BP solar leaves Maryland

BP’s solar power division is planning to completely move its solar business out of the U.S. to China, India, and other countries. Due to higher prices and other costs associated with producing energy in the U.S., BP hopes they will be able to make solar panels much more effectively elsewhere.

Originally they had a 70 million dollar strategy, hoping to double their output at a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, MD. High costs in America led BP to move it’s solar operations to “where we can manufacture cheaply.”

The problem is that silicon is very expensive and producing solar power here in the U.S. just isn’t cost effective. According to the article, “BP Solar Chief Executive, Reyard Fezzani, said the U.S. market for solar was almost flat in 2009, with solar module prices dropping about 50 percent.” The plant was making 125 millimeter multi-crystalline solar cells, whereas the rest of the industry had already moved on to 156 millimeter cells. Rather than spending even more money to change the production lines, Bp figures it would be more beneficial to ship out to foreign countries where production is cheaper. They figure they will cut their costs by more than 45%.

On the other hand, 320 workers will be laid off as a result. 100 others will keep their jobs for research, sales, and project development.

Bp has already been working with companies from India and China so this is not unfamiliar to them. They also plan on building a 32 megawatt solar generation plant on Long Island, NY.

It’s hard to trust these oil companies due to all of the hype about fossil fuels. Is the company really trying to move forward with alternative energy or do they just want to control it in order to hinder its success? So far it seems like they are actually trying to make solar cells more popular by lowering production costs, in turn making solar cells cheaper. The cheaper they become, the better. On the other hand, it would really be nice to see the U.S. take off with solar power but that just isn’t happening at this point. Gas prices will continue to rise, which will hopefully force a stronger affinity to solar and wind power.

--Sam Lippincott

Strawberry boom: a bust for farmers

If you have been to your grocery stores produce section in the last week you might have noticed the low price of strawberries. Florida farmers faced one of the worst winters in recent decades; faced with losing a large portion of their crop farmers were forced to continually water the strawberries to keep the damage of frost to a minimum. As a result the Florida harvest was delayed and just happened to coincide with California harvest. Because of market oversaturation farmers are only getting 25 cents per pound of strawberries when in normal years they would be fetching about a dollar a pound. This has forced farmers to destroy their own harvest to artificially inflate the price of strawberries. Farmers are not subsidized by the government nor insured for the loss of their crop.
To make matters worse farmers are being accused of greed and a general insensitivity to those without or in need of food. Concerned citizens believe that the farmers should at the very least allow individuals to pick the extra crop for free or donate it to shelters where the food can be of use. On top of that local residents are citing the farmers for creating sinkholes that they believe to be caused by the excess watering of crops in the winter. These sinkholes have left residents without water for weeks or dried their wells up all together while some have even lost their homes because of them.
From the farmers perspective it is not economically feasible to ship out the strawberries to shelters after harvesting when you include all the costs of growing and picking the fruit. While many others are afraid if they let their farms become a free-for-all they could be liable for injuries that occur on their land and possible damage to new crops that have already been planted.
When considering all the problems of the farmers and residents it is hard to take any one side. I believe that when it comes to the farmers destroying their crop so they can make a profit that it is reasonable and I understand they cannot take any more cost associated with donating the excess. I would like to see and effort made by the farmers to find a charity organization that might be able to come and pick the excess at no cost to the farmer. I am sure there are many out there that would be willing to do this. To me the most serious problem is the one faced by residents that have damaged homes or have dried up wells. This is where I believe that the farmers should be responsible for the damages. Although I am not quite sure how you would enforce the farmers to pay for the damages as they collectively caused the problem. When precious natural resources such as water are being used farmers should be conscious about consumption, especially when their actions have caused the ground water supply to dry up. While it might be devastating for farmers to lose a whole harvest it is just as devastating, maybe even more for someone to lose their home.
--Ben Summers

