The moment is approaching when our nation must decide how it’s going to power the future. The importance of renewable energy to the nation becomes clear as Congress turns its attention to energy policy this fall, as we examine the importance of true energy independence and security more closely, and as we continue our work on rebuilding the economy and job creation.

Experience has taught us that investment in the renewable-energy economy is creating jobs across all employment sectors, including construction, engineering, operations, technology and professional services, in both rural and urban communities. Greater use of renewable energy also will allow the country to prolong its current power-generation resources while developing new generation technologies to ensure a secure and homegrown supply of energy.

We, as a nation, have been waiting for the moment when a true balance between environmental concerns, economic benefits and energy needs is in view. I believe that moment has arrived.

At the national level, we’ve moved toward this balance by deploying powerful tools, such as tax incentives to support investment in renewable-energy projects and grants to encourage innovation in clean-coal technologies. The wind industry has utilized a production tax credit, which has helped the industry see steady growth this decade. I support the continued use of those tools as a way to spur investment in our communities and create sorely needed jobs.

In Kansas and the lower Midwest, our local utilities have designed and are constructing an electric transmission system that ensures greater reliability for our residents, offers access to competitively priced power, and dramatically increases our ability to move renewable energy across the country.

Other private companies are working to develop renewable-energy highways — dedicated transmission lines — that can transport thousands of megawatts of renewable energy from the Midwest to population centers in the East, thereby providing access to clean, reliable and affordable energy for millions of customers.

The Grain Belt Express Clean Line, which will deliver 3,500 megawatts of low-cost, renewable energy from western Kansas to southeastern Missouri and points farther east, is a great example of such a project.

A combination of events in Kansas has driven the cost of wind energy to historic lows. We have 1,100 megawatts of operational wind and are on track to more than double that number by the end of 2012.

Wind energy makes a compelling economic case with new installed wind prices dropping from around 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour or lower, while turbine technology increases capacity factors to about 50 percent or more. We’ve increased transmission capacity, constructing more than 1,000 new miles of high-voltage electric transmission.

The price of Kansas wind is now competitive with the traditional sources of energy, and you can get guaranteed rates for the next 20 years.

Kansans have a proud history of meeting the needs of the world. We export wheat to feed the hungry and machines that can fly to make the world a smaller place. The time has come for us to export clean, reliable and affordable wind energy to the nation.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/09/11/2011116/gov-sam-brownback-wind-offers.html#ixzz1YcOlalg7

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Kansas utility regulators have approved the route of a $300 million high-voltage power line that is meant to boost the state’s wind-energy industry.

The Kansas Corporation Commission on Tuesday approved the 122-mile “V” route in southwest Kansas that will stretch from near Spearville to east of Medicine Lodge. The decision was the last regulatory hurdle and clears the way for buying land along the route.

Construction is planned to begin in 2013 with the line going into service in 2014.

“The V-Plan will improve electric reliability and enable energy developers to tap into the transmission grid, further establishing a competitive energy market in the state,” Carl Huslig, an executive with ITC Great Plains, said in a statement. “This will contribute to a more robust transmission grid that will benefit Kansas and the entire region.”

ITC Great Plains is a subsidiary of ITC Holdings, a Michigan company that operates several high-voltage lines in the Midwest. The Kansas line is being built with local utility partners Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Mid-Kansas Electric Co.

The regulatory decision follows the commission’s recent approval of a $200 million high-voltage line that will hook into the V line at Medicine Lodge and run to Oklahoma. That line will help export wind energy to other states and is being built by Prairie Wind Transmission, which has Westar Energy as a partner.

Kansas officials have pushed for the lines to be built to help revive the state’s wind energy industry, which has limited avenues to send power to other states.

The lines also have attracted critics, who raised concerns about their rising costs. The line to be built by Prairie Wind Transmission has seen its cost double, in part because of a change in the route to avoid the habitat of the little prairie chicken. Utility customers in several states including Kansas and Missouri will foot the bill.

