World’s First Green Bank – 3 Billion Sterling to Lend to Sustainable Projects

 

green-investment-bank-logo

 

 

 

A new banking consciousness has begun!

As Britain heads towards it’s goal to drastically cut its carbon emissions by 2020, thw world’s first green bank will
use at least 80 percent of its capital to fund the Government’s Green Deal.

According to their website — and fabulously snubbing Canada:

In order to meet this green challenge there are ambitious and legally binding targets which the UK must meet.  These are set out in the Kyoto Protocol, the 2008 Climate Change Act and the Energy Bill of 2012.  Building green infrastructure and financing the projects to support this will be fundamental in meeting the targets including:

  • a reduction in green-house gas emissions of 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050;
  • 15% of all energy consumed generated from green sources by 2020; and
  • ‘reduction in waste’ to landfill.

 

Visit The Banks Website!

 

 

The Learners Are The Teachers: The Barefoot College

Barefoot CollegeSanjit “Bunker” Roy’s Barefoot Architects are creating a better future for over 75,000 children in India. And by extension, the rest of the world.

This democracy movement originator Bunker Roy has offers us another way to learn and share with each other and the planet.

The solar powered Barefoot Colleges scattered through out India are lifting people up faster than you can sign-language “grandmother power”.

 

WATCH Barefoot College VIDEO HERE

Car Stops — Go Ahead Use them! It’s not just a Song & Dance

Earth Day is coming up. What are you doing to lower your carbon footprint? Are you eating less meat, buying local, or how about your transportation choices? There’s walking, biking, skating, taking buses, car pooling, hitch-hiking…….. have you ever tried using a Car Stop?

Not just for hitch-hikers, this is a place where you can stand or pull over safely and enjoy a ride-share. It builds community and lowers your carbon footprint.

And if you want to add some more fun to your day. You can learn the song & dance too!

 Watch Car Stop Song & Dance Video Here 

Boom in Mining Rare Earths Poses Mounting Toxic Risks

Courtesy by: Mike Ives. Environment 360

images-2The mining of rare earth metals, used in everything from smart phones to wind turbines, has long been dominated by China. But as mining of these key elements spreads to countries like Malaysia and Brazil, scientists warn of the dangers of the toxic and radioactive waste generated by the mines and processing plants.

In November, the first shipment of raw “rare earth” minerals arrived at an $800 million processing plant on Malaysia’s east coast near the home of Tan Bun Teet. The plant, run by Australia’s Lynas Corporation, has since begun refining the rare earth metals, essential components in wind turbines, hybrid cars, smart phones, cruise missiles, and other high-tech products. Once fully operational, the plant would become the world’s largest processing facility of rare earths, breaking China’s near-monopoly on producing the prized elements.

But Tan and others in the region are concerned that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant, known as LAMP, will be plagued by the severe environmental problems that have been the hallmark of rare earths processing plants in China and, more than two decades ago, in Malaysia itself. The plant lies in an industrial zone atop reclaimed swampland, just 12 miles from Kuantan, a city of 600,000. The chief worry is that the rare earth elements are bound up in mineral deposits with the low-level radioactive element thorium, exposure to which has been linked to an increased risk of developing lung, pancreatic, and other cancers.

“We are not against rare earths processing,” says Tan, a retired schoolteacher who leads a citizens’ group opposed to the plant. “We’re only against the inappropriate choice of site, and the way they’re going to keep the waste.” Tan echoes scientists’ concerns that the plant’s toxic wastewater will leach into groundwater, and that its storage ponds are vulnerable to the monsoons that slam the swampy coastline every autumn.

As global demand has surged in recent years for rare earth elements, fears have grown that China, which accounts for more than 95 percent of rare earths output, will withhold supplies, as it did temporarily two years ago during a dispute with Japan. As a result, across five continents and numerous countries — including the United States, Brazil, Mongolia, and India — rare earth processing projects are being launched or revived. With them comes the potential threats to the environment and human health that have plagued China’s processing sites.

“As the world’s hunger for these elements increases… the waste is going to increase,” says Nicholas Leadbeater, a chemist at the University of Connecticut whose research focuses on developing green technologies. “The more mines there are, the more trouble there’s going to be.” To avoid such problems, Leadbeater says some researchers are now looking into ways of recovering rare earths from existing products, and of manufacturing products capable of running without rare earths. Toyota, for example, is developing an electric motor that does not use rare earths in its battery, as most currently do.

