With no prospect of federal support in sight and no domestic or European buyer willing to assume future costs, Delaware’s offshore wind energy project is officially dead.
The (Wilmington) News-Journal reported today that NRG Energy terminated its landmark offshore wind power contract with Delmarva Power on Tuesday.
"The hard-won 2008 power purchase agreement, the first for offshore wind in the United States, was considered an essential ingredient in building a wind farm off the coast of Delaware. Tuesday was the final day under the contract for Bluewater to exercise an escape clause without forfeiting a $4 million security deposit.
“Officials at NRG, which purchased Bluewater in 2009, notified Delmarva’s parent company, Pepco Holdings Inc., of the termination Tuesday afternoon, said Matt Likovich, a Delmarva spokesman. Delmarva reported it accepted the termination.”
Wind Turbines have long been a popular technology on farms, as they provide cheap and renewable electricity to rural locations, and have minimal to no visual impact to neighboring areas as in more urban settings. In addition, the middle section of the US shares both the “corn belt” of the country and the areas where wind speed is at it’s highest, making implementation of both ideal together. Scientists have recently discovered an additional benefit that wind turbines can have for farms.
In ways similar to planting trees along the edges of crops to mix air flow, wind turbines have the same effect. Turbines can help get more CO2 to crops, which is essential to their function as plants.
Other effects a turbine can have are reducing dew levels on plants, which can make it less susceptible to fungi. By changing air flow, they may also change temperatures, making nights warmer and days cooler. One of the first studies on this effect found that in Southern California, nighttime temperatures were higher downwind from wind turbines. The scientist agreed that the effects on crops will be complex, and “one good thing could offset another bad thing.”
Many cosmetics companies misleadingly claim their products are ‘not tested on animals’ but are not so keen to admit that they still use animal-tested ingredients. In these crude poisoning tests, chemicals are force-fed to animals, injected into them, dripped into their eyes and rubbed into their raw skin. Here is an overview that explains how to recognise the companies that try to give the impression they are cruelty-free, when they’re not!
Chemical-producing companies that test on animals themselves or pay researchers to carry out animal tests on their behalf e.g.
Johnson & Johnson
Procter & Gamble
They tend to be larger companies and often have a raft of different cosmetic brands, for example ‘Dove’ and ‘Organics’ are Unilever brands. ‘Herbal Essences’ and ‘Max Factor’ are P&G brands. ‘Garnier’ and ‘Lancome’ are L’Oreal brands, the Body Shop are now owned by L’Oreal too. So rule number one is always look to see who the parent company is.
The second category are cosmetics companies that tend not to test on animals themselves but continue to buy, use and benefit financially from chemical ingredients that have recently been tested on animals by their suppliers. Many cosmetic brands fall into this category e.g.
Most of them are very clever at deceiving the public with the claims they make about animal testing.
June was to be the month of a dog meat festival sponsored by the Korean Dog Farmers Association. South Korea is one among many other Asian countries that have been known to consume dog meat. The purpose of this festival was to try to raise public awareness about the conditions on dog meat farms by featuring videos of canines being raised in clean environments. Luckily, animal activists ended up preventing this event from happening. Despite the fact that eating dog has been a common practice for Koreans for a while, younger generations are beginning to step up against this practice, and believe that this is making South Korea a laughing stock of the world. There are infact, many Koreans who are against this practice, and in the future we will most likely see a huge drop in the amount of people in the world who do consume canine species.
Although reading this did make me happy, I soon thought, why is this idealogy only applied to canines? Do other animals not deserve this same right to live simply because they arn’t “mans best friend?”
President Obama announced today that by 2025 the cars and trucks sold in the United States would have an average fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon. The White House says vehicles that use less gas and emit less carbon will save consumers $1.7 billion over the course of the program, which starts in 2017. (The 2011 standard is 28.3 mpg.)
Read rest of article here