The V route approved Tuesday by the KCC includes minor changes from the original route because of concerns of some landowners. The route travels through Ford, Clark, Kiowa and Barber counties.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

A Houston company is in the early stages of planning one of the largest energy infrastructure projects the Midwest has seen in years — a $1.7 billion high-voltage transmission line connecting Kansas wind farms with consumers in St. Louis and throughout the Ohio River Valley.

The so-called Grain Belt Express transmission line, named to evoke images of train hopper cars rolling across the Plains, would stretch 550 miles from southwestern Kansas to southeastern Missouri. It would be capable of moving 3,500 megawatts of electricity — roughly enough to power 3.5 million homes — to eastern Missouri, Southern Illinois and beyond.

The project is being driven by renewable energy demand, more specifically state mandates that have been approved by voters and legislatures including Missouri and Illinois. The goal in each case is to replace coal-fired power with cleaner energy supplies.

While there is solar energy potential anywhere the sun shines, and renewable fuels such as biomass are getting more traction, wind power is eyed as the renewables workhorse.

“The trick is you’ve got to move it from windy parts of the country to where the population centers are,” said Mark Lawlor, director of development for Clean Line Energy Partners LLC, the company planning the project.

That describes the logic behind the Grain Belt Express line. Western Kansas is among the areas with the nation’s best wind energy potential, but development of new projects has stalled somewhat because that area is already awash in wind power.

Developers there are lining up to build new wind farms, representing thousands of megawatts. Projects have been permitted and land has been leased, but work won’t go forward without additional transmission infrastructure, he said.

Lawlor said the existing transmission grid lacked capacity to move Kansas wind power to eastern Missouri. A similar challenge faces wind farm developers in Iowa, northern Illinois and elsewhere. Even if capacity was available on existing lines, it would be difficult logistically — the equivalent of driving 500 miles on winding, two-lane country roads.

ENERGY SUPERHIGHWAY

The answer, according to Clean Line Energy, is a large-scale transmission project, an electron superhighway spanning the better part of two states with no off-ramps between the start and end points.

“We want to do it on a large scale to keep the overall cost of the power at a minimum,” Lawlor said.

Besides scale, the key to making the project viable is direct current technology.

The Grain Belt Express line will look much like existing alternating current transmission lines crisscrossing the country, but the planned high-voltage DC line is preferable for moving large amounts of power long distances. Such lines are more efficient, reliable and economical, Lawlor said. They also require narrower rights of way and smaller towers.

Such DC transmission lines are rare, but not new. Twenty already operate in the United States, the company said.

The Grain Belt Express line will originate near Spearville, Kan., and stretch across southern Missouri to a St. Francois County substation, where it will connect with Ameren facilities. A specific route hasn’t been chosen. If all goes as planned, construction could begin as soon as 2014 and be complete by 2016, Lawlor said.

Developers have a lot of work to do in the meantime. They need approval from federal and state regulators. Then there’s siting and permitting issues and negotiations with land owners, who often object to the installation of infrastructure many consider unsightly.

“We’re spending a tremendous amount of time up front to identify a route that has the least impact,” Lawlor said.

’TOLL ROAD’

Clean Line Energy applied in March with the Kansas Corporation Commission to be approved as a public utility in the state. The company is expected to seek permission from the Missouri Public Service Commission next year.

Lawlor said the project would be privately financed and ultimately paid for by utilities, their customers, other wholesale power buyers and renewable energy generators that buy capacity on the line. Rates will be set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Clean Line Energy would maintain the line, but it would be controlled by a regional grid operator.

Who pays for intrastate transmission projects is frequently a thorny issue. Clean Line Energy seeks to avoid such disputes because only transmission customers will pay for it.

“This is like a toll road,” he said. “You don’t pay for it if you don’t use it.”

To help sell the project, Clean Line says the project will be an economic boon for Kansas and Missouri, stimulating $7 billion in new wind power projects and hundreds of permanent jobs in western Kansas and thousands of construction jobs along the entire route, according to a study prepared for the company by St. Louis-based Development Strategies.