Contrary to their name, the 17 rare earth elements are relatively common — their rarity comes from the labor involved in separating them from surrounding rock. The process requires a cocktail of chemical compounds and produces a “tremendous amount” of solid waste, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. China’s rare earths mines have used only a fraction of the world’s total supply, and substantial untapped reserves are found in Australia, the United States, parts of the former Soviet Union, and other countries. Global demand for rare earths dipped last year on the heels of a speculative bubble, but the EPA said in December there is a “high likelihood” that some of the elements will be in short supply by 2014.

In California, Molycorp Minerals recently reopened a rare earths processing operation that it abandoned in 2002 near Death Valley, after retooling its operation to meet environmental concerns over contaminated groundwater. In Brazil, mining giant Vale is considering whether to process rare earths at a copper mine in the Amazon. India recently agreed to export rare earths to Japan, and a Toyota subsidiary is preparing to mine rare earths in Vietnam. In Greenland, several companies are preparing to mine and process that island’s abundant rare earth resources, which will become more accessible as Greenland’s ice sheet continues to melt.

All of these projects, however, must come to grips with the toxic and radioactive legacy of rare earth mining. Scientists say under-regulated rare earths projects can produce wastewater and tailings ponds that leak acids, heavy metals and radioactive elements into groundwater, and they point out that market pressures for cheap and reliable rare earths may lead project managers to skimp on environmental protections.

In Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase in leukemia and other ailments. The legacy of that project has led many Malaysians to be wary of rare earths mines.

Few independent studies chart the industry’s global ecological fallout. But no country has as many rare earths processing plants, and their attendant environmental problems, as China. Last year, China’s State Council reported that the country’s rare earths operations are causing “increasingly significant” environmental problems. A half century of rare earths mining and processing has “severely damaged surface vegetation, caused soil erosion, pollution, and acidification, and reduced or even eliminated food crop output,” the council reported, adding that Chinese rare earths plants typically produce wastewater with a “high concentration” of radioactive residues.

Bayan-Obo, China’s largest rare earths project, has been operating for more than four decades. According to the Germany-based Institute for Applied Ecology, the site now has an 11-square-kilometer waste pond — about three times the size of New York City’s Central Park — with toxic sludge that contains elevated concentrations of thorium.

China’s lax environmental standards have enabled it to produce rare earths at roughly a third the price of its international competitors, according to a 2010 report on the country’s rare earths industry by the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The report noted that China “has never actually worked out pollutant discharge standards for the rare earth industry.”

Like nuclear power plants, rare earths projects require strict independent auditing in order to prevent environmental damage, according to Peter Karamoskos, a nuclear radiologist and the public’s representative at Australia’s Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. But as the rare earths industry expands to developing countries like Malaysia and Vietnam, such oversight will be unlikely. “A regulator will either be in the pocket of the industry or a government,” he says.

According to Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer at Australia’s Monash University, rare earths mining provides a wide range of economic and social benefits and can be exploited in a responsible way. However, he says no company — including Mitsubishi and Lynas — has managed to set a good example.

Mudd says Lynas decided to process its rare earths in Malaysia rather than Australia, where they are mined, because it received tax incentives. But he says that Lynas hasn’t meaningfully engaged Malaysian communities to hear their concerns. A key problem with the company’s proposals, he adds, is that it never took a baseline sample of the environment before it began operations, making it difficult to gauge the future environmental impacts. “Their approach to solid waste management has been very haphazard,” says Mudd, who has offered unpaid advice to both the company and the activists who oppose its plans.

Lynas executives, including Executive Chairman Nicholas Curtis, say the plant will operate under high environmental standards and will dilute the thorium-tainted waste by mixing it with lime until it is below accepted international concentrations for the radioactive material. The lime mixture will be turned into solid structures that could be used for sea walls or construction materials, Lynas has said, although it remains unclear where those structures would be exported, and whether the process would use all of the plant’s toxic waste. Curtis has said that there is no comparison between his facility and the old Mitsubishi one, which “never should have been built.”

A recently released study of the plant by the Institute for Applied Ecology sketches a less sanguine portrait of the potential environmental impacts.

The study faults a Lynas plan to dispose of wastewater through an open channel rather than a closed pipeline; a refusal by the company to disclose what the plant’s exact chemical byproducts will be; and a temporary waste storage facility that the institute predicts will cause radioactive leakage “even under normal operating conditions.” A Lynas spokesperson from the company’s Australia headquarters did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the next two decades, the plant is expected to produce about 1.2 million metric tons of “residue,” according to 2011 report prepared by Lynas for Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency. It said the plant’s waste will fall within radioactivity limits set by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and may be safely disposed of in “landfill type facilities with limited regulatory control.”

