The National Climate Data Center reported on Tuesday that around 43 percent of the continental USA is in a state of moderate to extreme drought. California and Georgia are having serious trouble, but here in much of Virginia we are dealing with sagging water levels in reservoirs, a statewide fire alert, and scattered mandatory water restrictions. Virginia's situation is really just a matter of 2007, while many areas in the western USA are in a drought that has lasted a number of years. It is a matter of science to recognize that one year does not prove climate change due to human combustion of fossil fuels. It could be noted however that 2007 so far has been the hottest year ever measured for land temperatures around the globe. Sea temperatures have not been quite as high, and therefore 2007 is not shaping up as a new heat record. We are going to be in the top ten however.
Senators John Warner and Joe Lieberman are sponsoring a bill which will require reductions in USA outputs of greenhouse gases by 70% by the year 2050. This is a bipartisan bill obviously, and they hope that they may be able to get the sixty votes that it would need to survive the conservative filibuster that is inevitable. Getting it through the House is tougher, and really it is pointless because Bush will veto anything with the word "mandatory" in it. Consider this a prophecy of eventual action fifteen months from now when Bush is gone. At that point, we may have someone in place who would sign something like this bill. Warner will be gone too, but somebody else will be willing to sponsor such a bill.
We are gradually moving out of the territory of "is global warming real" and into the territory of "what do we do about it". But please note that the frustrations of this twenty-years-too-late transition are going to be unbelievable. I was leafing today through a book entitled "Cool it: the sceptical environmentalist's guide to global warming". it's written by a Danish economist, Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg concedes that global warming is real and caused by human activity, but then goes on to say that reducing greenhouse gases is not cost effective, that more people die from cold than die from heat, and that we should ignore global warming and work on curing diseases and solving poverty. Argh! In the first place, Lomborg makes it pretty clear pretty quickly that he is not an environmentalist, because he does not care about preserving the environment of planet Earth. He apparently feels that we can improve on what we have and make money farming Greenland and Siberia. My other beef with Lomborg is that he performs his cost/benefit analysis for the period of the next hundred years. He ignores the fact that science expects climate change to be cumulative and open ended. What about the year 2350, in which the state of Florida will be submerged pretty completely? Denmark has its share of islands, say goodbye Bjorn.
I think we need to recognize that this brand of thinking will sell books, but will not cut it in terms of policy. Everybody wants a moral justification for having the good life. Even Al Gore talks a good line about global warming but does not couch it in terms of sacrifice. As I stated earlier, I do not begrudge him the Oscar or the Nobel Peace prize, but yes we are going to need to adjust our lifestyles, carbon credits will not do it. Am I repeating myself? Am I boring you all? Maybe we need to ignore Al and start paying attention to the two thousand scientists who shared the award with him for their work on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. It's about science, guys.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 54
In regard to energy, we need a mix of clean, safe and renewable resources. Surplus energy from wind turbines (say at night) or from solar power (say during midday) can be stored. While it makes sense to feed electricity from solar and wind power directly into the grid when other supply is low, it also makes sense to store power when there is abundant supply. Intelligent metering will assist with this.
Just like we should not rely on any single source of power (i.e. we should use wind, hydro, solar power and more), we should not rely on a single way of storing power either. We can store surplus electricity in many ways, e.g. in car batteries or by turning it into hydrogen. Some of the more exotic technologies include storing power by turning flywheels, compressing springs, lifting weights such as stones or water or by compressing air in underground cavities. Surplus power can also be used to pump water back uphill, e.g. we could use the Great Lakes as a reservoir not only of water, but also of power. At times of peak supply of wind and solar power, surplus power could be used to pump water back from a lower to a higher lake, in order to use hydro-power at times when supply of other types of power is low.
Personally, I believe hydrogen has tremendous potential, but free markets are best in sorting out which technology works best where and when. Government needs to create the conditions for suppliers to operate in competition, in markets that give easy access to new suppliers and where consumers are free to make their choices.
You are correct, many books will be sold on this issue but it won't do a thing to make change.
Change is what has to happen before we will make any inroads into Global Warming. I do think you will see a change in the overall picture in 2009 if the Dems can win the White House. They've managed to screw up every other opportunity they've had since coming into power last fall it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see them crash and burn before Nov 2008.
If they do however, manage to control the Congress and the Presidency, you will see Global Warming begin to be taken seriously. It' no secret that the Dems would love to find a way to stick it to big business after the Immigration debacle. Then Lieberman's Bill might be reintroduced with changes and by a true democrat and force these big businesses into becoming stewards of our nation. Until then, forget it.