Of course, any economic benefit is secondary to the main purpose of the project, to accommodate growing renewable energy demand without breaking the bank.

The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory said last year in a technical study that the eastern half of the country — an area that’s home to 70 percent of the population — could get at least 20 percent of electricity from wind power by 2024, but it would require tens of billions of dollars in new transmission infrastructure.

PENT UP DEMAND

The study underscored the fact that wind development has outpaced transmission infrastructure, prompting new companies to sprout up to help satisfy a backlog of demand. Those companies include independent transmission developers such as Clean Line Energy as well as utilities such as Ameren, which have formed transmission subsidiaries.

Ameren announced last year a $1.3 billion series of transmission projects spanning more than 500 miles in Illinois. The Illinois projects, collectively referred to as the Grand Rivers projects, is aimed at least partly at moving wind power to the east.

“Ameren is working closely with Clean Line Energy to reliably integrate their project into the transmission system,” said Maureen Borkowski, CEO of the Ameren subsidiary. “We believe it will mesh well with Ameren Transmission’s plans.”

Ameren Transmission plans to target Missouri for its next initiative, but nothing has been announced publicly.

Clean Line Energy is owned by Ziff Brothers Investments LLC and Michael Zilkha of Houston, who previously owned Horizon Wind Energy LLC. Several former Horizon executives are part of the company’s senior management.

The Grain Belt Express project is one of four long-haul transmission projects the company is developing.

———

To see more of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.stltoday.com.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1341490

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

IN THE SEARCH FOR OPTIMAL ELECTRICAL power delivery methods, one solution would be to move key conversion points upstream, a little nearer the source.

In looking for savings in our electrical power systems, little attention has been paid to the architecture of power delivery. The hub-and-spoke relationship we have with our electricity provider has been in place since the beginning of electrical service and some updating is in order.

Our uses for electricity have changed a great deal over the last 50 years and yet little has been done to support those changes through the design of our power systems. What’s the greatest change? On the load side of the power equation, it’s undeniably the rise and near domination of the semiconductor. On the source side of the power equation, the sustained high demand for clean, renewable sources of electricity epitomized by solar represents a sea change of what’s possible. These two contemporary trends present an opportunity, and it is no coincidence that each sits squarely in the direct current domain.

These two trends do not change the economics of long distance AC transmission and distribution lines. But they do strongly suggest that over shorter distances, in buildings for example, AC may have already served its purpose by bringing us to where we are today, but that DC should be the current that takes us further still.

The majority of our devices today use DC, so let’s give it to them. Using a DC distribution circuit for a building brings many benefits such as better compatibility with renewables and battery storage, greater safety and higher efficiency no matter what the type of power input.

By moving the point of conversion of AC to DC from the device to a little farther upstream closer to the source, we can capture conversion efficiencies that cost too much to provide for loads as small as your cell phone charger. The conventional wisdom is that consumers won’t pay for higher-efficiency power conversion. But that’s changing. If you have 15 power supplies turning AC into DC in your house, it’s quite likely the average efficiency of those devices is about 70 percent. If instead those devices were optimized around a common DC input like 24-volt DC, we could achieve 90 or 95 percent efficiency.

An even more striking improvement is evident when a local DC source such as solar PV is used, avoiding the AC-to-DC conversion step altogether.

The market is starting to turn this way. There are about 70 companies working to promulgate the DC standards needed for this vision to take hold through the EMerge Alliance (www.emergealliance.org).

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Yesterday morning, I spoke at a charity brunch in Northern Virginia.

The brunch was actually part of a benefit to raise money for a local youth organization that’s working to build an organic garden and greenhouse for low-income families.

It wasn’t a big event… No local politicians or big media names. Mostly it was just concerned citizens, quite a few church-going folks, and a handful of local businesses.

As an advocate of local, organic agriculture, I was happy to help.

My presentation focused on the economic and security benefits of local, organic agriculture. And of course, I was essentially preaching to the choir.