Our high-tech products increasingly make use of rare metals, and mining those resources can have devastating environmental consequences. But if we block projects like the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, Oswald J. Schmitz and Thomas E. Graedelwrite, are we simply forcing mining activity to other parts of the world where protections may be far weaker?

The waste, however, will emit low levels of carcinogenic radioactivity for centuries, according to scientists. The International Atomic Energy Association recommended in 2011 that Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency grant Lynas an operating license only after it submits a permanent decommissioning plan. Unlike Australia, Malaysia is not a party to the IAEA’s legally binding 2001 convention governing appropriate and safe disposal of radioactive waste.

For most of last year, Lynas was locked in court battles against retired schoolteacher Tan Bun Teet and his grassroots coalition “Save Malaysia, Stop Lynas!,” which challenged the government’s January decision to grant the company a temporary operating license. This fall, Lynas finally won its temporary operating license after clearing legal appeals, and Tan says the first truckload of rare earths from the company’s Australia mine rolled into its new Malaysia refinery on November 30 under police escort. But four Malaysian cabinet ministers warned in December that the company must export the radioactive waste from its new plant or risk losing its license.

Tan Bun Teet and his fellow activists, whose street protests in the Malaysian capital have faced tear gas and water cannons, are keeping up their legal fight by filing new appeals. Tan is especially concerned that the 247-acre Lynas plant sits atop reclaimed wetland that is prone to flooding and lies only about two miles from the South China Sea. The area receives about 10 feet of rainfall per year, and recent monsoon rains left the area drenched.

“We are worried,” he says. “We don’t want our environment to be destroyed as it was in China.”

Bad News: The North Pole Could Be Open to Shipping Very, Very Soon

Courtesy by: Kristina Chew. Care 2

images-3By the middle of this century, the North Pole could be open for routine shipping traffic. It’s yet another sign of how global warming is changing the world.

The melting of the sea ice in the arctic at a faster rate than forecast has meant that people have already been developing routes through Canada’s Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route above the coast of Russia. Such routes would significantly lessen the amount of time and fuel — as much as 18 days and 580 tons of bunker fuel — currently needed to transport goods between Asia and both Europe and North America. Shipowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Emphasizing how much the thickness and extent of late summer has shrunk in just the past seven years, UCLA geographers Laurence C. Smith and Scott R. Stephenson predict (via computer modeling) that, by 2050, ordinary vessels and some that are only moderately ice-strengthened — equipped to break through the ice — should be able to pass over the North Pole and most likely in September, when the sea ice is at its smallest extent.

Last year, 46 ships went through the trans-Arctic passage. To do so, they had to be accompanied by ice-strengthened ships from Russia at a considerable cost. The moderately ice-strengthened ships are known as Polar Class 6 or PC6 vessels. As John Timmer explains on Ars Technica, PC6 vessels are specifically built to “withstand transit through first-year ice (ice that froze during the previous winter).”

Under current climate prediction models, the sea ice will have melted so much that, by mid-century, PC6 vessels can use the Northern Sea Route in any year. Ships will be able to go directly over the pole from Europe to Asia annually, on a route that is shorter from those going through the Suez or Panama canals.

As Wired UK points out, this is a fabulous develop for commercial shipping and for companies wanting to explore and harness the yet-untapped natural resources — oil — of the Arctic.

But there’s no question that all this could spell simple disaster for the unique ecosystems of the Arctic and the rich wildlife, animal and plant, that lives there. Earlier studies have already shown that an increase in arctic shipping poses a risk to marine mammals and would also affect the local communities who rely on these animals for food security and cultural identity.

In addition, Smith and Stephenson note that the opening of the Arctic for shipping could spell geopolitical conflict among Russia, Canada, the U.S. and other countries, reopening disputes about boundaries and territory.

The scientists emphasize that we need to start now to develop “comprehensive international regulations that provide adequate environmental protections, vessel safety standards and search-and-rescue capability.” Rampant development of industries using fossil fuels has already warmed up our planet by degrees never imagined. Knowing how human activity has destroyed and is damaging wildlife and the environment, we need to start now to create responsible regulations to preserve the resources, beauty and life of the Arctic, which is, as Smith says, “a fragile and dangerous place.”

