For most Americans, the concept of clean, renewable wind power replacing dirty, non-renewable fossil fuel would be great news.  But not for the anti-clean-energy, pro-fossil-fuel website, the Daily Caller. Here's the Daily Caller's "call" on the story.

As this article clearly demonstrates, the idea that some water supplies are simply too deep to ever be of any use to humans, so there's no harm in contaminating it - with fracking fluids or whatever - turns out to be highly dubious at best.

Yet another example of why we need to switch away from dirty to clean energy.

by Brian Willis

I wanted to highlight MediaMatters' "Myths and Facts About Solar Energy," as it is a superb, thorough, fact-and-logic-based demolition of the major myths about solar energy you frequently see bandied about. Here are the main myths, with the factual refutation headline (note that there's a great deal more detail in the MediaMatters article than just a headline):

At a time when energy and environmental issues are more important than ever, stories like this are truly pitiful.

This story caught our eye, as it highlights what clean energy is up against: an extremely wealthy, powerful , entrenched fossil fuel industry willing to spend whatever it takes to head off the disruptive (to their industry) threat of non-carbon-based energy sources.

Recently, I read a fascinating article on green marketing (Promoting the Value of Sustainably Minded Purchase Behaviors) by Professors Cathy Hartman and Edwin R. Stafford of the Center for the Market Diffusion of Renewable Energy and Clean Technology at Utah State University. The gist of the argument Stafford and Hartman are making is threefold:

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising, but it's still pathetic, that climate denier Bjorn Lomborg is also a cleantech denier.

A new study, described in this article at Ars Technica , is good news for fans of energy efficiency (as we are at Scaling Green). The gist of it is that the energy efficiency "rebound effect" - in which greater energy efficiency actually leads people to squander some or all of the savings - is greatly exaggerated, and that energy efficiency still offers powerful bang for the buck. Here's an excerpt from the Ars Technica article:

At the "Energy All-Stars" event held this past Saturday at U.S. Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC, Energy Secretary Steven Chu talked about the challenges and opportunities relating to energy issues in coming years. I live tweeted the event; here are the tweets on Secretary Chu's talk. Also note the shout-out to Tigercomm President Mike Casey by Undersecretary David Sandalow for helping pull the event together.

Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, speaking to the "Energy All-Stars" event held at Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC this past Saturday, proposes a "Race to the Top"-style program for clean energy. I live tweeted the event; here are my tweets specifically about Gov. Granholm's talk.

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" talks about what space can teach us about climate and the need for cleaner energy during the "Energy All-Stars" event held at Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC this past Saturday. I live tweeted the event; here are my tweets from Bill Nye's talk.

Michael Liebreich, CEO of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, talks about the promise of the clean energy economy during the "Energy All-Stars" event held at U.S. Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC this past Saturday. I live tweeted the event; here are my tweets from Liebreich's superb TED-style presentation.

Whatever your views on hydraulic fracturing, aka "fracking," I think most of us can agree that getting accurate scientific data on the potential impacts of the practice is important. If fracking is safe, we need to know that. If fracking is only safe with careful regulation, we need to know that too. And if fracking poses a threat to our water supplies, we certainly need to know that!  That's why stories like this one are so infuriating.

It would be optimal if clean energy investment increased every single year, but that's probably not totally realistic.  Some years, there are economic problems, policy issues, and other factors that can interfere with the long-term upward trend.  One of those years was 2012.  Still, in spite of significant "headwinds," the overall results weren't too shabby last year.

Sometimes, you pick up the newspaper and you read a story that surprises you, as it was not at all what you expected to hear. Then there are the stories where you sort of scratch your head and ask yourself, "could this be any more obvious?"  Today's New York Times has a perfect example of the latter type of story, on a link between oil sands and cancer. Here's an excerpt.

by Mike Casey

by Brian Willis

Whatever your views on the U.S. budget deficit and how to fix it, I think we can all agree that the source of this deficit is not the miniscule share of federal spending allocated towards energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.   How much money are we talking about?  Click here for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)'s budgets over the past 10 years. What you'll see is that, with the exception of one-time federal "stimulus" spending, EERE's budget has basically stayed in the $1-$2 billion per year range, less than one-thousandth total U.S. federal spending of more than $3 trillion per year. The point is, even if you eliminated every penny spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, etc., it would have essentially no impact whatsoever on the federal budget or budget deficit.

This one qualifies as an instant classic.

Congress has now passed an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), as part of the "fiscal cliff" resolution earlier this week. For those of us who strongly support the expansion of wind energy in this country, extension of the PTC was clearly the right thing for Congress to do. For those opposed to clean energy, however, it was a big mistake.

I don't know if members of the U.S. House of Representatives tend to have dry senses of humor, are a particularly sarcastic/snarky bunch, or simply have a deep appreciation for the absurd and ironic.  Whatever the case may be, this story certainly fits the bill on all counts.

Reading this story, Shell comes across looking like the Keystone Cops in the Arctic.