> pretty quickly that he is not an environmentalist,
> because he does not care about preserving the
> environment of planet Earth.
I wish people would be a bit more tolerant. This is a
scientist I assume, and he is expressing an opinion.
You or I might not agree with it or like it, but the world
needs to start acting more like scientists and listening
and analyzing ideas.
This guy might be right or have a point, try to learn to
listen to people and at least learn something even if it
is how they are trying to lie to you.
We know that global warming has a certain inertia already,
that even if we stopped all CO2 dead right now it would
still continue for years, maybe much longer.
We also know that we cannot stop all CO2 right now, and
in fact CO2 levels are going to be rising for 10-20 more years
before we can even agree on doing anything ... and that
is optimistic I think.
It may not be possible to save much of the animal life
on the planet. I don't say that because I think it is
acceptable or not so bad ... I don't. I just think humans
have not been intelligent enough to think about their
survival, we just think playing human games with each
other.
The one thing that could cut CO2 dead immediately
would be massive nuclear power and conversion to
electric cars while beefing up the electrical grid.
If I mention that it starts a riot.
People want to constantly be right. People want the
world to conform nicely to their ideas, even if they
are fairytale ideas about and old man in the sky.
People do not want to have to think or face their
fears, so we wait until we face crises and it just
might kill everything.
"Everybody wants a moral justification for having the good life."
which seems to be the real problem on so many issues these days. I think it's fine to want the good life, as long as it is backed up by morality and good ethics.
Lomborg's claims are questionable as he appears to take into account the impact that climate change is having/will have on the developing world. According to a report by the United Nations Development Program climate change has the potential to undermine much of the progress that has made in the fight against world hunger and poverty. For example, climate change is threatening already scarce water resources in some parts of the developing world. See the report for more details: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/
The fact that it will be expensive is however no reason to ignore the fact that it will have to be done, and the sooner the better. How I wish we still had the 400 billion spent in Iraq so far to use on this project of replacing fossil fuel with renewables.
Occasional droughts happen everywhere. Those events remind us that we cannot live without fresh water. What global warming risks is for certain areas to experience drought as the status quo. We have plenty of deserts around our planet, but not many humans life in those deserts. Turn a place full of humans into a desert and you have a problem. Twenty inches of rain per year with no snowpack to draw on for summer water is a recipe for a lifestyle that does not match what we have now in the swimming pool culture of Arizona.
Their bill will include huge subsidies to nuclear energy, which is a needlessly expensive distraction. Amory Lovins has a strategy to take us completely off of fossil fuels within the same time frame.
Apparently the efforts to publish the science have borne some fruit.
Speaking of surveys, Sam Carana has posted this survey , showing (quoting Sam), "...if Americans could tell their power company/utility where to get the power from for household use, 58% would want wind, solar and other clean-energy technologies, 26% expressed no preference, while just 11% said nuclear power."
But whether this is a scientific statistic has nothing to do with WHY people prefer what they prefer. And I think if you look at the survey, p.2 (Methodology), you will see it is a scientific survey of people's opinions, with a probabliity level of 95%, and a margin of error of 3%.
Now you can talk about the motivations re: people's motivations, as I have elsewhere, but that's a separate arguement.
Something that - if you cannot understand and respond to in this argument, or the many you have picked with me on boards all over Gather - proves you have an agenda and are not willing to think before you jump all into paranoia and defense mode.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977115507
An important point about drought and water is that warming leads to a total increase in available (liquid) water, whereas cooling leads to more trapping of water in glaciers and ice caps. However the amount of total water, does not mean that there will be fewer droughts. Changes in climate result in major changes in weather patterns, so that some place will become much drier, while others become very wet.
Chris, Sam, Steve and others have made some very good points about the potential for existing technologies, like wind and solar power, as well as increases in efficiency (as stressed by the IPCC) can have an impact on our carbon emissions.
As a final note, Chris, I wouldnt be too pessimistic. We have in fact faced other very serious environmental problems, and been quite successful at tackling them. More on this can be found at www.wherewestand.net.
But as in World War II, defeat is unthinkable.
If Im not mistaken, it might cost less money than people seem to think. As you know, the cry against environmentalism has long been "it costs too much". Then, once the scrubbers were put on the smokestacks, once the efficienty measures were taken, once the CFCs were replaced in spray cans, once the phosphates were removed from detergents, etc. etc, and on and on, it turned out it didnt really cost that much after all. And, things just kept getting cleaner.
Also, there is lots of money to be made in alternative energy and new technologies.
We will win this one too. Keep up the fight!!