Extremely Loud

Courtesy by: Maureen Nandini Mitra. Earth Island Journal

Unknown-2When I last visited Kolkata, India, after a long period of living in the relatively quiet hills of Berkeley, CA, my ears were assaulted by the cacophony of traffic noise from the street outside my parents’ apartment. The daily discordant orchestra of blaring horns, squealing brakes, shouting vendors, and loudspeakers blasting religious songs would start in the wee hours of the morning and go late into the night. It felt like torture: I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t concentrate on what I was reading, I couldn’t hold a conversation without raising my voice. The din of my increasingly congested birth city seemed to have risen in volume over the years.

This rising din isn’t just a problem in jam-packed India. Across the world – as our numbers swell, as nations get more urbanized, and societies become more technology-dependent – we humans are getting noisier. “Among environmental factors in Europe, environmental noise leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution,” says a 2011 World Health Organization report. In the United States, noise is now the number one neighborhood complaint, beating out crime and traffic, according to the American Housing Survey conducted by the US Census. There have been incidents of noise conflicts leading to violence and even murder.

So loud and persistent are the sounds we create as we go about the business of living that researchers say there is scarcely any place left on land or water that is free of man-made noise. We have changed what our planet sounds like. Yet there seems to be little understanding of just how seriously noise is threatening our natural world – and us. “It’s like this unrecognized growing tsunami of potential impacts; we are growing louder and louder and no one is noticing,” says Dr. Mike Webster, director of Cornell University’s Macaulay Library, the world’s oldest archive of biodiversity audio and video recordings.

There are reams of research showing that noise – commonly defined as unwanted or unpleasant sound – is not merely an annoyance. Like other forms of pollution, it has wide-ranging adverse health, social, and environmental effects.

In humans, noise pollution damages hearing, disturbs communication, disrupts sleep, affects heart function, intrudes on cognition in children, reduces productivity, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents. “To say noise simply annoys people is to underestimate the effect it has on our mental and physical well-being,” says Manhattan-based psychologist and noise expert Dr. Arline Bronzaft, whose 1970s research on the effects of noise on children’s learning is considered a landmark in the field. Bronzaft points out that noise pollution has as much to do with persistent low frequency sounds and vibrations – such as those emitted by wind turbines, ventilation systems, or electronic devices – as loud and jarring sounds.

The effect of manmade noise is far more profound on the fragile and complex sound systems of the natural world. Oceans, forests, grasslands, and deserts all have their own internal harmonies. Their unique soundscapes carry important messages for marine and terrestrial animals. When humans interrupt those harmonies, birds and animals can suffer.

“In a natural environment, animal voices are created in such a way that each group of critters can hear each other,” says musician and naturalist Bernie Krause, who has spent four decades recording sounds of the biological world, which he calls “biophony.” Krause found that animals divide up the acoustic spectrum so that “birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals all find their own niches, their own bandwidths to vocalize in” so that when they issue mating calls or cry out warnings, their voices aren’t masked by the sounds being made by other animals. Human noise, which Krause calls “anthrophony,” disrupts this natural symphony. “The critters have to find new bandwidths they can vocalize in,” he says, “and when they do that it becomes very chaotic and has a great impact on them and causes great stress.”

Biologists have found that some birds in urban areas are finding it hard to hear each other and their young, which impairs chicks’ growth, as they are less likely to be fed, leading to a decline in their numbers. In forests and deserts and plains a range of animals from gleaning bats to frogs to the endangered pronghorns in Arizona’s Sonoran desert are abandoning their habitats in order to escape the noise of chainsaws and low-flying jets. The situation might be even worse under water. Ocean noise has been increasing by about three decibels every decade in the past 50 years due to sonar blasts by navies, shots from air guns used in deep-sea oil and gas exploration, and the thrum of cruise and freight ships. The cacophony disorients and sometimes leads to the death of marine animals, especially whales and dolphins, that rely on their acute and highly specialized hearing for communication, navigation, and detecting predators.

As even the most remote forests and the deepest depths of the oceans are invaded by humanity’s rumble, our world’s natural sound rhythms are going mute. Krause says: “A great silence is spreading over the natural world even as the sound of man is becoming deafening.”

Stay tuned for an in-depth audio report on noise pollution by the Journal and Making Contact at www.radioproject.org.

Can the new EPA chief stop Obama approving the Keystone XL pipeline?

Courtesy by: Richard Schiffman. The Guardian. 

images-1Environmentalists got some bad news when the State Department released a report on Friday – a full month earlier than had been anticipated – saying that there are no convincing environmental reasons that the Keystone XL pipeline should not be built.

