A brief diary about an interesting development in offshore wind technology.

Wind is a leading sector in renewable energy construction, but offshore wind energy is still a long way behind. At the end of 2006, just 1.5% of the installed turbine capacity in IEA Wind member nations was located offshore. Even countries with huge ocean-sited wind potential like Ireland and Portugal (which are both investing heavily in the renewable source, each now getting almost 10% of their electricity from wind from nothing a few years ago) are still without a commercial offshore wind farm.

There are two major factors are holding ocean-based wind back: expense and water depth. Turbines built into the ocean floor are very heavy, can require specialist heavy-capacity equipment for installation, and are generally limited to areas with a maximum water depth of around 150 feet.

The innovation that will most likely break these barriers is the floating turbine, which has the potential to significantly reduce the expense of offshore wind  and increase the coastal ocean space where wind farms can be located. This week, that innovation took a step forward.

It seems Australian right-wing political campaigners, facing defeat when voters go to the polls in two days, are getting desperate enough to use Republican-style dirty tricks: distributing offensive material with the opposing party logo.

Campaign workers for the Liberal Party (Australia's main right-wing party currently led by Prime Minister John Howard) including the husband of a retiring Member of Parliament, have been caught distributing leaflets with the logo of the Labor Party exclaiming support for Islamic terrorists among other things. (Labor is the main center-left party, expected to win a majority this Saturday to govern alone or in coalition with the Greens.)

The Liberal Party has expelled the members involved and denied any high-level knowledge, but the desperation displayed by the party this election is enough to make one suspicious of any denial. I wouldn't be surprised if approval of this came from higher up than the few who were caught in the act.

The need to reduce reliance on burning carbon-emitting coal and natural gas for electricity is well recognized on this website. Environmental issues and candidate positions on them get a lot of attention. As to what alternative energy sources should be given the greatest immediate focus, it's safe to say that opinions here are rather divergent.

A lot of debate about nuclear energy addresses such issues as safety, waste storage, and proliferation. But a fundamental question that gets less attention, is whether nuclear plants can even be constructed fast enough. We need to address emissions urgently, both through reducing demand and meeting supply with cleaner alternatives to coal - alternatives that can make an impact within a few years. (In some European nations the electricity generated from wind rose from <1% to almost 10% in just the past few years.)

Recently I've noticed a growing amount of misrepresentation here about how quickly new nuclear reactors could come online in the United States. If you've read the comments here I've seen and gained from them the impression that you could, in say five-six years time, see new American nuclear plants in full commercial operation where there are empty fields right now, ... well, frankly, you've been had. A little mythbusting below the fold...

I read a few interesting coal stories on the web today. Thought they might be of interest to environmentalists here.

To combat climate change, the most important immediate task is reducing our use of fossil fuels. Technology alone won't save us, but innovation is important.

This diary is a roundup of just a few projects where I live (New Zealand) addressing climate change with new technology. It's not meant to be comprehensive, or comparative - it's just a summary of the most interesting local innovations that catch my eye in news here. This diary covers:

• aviation biofuel from algae
• tidal power
• electric vehicle batteries
• wind turbines

In recent diaries on this site I've noticed a number of misleading statements about renewable electricity technology, and wind energy in particular, mostly from pro-nuclear advocates. Of course, this is nothing new, but I've seen particular incorrect statements about wind limitations often enough that it is worth a brief diary to clear up some misconceptions.

Ask some American consumers who profits most from the nation's use of coal, and you may get different answers. Most people would probably say it's the coal mining companies, or the coal-using electric utilities. Neither is close to being the correct answer - but of course, it depends on how we define profit.

This diary takes a look at where coal profits end up, what it means for environmentalists and Democrats, and what we as consumers can do about it.

The Libby issue isn't something I know a lot about and I didn't expect I would ever write a diary on it from nine thousand miles away. But I thought the following foreign perspective opinion piece was worth sharing.

George W. Bush's latest actions on the Libby case are not exactly making a lot of front pages (print or internet) where I live. As I type this (around midday 3 July US time), I've just checked the web sites for two of the most widely read and respected newspapers in the country where I live (The Press and the New Zealand Herald) and could not find the word Libby on the front page or the opinion page at either site.

However, for neighboring Australians who want commentary in their local news, Greg Sheridan at The Australian has come to the rescue.

After reports of child abuse and neglect amid appalling living conditions for native Australian people in some Northern Territory communities, Bush-supporting right-wing Prime Minister John Howard has awoken from a decade of barely recognizing these people's existence with a sudden crackdown on rights and liberties. The new policies are designed more to increase the governments poll numbers than to improve anyone's living conditions. This racism proves there is nothing Mr Howard and clan will not exploit for political gain.

News stories and commentary below the fold.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the impact of air travel in climate change. The aviation contribution to global warming is hard to quantify, since there are key differences in the effect of each greenhouse gas dependent on the altitude at which it is emitted.

Air travel generates more polarized heated debate and misuse of facts than most other industries that produce greenhouse gases. In this diary I'll use recent news articles and statistics in an attempt to provide an objective summary of the current state of aviation emissions and possible future changes.

Coal is the mainstay of American electricity generation. Half the nation's electrical supply comes from burning coal. A common argument that shows up in energy discussions, both on Daily Kos and elsewhere, is that coal mining employs many people. Some claim this as a defense for using coal. Others claim it as a reason why the coal industry has political support.

Like so many things people believe about coal, often with the best of intentions, this is simply another lie the industry has spun. Political support for coal comes from profits and the illusion of jobs.

I was surprised to see a diary with what I believe to be an incorrect and easily refuted claim about rising gas prices briefly make the Recommended list yesterday. Site outages hampered discussion then, so here's my take on the diary and where it fell short.

With a flurry of new articles in the media over the past few days, it's about time for another one of those diaries wherein I round up news from down under relating to climate change. In this edition:

• Drought threatens Australian electricity supply
• Howard govt spending millions on climate change ad campaign
• Australia finds a nuclear waste dump site
• Coal mining company infiltrating protest groups with spies

As an example from overseas of how far coal-burning companies will go to protect their cheap dirty fuel, and how successful environmental group action can be, this diary chronicles the ongoing battle down under between a company that stands alone in clinging to coal and its most vocal opponent.

The company is going to court hoping to prevent local government authorities from being allowed to even think about climate change as a factor when deciding on permits for fossil fuel burning power plants.

This time last week, I posted the diary US gas prices: are you being gouged? It showed that unlike all other post-Katrina price fluctuation which has been very closely matched to world crude prices, the May 2007 gas price rise is a uniquely American event that has broken this correlation.

New prices have now been added to the weekly data sets I used for my graphs and analysis, so here is an update. Since my diary last week, the new weekly mean pump price from the DOE shows a further 4.6% rise in one week, from $3.07 per gallon of May 14 to $3.21 now - but oil prices remain on a par with last year. In short, the May rise continues to be all-American.

Australian citizen and former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks is now back in Australia, at a cost to Aussie taxpayers of more than half a million dollars just for the flights. But the political cost may be far greater for the current Australian government, when voters go to the polls later this year.

How long will it be before the other detainees at Guantanamo, those without western nation passports, can expect fair treatment?

If you have doubts about the potential of wind energy to play a significant role in the transition away from fossil fuels, you may find the following interesting. Below the fold...

The recent rise in the average American gas price seems unusual and out of line with international trends. I've generated a few graphs to investigate, but have no real answers. Is there a legitimate basis for the increase, or are consumers being gouged? Please read on and have your say.