BTW, I haven't "picked arguements" with you - I've presented you with your own words and contradictions. I'll likely continue to do so when you are promoting nuclear energy. But I do promise not to attack you personally. I hope you can do the same.
Nuclear right now is working and the total cost is about $.02/kwh compared to 7-15 cents/kwh for natural gas which is our cleanest alternative and emits CO2.
The waste for 20 years energy generation for a family of two can be stores in a volume about the size of a shoebox, after 50 years it can reduced to about the volume of a shotglass. That is without reprocessing. Reprocess the waste and you have more fuel, and less waste at a lower level.
Check out the Diablo Canyon power planet in southern CA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
operating without incident since 1984 supplying 2.2 million people with clean cheap electricity or the San Onofre powerplant that supplies 20% of the energy to Southern California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Over and over Steve, you are merely pretending to engage in a discussion when in fact what you are doing is is lumping together emotionally mideast wars, poisonous fossil fuels, and expensive, dangerous nuclear energy in order to propagandize against the US defending itself strategically, militarily and in energy. Who knows why you so nucleophobic, maybe you figure mobs of ignorant people will agree with you.
Putting up the same failed arguments post after post is not "responding" - posts like that are aking to interrupting or shouting over someone and ignoring what they are saying and are the same as personal attacks, so you are not really being honest in any promised that you make.
Nonsense! I have cut&pasted your own words, so they appear exactly as you wrote them. The fact that you present inconsistencies and self-contradictions is your problem - not mine.
bruce: "...you are merely pretending to engage in a discussion...."
I put out information re: nuclear energy being risky, uneconomic, and unnecessary, given safer, profitable alternatives. You, on the other hand, continue to use personal slurs and insults, ignoring the points I have made. Japan does not have an "exemplary record" as the recent "mishap" exposes. The largest nuclear plant in Japan was built above an active earthquake fault - and the chief engineer says that they missed it? That's reassuring! Your $.02/kwh for nuclear is a joke, based on alot of exclusions. Here are some different numbers, which put this $.02 in some context:
__________
Nuclear power is an inherently limited way to protect the climate, because it makes electricity, whose generation releases only two-fifths of U.S. CO2 emissions; it must run steadily rather than varying widely with loads as many power plants must; and its units are too big for many smaller countries or rural users. But nuclear power is a still less helpful climate solution because it's about the slowest option to deploy (in capacity or annual output added per year)—as observed market behavior confirms—and the most costly. Its higher cost than competitors, per unit of net CO2 displaced, means that every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change
by buying less solution per dollar. Specifically, every $0.10 spent to buy a single new nuclear kilowatt-hour (roughly its delivered cost, including its 2004 subsidies, according to the authoritative 2003 MIT study's findings expressed in 2004 $) could instead have bought 1.2 to 1.7 kWh of windpower ("firmed" to be available whenever desired), 0.9 to 1.7+ kWh of gas-fired industrial or ~2.2–6.5+ kWh of building-scale cogeneration (adjusted for their CO2 emissions), 2.4–8.9 kWh of waste-heat cogeneration burning no incremental fuel (more if credited for burning less fuel), or from several to 10+ kWh of electrical savings from more efficient use. In this sense of "opportunity cost"—any investment foregoes other outcomes that could have been bought with the same money—nuclear power is far more carbon-intensive than a coal plant.
For these reasons, expanding nuclear power would both reduce and retard the desired decrease in CO2 emissions. Claims that more nuclear plants are needed to protect Earth's climate cannot withstand documented analysis nor be reconciled with actual market choices. If you worry about climate change, it is essential to buy the fastest and most effective climate solutions. Nuclear power is just the opposite. Claimed broad "green" support for nuclear expansion, if real (which it's not), would therefore be unsound and counterproductive. And efforts to "revive" this moribund technology, already killed by market competition, can only waste time and money.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
Do you know what context is?
> The largest nuclear plant in Japan was built above an active earthquake fault
First, if you look hard enough you can find earthquake faults under almost anything. The question is what does that mean to you?
What do you think or do you want to imply that an earthquake will do to a nuclear plant? You seem to be implying that if you shake a nuclear plant hard enough that it will blow up? Is that what you think? Explain it then?
In the worst case a huge fault could open up directly below a plant ... it would stop operating. Maybe some minor radioactive steam could be released from the inner cooling loop of the plant, but probably not.
If you want to claim something, or prove to the reader that you understand something, let's hear it. Explain it in your own words for a change instead of posting links. Show me that you have digested any of these links you keep pointing to?