This just two weeks after thousands of demonstrators gathered at the National Mall for what has been called the largest climate rally ever. Environmental groups have joined in a rare united front to block the pipeline. If built, activists predict that the pipeline will hugely increase greenhouse gas emissions and reverse the progress that has been made in recent years toward switching to renewable sources of energy.

The usually measured Sierra Club president, Michael Brune, called last week’s State Department report “nothing short of malpractice”, and suggested that the president toss it in the garbage. In an email interview, 350.org spokesperson Daniel Kessler characterized the pipeline as “a boondoggle perpetuated by monied interests” whose impact on the climate would be “horrific”.

But there has been a lot of pressure on the administration from the fossil fuel industry to ratify the pipeline. According to Marty Durbin, executive vice-president of the American Petroleum Institute:

“The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality.”

A little over a month ago, Nebraska’s Republican governor, Dave Heineman, removed a major hurdle to the construction of Keystone when he approved a new path for the pipeline – one that avoids the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region. President Obama had rejected an earlier route because of the state’s objections, and the dangers of a spill to underground water in the critical Ogallala aquifer.

Obama’s decision on the pipeline will be seen as a litmus test of the direction which he will take on the environment in his second term. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat, Rhode Island) said that last month’s historic climate rally was intended to “get the fellow in the White House to follow up on the wonderful things he’s said in speeches recently and put a really strong regulatory regime in.”

But if Friday’s report is any indication of the administration thinking, the president may be preparing to give the controversial pipeline the green light. While the 2,000-word document makes no policy recommendations, it does give Obama a degree of political cover should he decide – as seems increasingly likely – to approve the project: the pipeline that would bring 800,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf coast.

The State Department document claims that “the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands.” Many outside observers disagree, saying that if Keystone were nixed by the administration, it would significantly slow the exploitation of the Canadian tar sand reserves. Alternate pipeline routes, which would take the oil to ports in Canada, have faced fierce opposition in British Columbia, and would undoubtedly be challenged in court.

Some environmentalists were encouraged by the president’s nomination Monday of Gina McCarthy for the post of EPA administrator, to replace the outgoing Lisa Jackson. McCarthy served as a top official in charge of air quality at the EPA and has the reputation of being a fighter for tougher environmental standards.

She is expected to face resistance from congressional Republicans and the coal industry, which have consistently opposed regulations. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, told me:

“The Gina McCarthy pick is outstanding. The question is: what support the president will give her.”

Some observers believe that Lisa Jackson decided to leave her post as head of the EPA because the administration failed to back her efforts to draft stronger ozone limits and emissions standards for power plants. As I reported in the Guardian in January, there was also speculation that Jackson, an opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, resigned because the president had already decided to approve the project.

The president is expected to announce his final decision on Keystone XL pipeline in the Spring. If it is true that his mind is already made up – to approve it – there may be little that Gina McCarthy, or Secretary of State John Kerry (who is known as a “climate hawk”), can do to change the administration’s course.

Shell faces damages over Nigeria oil spill

Courtesy by: Al Jazeera

2012101153834415734_20Dutch court upholds just one out of five allegations by Niger Delta farmers against the oil company.

A court in the Netherlands has ruled that Royal Dutch Shell can be held partially responsible for pollution in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region and ordered it to pay damages to one farmer.

The court dismissed on Wednesday 30th of January  four out of five allegations against the oil company. The amount of damages to be paid was to be announced at a later date.

Activists say the case could set a precedent for damage claims related to the foreign activities of multinational companies.

Four Nigerians and interest group Friends of the Earth filed the suit in 2008 in The Hague, where Shell has its joint global headquarters, seeking unspecified reparations for lost income from contaminated land and waterways in the Niger Delta.

The Nigerians – fishermen and farmers – said they could no longer feed their families because the region had been polluted by oil from Shell’s pipelines and production facilities.

The pollution is a result of oil spills in 2004, 2005 and 2007, they said.

“The significance of the case is that at least there is an international agreement, if you like, in an international space where money and corruption do not come to play the way it does in Nigeria,” Annkio Briggs, a Niger Delta activist, told Al Jazeera’s Yvonne Ndege in Port Harcourt.

“This is a great victory even though we still have the issues of the other ones that have been thrown out. It is very important for us and very encouraging that we will have to take these cases outside of Nigeria for Nigerians to have justice.