However, during the Q&A I quickly found myself on the defensive after I was asked about my thoughts on the death of cap-and-trade.

I didn’t sugar coat it. I basically told the crowd that I’ve always seen cap-and-trade as nothing more than a very complex solution to a pretty simple problem. And I was happy to see it die on the vine.

That didn’t sit too well.

But I really got an earful when I suggested a few minutes later that we stop trying to force carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on coal-fired power plant operators…

A tragic waste of taxpayer dollars

While coal is not going away anytime soon, there is no doubt that by the end of the century, it will not be an economically viable source of power generation.

One reason is simply due to the basic fundamentals of supply and demand.

In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences released a report indicating the United States probably only has enough coal to meet our needs for about 100 years.

And according to the Energy Watch Group, in terms of energy content, the U.S. actually passed its peak of coal production in 1998. As was referenced in our book, Investing in Renewable Energy:

The distinction is based on the fact that various types of coal contain different amounts of energy. Anthracite (also known as black coal) from Appalachia and Illinois has 30 megajoules of energy per kilogram, but it has long been a tiny fraction of our overall coal production, and has been in decline for over half a century.

Our supposedly vast reserves are mainly of lower-quality bituminous coal, delivering 18 to 29 megajoules of energy per kilogram, and subbituminous coal and lignite, delivering a mere 5 to 25 megajoules of energy per kilogram.

It’s also important that we don’t disregard the simple fact that new, more sophisticated energy technologies are being developed at light speed.

By the time we’re halfway through our coal budget, solar will be insanely cheap, storage technologies will be abundant and new transmission and infrastructure will be in place to move many, many megawatts of wind and geothermal power…

So why, when we know that coal’s reign cannot possibly last beyond this century, would we spend billions of dollars to make it “cleaner”?

Spending money on CCS is like buying an FM converter for a new car that’s already equipped with an AM/FM radio, CD player, Bluetooth, MP3 jack and satellite radio…

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, there are better ways to do it.

But what about climate change?

As the crowd turned on me yesterday afternoon, I heard those words uttered over and over again.

What about climate change?

Listen, if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, the solution is not a forced cap-and-trade law — but rather something that the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently wrote in its 2010 World Energy Outlook.

According to the IEA, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 could cut carbon emissions by 6 percent. It could also cut global energy demand by up to 5 percent, enhance energy security, and bring economic benefits.

IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said, “Getting the prices right, by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, is the single most effective measure to cut energy demand in countries where they persist, while bringing other immediate economic benefits.”

By the way, in 2009, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $312 billion. If no action is taken, those subsidies are projected to hit $600 billion!

Of course, the IEA report didn’t send alternative energy stocks soaring or fossil fuel stocks tumbling…

But it did give us one more piece of evidence that the solution to our energy security problems, many of our energy-related economic burdens and climate change concerns starts with the eradication of fossil fuel subsidies.

It’s coming, my friends. The cat’s out of the bag, and free market thinkers are circling. The transition of our energy economy is coming.

We can either embrace it, or we can fall victim to it.

As investors, the latter is not an option. The former will continue to make us rich!

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth…

Jeff

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

A major Midwest utility, Ameren, said Monday that it had created a new subsidiary to build transmission lines in Missouri and Illinois that will bring more wind power onto the grid – not to mention coal power, from clean to conventional.

Saying that it was encouraged by a law enacted in June in Illinois that is supposed to streamline the approval process,  Ameren, based in St. Louis, said it had $3 billion in potential new power lines in its sights. Financing will be easier to secure under this new structure, said Maureen Borkowski, who was named president and chief executive of the new subsidiary, the Ameren Transmission Company. Creation of a new utility to specialize in transmission is an unusual step, but Ms. Borkowski said that creating a new company that is a “transparent entity in the marketplace” would help it attract capital.

The Midwest Independent System Operator, the grid within which Ameren lies, has 5,000 megawatts of wind projects that want to be connected, she said. If wind is added to the grid in large quantities, the company’s 64,000-square-mile territory will become a thoroughfare for that energy, she said.

