German utility RWE – Europe’s fifth-largest power company and the continent’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxcide – has resorted to a new way to counter what it sees as a fundamental misunderstanding about power companies.

Its animated movie – to be shown on TV and in cinemas – is meant to show what the company is really about – and overcome the public’s distaste for an industry whose dominance has allowed it to mete out ever higher power prices.

RWE portrays itself as a colossus with trees growing on his shoulders. He dives into the sea to install tidal-power plants and repairs power lines with gentle force.

Interestingly, this leviathan has characteristics that run contrary to what RWE might want to say. It supports some of the charges consumers level against utilities and has traits utilities always deny.

Many criticize the market dominance of utilities that allows them to raise prices and give consumers little option other than to pay up.

The giant of the film is alone in what he does and seems to be in complete control of his domain. He does not have to struggle with others who want to build windmills where he wants to.

Utilities claim they are accountable and transparent – to the public as well as their shareholders. The colossus has no need to justify himself. He does whatever he does because he wants to do. He rules.

He also leaves a large question mark over at least one key issue ahead of the general election in Germany in September. Would this giant’s engineering skills be sufficient to operate nuclear power plants? 

Utilities – and the conservatives and liberals in Germany – are seeking to extend the lifespan of nuclear power plants, saying they would be safe to run at least 10 years longer.

We might emerge from our 2 minutes of viewing with the conviction they will be maintained, but at least the RWE giant is shown to be nice, extremely focused on renewable energy and always working for the benefit of its clients.

At last year's American Petroleum Institute conference, Bill Klesse, CEO of leading U.S. oil refiner Valero, slammed federal policymakers who push subsidies and mandates for production of ethanol, saying that using corn to make it would make food so expensive it would cause more misery than global warming.

"All of these programs are just a huge transfer of wealth from our industry (oil) to the Midwest farms," Klesse said in March 2008 speech.

A year later, Klesse has decided to join rather than fight. If the money is going to the Midwest corn farms, why not cash in, right? Valero two weeks ago was chosen by a bankruptcy court as the winning bidder for two more VeraSun ethanol-producing plants.  The sale of seven former VeraSun plants closed on Wednesday and two more are expected to close soon.

A year and two weeks ago, Klesse said the federal government should stop favoring ethanol with subsidies. Now, Klesse and Valero are securing a supply of ethanol that it needs to mix with its gasoline.

"We expect increases in the Renewable Fuels Standard to continue," Klesse said two weeks ago when Valero's bid for VeraSun's plants was awarded.

The plants, in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Indiana together will have a combined capacity that is 7.5 percent of the current operating U.S. ethanol capacity.

On Thursday, a Valero spokesman said the company needs to go full throttle on producing ethanol to mix with its gasoline. See the Reuters story.

(This is a photo of an ethanol plant taken in 2008. Reuters photo by Mark Blinch.)

What do Bigfoot, a mermaid, an alien from outer space, and clean coal all have in common?
    None of them exist, according to several environmental groups.
    Organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation have launched a multi-million dollar media onslaught aimed at knocking down claims that power can be generated from coal now in an environmentally safe manner.                                                                                                                                                      The so called “reality” campaign features a television commercial with a man touting “clean coal technology” in a barren field and print ads with fictional creatures holding lumps of coal. The message of the ads is “In reality, there’s no such thing as clean coal.”
    How to handle America’s abundant coal supply is likely to remain a contentious issue as U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration tackles climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    Coal-fired power plants generate about half of U.S. electricity supplies, and account for about 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — the biggest single industrial source.
    Obama has expressed support for the development of technology that would allow coal-burning power plants to trap and store carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. Such technology is commercially untested and currently economically nonviable.
    Coal industry trade groups, such as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, say that they are committed to carbon reduction strategies and coal power is necessary to provide Americans with affordable electricity.
    Until the carbon capture and storage technology is developed, however, environmentalists behind the Reality Coalition say on their website “coal will remain a major contributor to the climate crisis.”

–Ayesha Rascoe

Crop scouts were busy in western Iowa on Wednesday trying to unlock the secrets of the upcoming soybean and corn harvest but they were ignoring another popular crop – wind.

Windmills are becoming increasingly common around the Corn Belt due to environmental concerns about traditional sources of power generation.

The wind harvest was taking up an unprecedented amount of acres this year in an area that some veteran scouts were referring to as this year’s garden spot of the Midwest in terms of potential corn and soybean yields.

In southern Minnesota, some growers were mulling offers from a wind farm company that had plans to erect windmills in that area. Some growers were being offered up to $5,000 a year to allow a windmill to be placed on their property, according to a farmer from that area who was taking part on the tour.

But the windmills can cause some problems, a farmer in west central Iowa told crop scouts. Dozens of windmills could be seen turning as the farmer told of some issues that might make farmers hesitate before collecting what appears to be easy money by renting out their acres to wind farms.

Maintenance workers need access to the windmills, so that can mean ploughing under more acres so a path can be built from the road to the windmill. Additionally, farmers have a harder time steering their machinery through fields if windmills sit right in the middle of prime crop producing territory. This can be particularly troublesome during years when poor conditions leave famers with only a short period of time to plant or harvest crops.

But still, the promise of cashing in on the green movement has a strong appeal to farmers, who like the promise of a steady annual payment.

The western Iowa scouts drove past a plant where windmill parts were waiting to be assembled in area fields. There were piles and piles of blades on the ground, suggesting that many area farmers were eager to take advantage of this new cash crop.