You jump from issue to issue, now your latest is time to deploy. Well Bucko, lots of nuclear plants could be out there cleaning supplying us with energy if the nucleophobic fear mongers like you would just stop running their mouths for a little while and take the time to really look at the issue.
Finally you really go off the deep end, which these hyperbolic arguments always end up doing in the long run and say that somehow increasting nuclear generating capability is going to generate more CO2.
Do you know how many thousands of tons of contaminents are put into the air from coal fired power plants, and how hard that is going to be to replace? Do you know what else coal puts into the air ... lots of CO2, and huge amounts of radioactive elements inside the coal released and dispersed all over the world by burning. Nuclear has 0.
You also keep talking about nuclears bad economics, but the only bad economics is that sensible people who want to invest in nuclear power are being scared by the Luddite fear mongers into not investing ... not because of any problems with the technology, but because of political attacks by the ignorant who totally ignore reality that nuclear works cheaper and cleaner than anything else out there.
You are afraid to look at what is there, and afraid to let there be some more plants built because it is so obviously a win. 1.7 cents per kwh with 0 cost for CO2 and air pollution, the cheapest and cleanest technology out there.
The thing you guys don't understand that it's not nuclear vs solar, or nuclear vs wind, but between nuclear vs coal, or solar vs natural gas, or wind vs coal.
I've done a lot of research on the electrical grid (~yearlong research project on coal gasification), and the size of the problem is more enormous than almost anybody can grasp.
Because we haven't built a new nuclear plant in years, and the plants have a limited lifespan, added with increasing electrical demand means that even the most ambitious nuclear power plant construction proposal would only maintain the percentage of electricity that comes from nuclear. Otherwise, nuclear will become a smaller percentage of electricial production.
Hydroelectric is a mature industry, and will probably become smaller not only in percentage of total electricity production, but probably in absolute terms as well. There's a significant environmental backlash against hydroelectric because it floods entire valleys, and in the Pacific Northwest, many dams are being destroyed to allow fish to spawn.
Wind is a fast growing source of electricity (ironically, the state with the most and fastest growing wind capacity is big-bad oil state Texas), but is only .7% of electrical production, so even with a growth rate of ~30% per year, it won't be a significant portion of U.S electrical production for decades. Also, while the cheapest major alternative energy source, is close to it's realistic minimum price--turbines have come to close to their maximum economies of scale (both in terms of production and turbine size). Also, many communities are against installing wind power because it ruins views, and many conservationist groups are against it because they pose a significant risk to birds and bats.
Solar, while being being the fastest growing alternative energy source, is by far the smallest and most expensive, producing only .01% of electricity in 2005, and in most areas is more expensive than grid power even with a 30% subsidy. Even with a 30% growth rate, solar will only be a few percent of our electricity for decades. Luckily, it has the most room for advancement, both in terms of capacity and price.
People often suggest using natural gas as an "alternative" to coal, but that too is completely unrealistic. Natural gas, even though being cleaner not only in terms of greenhouse gasses but also other pollutants, is still a greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel, unlike coal is also imported from countries that hate us, is more expensive than coal, and also is in even more limited supply than coal. People also don't realize that coal and natural gas play different roles--coal produces baseline power because it's cheap but production can't be changed rapidly, while natural gas generally provides peak power because it can be quickly turned on and off, but is expensive.
The most likely scenario is that over the next ~40 years, coal will increase in production, not only in absolute terms, but also in percentage of our rapidly increasing electrical consumption. This is because natural gas is likely to stay aproximately the same amount or increase slightly as a percentage of our electrical production, nuclear and hydroelectric will decrease as percentages of total production, and alternatives (ex. hydroelectric) will gain market share, but will not make up for the decline in nuclear and hydroelectric.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf
(2) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/world.pdf
(3) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/nat_gas.pdf
(4) www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coal_production_review.pdf
(5) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf
your pessimism cuts to the central question. Is reducing our use of fossil fuels do-able? I argue that if we are to succeed in that vital task, we may need to sacrifice the size of our homes and our vehicles in order to reduce the burden on our shoulders. One can only lift so much weight.
I do not think that we can whip global warming by reducing the rate of increase of our coal use. No, we will have to reduce our coal use, in the USA and across the planet. Sort of like climbing mount everest without oxygen. But when you must you must.
When you say one thing in one context and nearly the opposite thing in another context, it is fair to say you're being inconsistent.
bruce: "First, if you look hard enough you can find earthquake faults under almost anything. The question is what does that mean to you?"
To me, it means you don't build nuclear plants.
Daniel: "The thing you guys don't understand...."