But the existing system is congested, she said, meaning that cheap electricity is kept out of the market at times because there is no way to get it to where it is needed, and more expensive generators are run instead. Often, that cheap electricity is from coal; this situation is common in the United States.

In addition, Ameren’s projects would connect to two planned coal plants that would capture the carbon dioxide they emit — Futuregen and the Taylorville Energy Center — and a conventional coal plant now under construction, thePrairie State Energy Campus. And the lines would link to Ameren’s existingGrand Tower plant on the Mississippi River, which was built in 1924 to run on coal but now uses natural gas.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

This public resource planning process that Tri-State is undergoing was brought about as part of a settlement agreement primarily involving the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, Colorado Governor Ritter’s office, Western Resource Advocates, and Tri-State, whereby an existing docket to consider PUC regulation of Tri-State was closed without action in exchange for this public resource planning process.

The process is non-binding; that is, Tri-State is not obligated to accept any of the recommendations or answer public questions, but it does provide a forum for important public information and scrutiny of Tri-State’s resource planning.

Tri-State has no member coops in Kansas, so why is the resource planning process of a Colorado-based rural electric coop of interest or importance to Kansans?

Recall that it was in response to an RFP for baseload capacity from Tri-State that Sunflower Electric (in Kansas) let their permit for the 660mw Sand Sage project expire (after the initial granting and an extension) and began the process of putting together the current plan to build three huge additional coal plants at Holcomb for out-of-state utilities.  So far as we know (the details have not been discussed since rural electric coops do not have to allow public or regulatory review of their plans) Tri-State would be the equity owner of 80% of the electric power produced by the proposed 895mw coal-fired plant at the Holcomb Station, and they would own 80% of the equity value of the plant.  Beyond that, not much is known about the details of the business arrangement between Tri-State and Sunflower regarding the proposed plant, or any future development at Holcomb.

We do know that Tri-State reps recently acknowledged in one of the public meetings that they currently have developed no transmission plans for Holcomb – which seems to be at odds with claims by Sunflower and Holcomb supporters in Kansas that the plant is critical to transmission for wind energy.  That fact is also seemingly not in compliance with the settlement agreement between the Governor and Sunflower, which calls for transmission to be built.

Tri-State is also on record stating that they do not see the Holcomb coal plant as a near term baseload solution under any circumstances, which again, is at odds with claims by Sunflower and Kansas coal supporters that the plants will start construction within a year and employ people to combat the recession.

And, Tri-State’s own load forecasts acknowledge that they do not have near-term need for the baseload capacity represented by the proposed Kansas coal plant.

Yet, their 2009 annual report shows that they have spent $51.3 million, excluding the cost of land and water rights, developing the units at Holcomb as of December 31, 2009.

So, what’s currently happening at the Tri-State public resource planning meetings (and the ultimate outcome of their resource planning process) will have a tremendous impact upon Kansans, since the fate of the proposed 895mw coal-fired plant, and the possible addition of two more huge coal plants as part of the proposed Holcomb Station expansion, may be impacted.

Even if you can’t attend the May 19th meeting near Denver, Kansans can register and participate in the public meeting via webinar here.

Scott Allegrucci

Executive Director

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Energy company OG&E has energized a new $200 million transmission line it says will open up a “vital parthway” for wind power generators in northwestern Oklahoma.

The 345-kilovolt “Windspeed” transmission line runs for 121 miles from Woodward to Oklahoma City.

It connects in to OG&E’s new high-voltage substation near Woodward where it links in with the existing grid.

Oklahoma Gas & Electric, a subsidiary of NYSE-listed OGE Energy Corp, said its new substation at Woodward would serve as a “renewable energy hub” as more and more wind farms are developed in the area.

“This is an important milestone in the ongoing development of renewable energy in our state,” said Pete Delaney, OGE Energy Corp. chairman, president and CEO.

“The new line supports a more robust build out of Oklahoma’s wind potential; producing revenue for landowners, creating jobs, increasing tax revenues in northwestern Oklahoma, and delivering renewable energy to Oklahoma consumers.”