Nuclear energy a costly alternative

This article in the Washington Post looks at potential nuclear power plants and what comes along with them. With all the talk of global warming and reducing the use of fossil fuels, nuclear power seems like the way to go, but it is extremely expensive. This article examines a proposal to build a pair of nuclear power plants in Georgia. On the positive side it is a cleaner, renewable energy that is proven, but the drawback is that the two plants will cost an estimated 14 billion and it is stated in the article that nuclear plants often run over budget. The Obama administration has okayed 8.3 billion in low interest federal loans for the plants. The controversial part is how the rest of the money will be raised. Power companies want to charge their customers prior to breaking ground, in order to help cut costs.
This is an extremely difficult subject to pick a side on, unless one is extremely knowledgeable. On the one hand it looks like nuclear power is a great replacement to the coal burning plants that cover the states, as it's clean and in the long run can be potentially cheaper then coal. On the other hand the upfront costs have made it difficult for the switch to take place in more then a few areas. The electric company’s difficulty finding financing adds to the mystery of this topic. Its good for the future and the environment, but past nuclear endeavors' driving some companies into bankruptcy have made investors weary. Hopefully as we work with nuclear technology longer, we can find cheaper methods that lead to the same result.

--Chris Rankin

Obama administration gets aggressive on energy

As long as I can remember, environmental activists have been pushing for tougher fuel standards, and the auto industry has been saying that tougher standards would be impossible to meet and would bankrupt them. Maybe now that they're already bankrupt, they won't be able to complain about the new EPA standards set this week.

While that's big news for a major US industry, another industry got some big news from Obama on Wednesday. Acquiescing to demands from Virginians, among others, when he announced that a large portion of the East Coast would be opened up to oil drilling. It's true that in the same stroke he protected the West Coast as well as parts of Alaska from drilling, but this is still good news for business and a disappointing move for environmentalists. One good response is from Eric Smith, who argues that offshore drilling is good for the environment, sort of like local food has less of an impact than the imported stuff.

I'm curious to see how this will shake out over the next decade or two. Ethanol requirements continue to rise, natural gas drilling looks to be poised to take off, and the new gas standards will slowly begin to cut into petroleum consumption. Decreased demand for oil some years from now will limit drilling- we'll see if the world can get there.

Another pricey liquid starting wars in the Middle East

Over the last six years there has been a drought in the Middle East that has been affecting the Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians. The drought, along with excessive use and pollution is greatly damaging the Jordan River which all three counties get use of and essentially fight over as there major watershed. This is not the only example of this specific case of fighting over waterways. This has been an issue for many years. The Indus River has brewed controversy between India and Pakistan. The Nile River has stemmed fighting between Ethiopia and the Egyptians. Furthermore, the Eufraties River has seen its share of controversy between Turkey and Syria. These conflicts are not just remedial disputes. These countries go to war over these waterways because that is there means of survival. Oregon State has conducted research that concludes that over the 37 military disputes that have erupted over waterways since the 1950s, almost all of these disputes take place in the Middle East between Israelis and Arabs.
It is amazing to me to see how such a small issue as a river can cause decades of war. It’s very eye opening to see how these Middle Eastern countries utilize these rivers and waterways for everything from bathing, drinking, and farming. I would think that after all of these years of military fighting and disputes that these countries would have thought that it was in their best interest to find a permanent solution. Especially, with all of the military resources and expenses they are using up without making any progress. Neither side is going to back down because the rivers are such a huge resource for their survival so a peace place should be developed to possible stop the military fighting and help sanitize and regulate the rivers water for a better quality of live.
--Brian Connor

Asian Carp update

Good news from the Great Lakes: looks like maybe the electric barriers are working, since a search for Asian carp in the Lakes has come up empty. With a $7 billion Great Lakes fishing industry on the line, that's pretty good to hear!

Bag tax gets 'er done!

The DC tax on disposable bags once routinely distributed at supermarkets has cut use by "more than half" since it took effect at the start of the year. Bag use is dropping at a higher rate than expected. I wonder how fast they expected demand to drop: did they perceive a huge demand for single use bags?

My favorite critique of the bag tax is that it will disproportionately hurt the poor. It seems to me that the poor are likely to learn very quickly that they need to bring reusable bags or at least the bags they paid for last time. A little tax works wonders!