active cathode material (oxygen) is not stored in the battery. Oxygen from the environment is reduced at a catalytic air electrode surface forming either an oxide or peroxide ion that then reacts with cationic species in the electrolyte.Among various metal/oxygen batteries, Li/O₂ couple is especially attractive because it has the potential of the highest specific energy (5,200Wh/kg) among all the known electrochemical couples.

The specific energy of lithium air batteries is expected to be an order of magnitude larger than that achievable using conventional lithium or lithium ion batteries. Excellatron has expanded its technology base to lithium air batteries. Until now, commercialization of these batteries has been hindered by several problems such as corrosion and low capacity. The unique technology developed by Excellatron has overcome these problems and pushed Li/Air batteries closer to practical applications. Recently, we have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a rechargeable lithium/oxygen battery, and Li/Air demonstration samples have been successfully delivered to a customer. (Excellatron)

Lonnie G. Johnson

Dr. Lonnie Johnson

Throughout his career as a scientist and engineer, Lonnie Johnson has been driven by a desire to push the envelope of technology. Whenever told "it can't be done," his unfailing reply has been "Why not?" He has extensive experience in the high technology environment, and holds over 80 issued patents (with an additional 20 pending) on a wide range of technologies. In his 19 years with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Air Force, he served as a senior systems engineer on multiple space based programs including the Galileo Mission to Jupiter, the Cassini Mission to Saturn, the Mars Observer project, and the Air Force stealth bomber program. Dr. Johnson is also founder and president of Johnson Research and Development Co., Inc., where he has developed products for the consumer market. His success in this area is exemplified by his invention, the Super Soaker® water gun, which has generated almost $1 billion in retail sales. Dr. Johnson holds a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, an MS degree in Nuclear Engineering, and a PhD in Science from Tuskegee University.


Excellatron Solid State, LLC, a U.S. based technology company, is introducing innovative and enabling energy storage technology. The batteries made possible by this new proprietary technology can be used in many applications and processes where other batteries would be inadequate. With this capability, a new world of possibilities opens up for the use of power stored in Excellatron batteries. Excellatron's technology will be the choice of power for high performance batteries in the future.
Excellatron's primary mission is to develop revolutionary energy storage technology as well as the manufacturing technology required for its cost effective commercialization.