The Windspeed transmission project was originally approved by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission back in 2008.

Steel structures for the transmission project were provided by Valmont Industries, based in Omaha, Nebraska.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment considers the new air quality permit request for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895mw coal-fired power plant, and before KDHE announces the schedule for public hearings, it seems like a good time to ask:  Why are we still paying attention to the whole coal plant proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the sixth.

Speaking of renewable energy, don’t we need the coal plant to get transmission lines so that we can export our wind energy?

No, absolutely not.  The bulk of the transmission that would come as part of the coal plant project would be to move electricity from the plant to its primary owners in Colorado – not to improve or enhance the overall transmission grid in Kansas.

An operational coal plant cannot efficiently ramp up or ramp down production of electricity.  Therefore, once a large coal plant is burning coal (already purchased on long-term contracts) to generate electricity, it will flood available transmission with that electricity.  Transmission lines have a finite capacity – that is, they can only move a certain volume of electrons, like a two, four, or eight-lane highway each moves a certain number of vehicles.  As a result, the coal plant will effectively crowd out other sources of electricity, like wind turbines.

Additionally, a regional plan to build high-capacity transmission tapping the vast wind energy reserves of western Kansas and the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles is already underway independent of the proposed coal plant.

Also worth noting: the best markets for Kansas wind energy – with the highest demand for renewably generated electricity, the least ability to meet those demands, and the lowest costs for delivering the electricity – are arguably to the east/southeast, not to the west where there are existing local wind energy reserves and a phase-shift barrier.

Certainly, construction of a power plant will create some transmission infrastructure in order to move electricity toward demand.  But that does not need to be a coal plant – it could be a natural gas plant as well.  And we are seeing development of transmission infrastructure independent of any new power plants.

So it is not accurate to say that Kansas must have this proposed coal plant in order to get transmission infrastructure for wind energy.

This is #6 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #7.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment considers the new air quality permit request for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895mw coal-fired power plant, and before KDHE announces the schedule for public hearings, it seems like a good time to ask:  Why are we still paying attention to the whole coal plant proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the fifth.

Okay…but the coal plant will provide needed jobs and economic development to Kansas in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory.  How can we say no to that?

Because it won’t – not anytime soon.  It is absolutely important to create jobs and investment in this recession.  But given all the regulatory, legal, and financial issues with the proposed project, construction won’t begin for at least a couple of years.  So, the construction jobs won’t exist until then.   How does that help Kansans now?

When they were lobbying the legislature, coal plant supporters claimed the proposed project would generate thousands of construction jobs for Kansans and as many as 400 permanent full-time jobs in the state.   But here’s the fine print:

• Tri-State is driving the project, and has a long relationship with its own coal plant builder – and it isn’t a Kansas company, or a union company.
• The specialized nature of most of the construction, and the absence of many of the needed specialized laborers in Kansas, means that the vast majority of the construction jobs will go to temporary workers from out-of-state.  Once construction finishes, they and their money would leave Kansas.
• Well after the settlement agreement was signed, Sunflower Electric quietly revised the projected permanent jobs figure down to 50.
• As of 2008, the Colorado utility that will own most of the plant and its power had given Sunflower Electric $46 million in direct payments, EXCLUDING the purchase of land and water rights in Kansas.  We know coal plant supporters hired a small army of lobbyists and lawyers (many from out of state) and bought a bunch of paid advertising to sell the project, but how many jobs has the coal plant created in Kansas with all that money in the midst of this recession?

While Kansas needed jobs and economic development, coal plant supporters blocked or slowed needed transmission and other energy investments that could have put Kansans to work.  In fact, in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory Sunflower and their allies forced Kansas to say “no” to critical jobs, investment, and revenue from native Kansas fuels and the booming renewable energy sector.  All for some coal plants that will import fuel and construction workers, and send water, electricity, and billions of dollars to other states – long after the current recession has turned toward recovery.

This is #5 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #6.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.