“Ironically we have to take the cases out to the counties where these oil companies come from. So it shows what we’ve been saying for years – that oil companies are doing [things in Nigeria] illegally what they will never dare to do anywhere else in the world.”

Corporate fears

Al Jazeera’s Simon McGregor-Wood, reporting from the Hague, said: “There will be a bit of a shiver going through the corporate world because all along the environmental companies have been arguing that companies like Shell do not necessarily act with the same level of responsibility in places like Nigeria which are a long way from home.

“When things go wrong, when there are these catastrophic pollutions or these systematic pollutions occur, they are not as quick to clear up as if a tanker would spill its oil off the channel for the coast of Netherlands,” he added.

“It was the idea of this case to set the precedent that these big companies have to take care wherever they are operating in the world,” McGregor-Wood said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Channa Samkalden, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Nigerian farmers, said:  “Overall it’s actually quite a good outcome for us.

“At least Shell was held liable for one of the cases. That’s a good start. Also, a very important fact is that the court has said that Shell has a duty to take measures to prevent sabotage, which is of course a principal issue.”

It is the first time a Dutch-registered company has been sued in a domestic court for offences allegedly carried out by a foreign subsidiary.

The suit targets Shell’s parent company in the Netherlands and its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Co (SPDC). It is the largest oil and gas company in Nigeria, Africa’s top energy producer, with an output of more than one million barrels of oil or equivalent per day.

Health Study Articles on the Effects of Coal Mining

Courtesy of ovec.org

OVEC Fact Sheets

Health Study Articles on the Effects of Coal Mining

 

Wind Beats Out Natural Gas To Become Top Source Of New Electricity Capacity For 2012 | ThinkProgress

By Jeff Spross on Jan 22, 2013 at 4:30 pm Thinkprogress.org

Through June of 2012, renewable energywas right behind natural gas in terms of the most new energy generating capacity being installed in the United States, with wind making up most of the renewables push. And now Business Insider has flagged the numbers for the remainder of the year.

Last week, they reported that wind ultimately pulled ahead of natural gas to become the leading installer of new capacity in 2012, at 10,689 total megawatts.

Those numbers came from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s report on the trends and highlights in U.S. energy for the past year. According to FERC’s update, natural gas installed 8,746 megawatts of new capacity, coal installed 4,510 new megawatts, and solar came in fourth with 1,476 new megawatts. Here’s the relevant table from the report, conveniently highlighted by Business Insider:

One thing to note here is the issue of capacity factor: That’s how much power an installation actually produces as a percentage of its theoretical capacity. (Which is what’s listed in the table.) Natural gas plants do quite well in this regard: Their median performance tends to come out to at least 80 percent, and they max out at 93 percent, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s cost database.

Unfortunately, wind power doesn’t perform as well, due to the intermittency of, well, wind. Its median tends to be around 40 percent offshore. Onshore it’s been at 30 percent, though arguably onshore performance is pulling alongside offshore. And both max out at 50 to 54 percent. So even though wind beat out natural gas for new capacity in 2012, the new natural gas installation will almost certainly wind up generating more total electricity.

The good news for wind is that it’s still a relatively young technology, with lots of room to improve. The energy it does deliver is produced much more efficiently in comparison to natural gas — the former loses less than one percent of its energy as waste heat, while the latter can lose as much as 54 percent. Natural gas production in the U.S. may be on track to plateau, leading to predictions of rising prices, which will give wind power a further economic opening.

And, of course, there’s the fact that, while cleaner than coal, natural gas remains a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions both through leaks and combustion.

UPDATE

As it turns out, this post’s math was unjustly critical of wind energy. The numbers for capacity are theoretical, but as as an email commenter pointed out, the numbers for capacity utilization are theoretical as well.

So how have wind and natural gas actually performed? Well, in 2010, nameplate capacity for natural gas was 467.2 gigawatts, and 39.5 gigawatts for wind. That same year, natural gas generated 987,700 gigawatthours and wind generated 94,700 gigawatthours. Multiply the capacities by the 8760 hours in a year, and what you get is natural gas produced 24.1 percent of its nameplate capacity in 2010, and wind produced 27.4 percent.

Now, a lot of “peaker” power plants — ones intended to only operate during hours of peak electricity demand — are gas-fired. Around half the natural gas plants in the country probably fall into this camp, which will dramatically skew natural gas’ capacity utilization to the low end. So factor in peakers and natural gas still probably beats out wind, but by less than our piece implied.