I've never claimed one alternative source would suffice in the near future. I have argued against nuclear energy, and for the efficiency technologies and the strategy to move toward hydrogen, first by reforming natural gas and eventually by electrolysis via renewables. This is the strategy that Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has written about.
Coal is preferable to nuclear, IMO, if it is used in a very different way than it is today. Even then, the procurement of coal is an environmental disaster in itself, and we should eliminate as soon as possible. That said, there are very good methods to use the carbon from coal to grow algae, the process producing hydrogen, and the end product being a biofuel or nature drink. That process dramatically increases the efficiency of coal while cutting CO2 emissions in half. Also, that process eliminates the need to "sequester" CO2 from coal.
Chris: "...we may need to sacrifice the size of our homes and our vehicles in order to reduce the burden on our shoulders."
Amory Lovins makes the case that efficiency (primarily) and gradual deployment of renewables would be sufficient to stop increasing GHGs, and then reduce them. I think Lovins' proposals make sense, and do not involve the "sacrifices" that you are calling for. That's one of the things that makes his projections believable - because people simply aren't going to "sacrifice".
"Arguments that protecting the earth's climate will cost a lot rest on theoretical economic assumptions flatly contradicted by business experience. Most climate/economics models assume that almost all energy-efficiency investments cost-effective at present prices have already been made. Actually, huge opportunities to save money by saving energy exist, but are being blocked by dozens of specific
obstacles at the level of the firm, locality, or society. Even if climate change were not a concern, it would be worth clearing these barriers in order to capture energy-efficiency investments with rates of return that often approach and can even exceed 100% per year. Focusing private and public policy on barrier-busting can permit businesses to buy
energy savings that are large enough to protect the climate, intelligent enough to improve living standards, and profitable enough to strengthen economic vitality, employment, and competitiveness."
Steve: I'm not ignoring energy efficiency, it's still projected (I'm not exactly sure how the calculation is done, but I'd bet my left arm that it has a provision for efficiency) that U.S electrical demand will grow 40% by 2030 and worldwide electricial demand will double in that time. Efficiency is the most cost effective way of fighting global warming, but even with a massive nuclear and renewables construction program, it's possible we might not get where we need to be. Any of those missing, we have very little chance.
Also, since we'll be burning coal for the forseeable future, I think we should require all coal power plants, I think we should make IGCC (coal gasification power plants) manditory for all proposed coal power plants by 2012. Coal gasification reduces mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, solid waste, and water consumption massively, and are more efficent, meaning less coal burned. They also are the only way to economically sequester carbon dioxide (storing carbon dioxide underground).
And before we ignore something crucially important, we can't forget transportation fuel (aka oil). Unfortunately, the corn lobby got congress to get it's head completely up it's ass and support corn ethanol to the exclusion of anything else. Hybrids are a step in the right direction, but plug-in hybrids make the prius look like a hummer. Now that ultra-low sulfur diesel is mandated and diesel tech has advanced, passenger cars can be diesel, which is 20% more efficient. Another exciting advance is the HCCI engine, which gets similar efficiency to a diesel engine but can use gasoline, which is cleaner. Both diesel and HCCI engines can be coupled to a hybrid or plug-in hybrid drive chain, and you have an incredibly efficient engine.
Also, cellulosic ethanol and algae biodiesel are very promissing fuel sources. They're still a bit far off, but they're two technologies that research needs to be foccused on. They've got a lot of potential.
I have no doubts that there are many technologies already understood that could make a sizeable dent in global warming if applied in a determined way. I also have no doubt that it will happen in the near future. If I were to doubt it, i would be doubting that the human race has a future, and I am not willing to do that.
I frequently refer to Amory Lovins, who doesn't think coal is a necessary energy source for the future. Clean Renewables and Efficiency, not Coal, are the Key
Also, Sam Carana has an article suggesting a much better way IMO to produce syngas.
It may be that we need coal in the near term, as you say, but I think it should be a temporary solution - primarily because its procurement is such an environmental nightmare. However, as I mentioned above, (underground) sequestration may not be necessary, because carbon can be used in the production of algae (using solar) to make hydrogen and biofuel.
Yes, and you can double efficiency again by making the plug-in hyprids out of ultralight, super-strong carbon fiber composites
, which Boeing has already used in manufacturing its new 787 airliner.
Steve: The thing that scares me is when people talk like they do in the first link you posted. Those are the kind of people that grossly underestimate the problem and have gotten us in trouble in the past.
We're not using coal because it's cheap (although that never hurt), it's because for the forseeable future, it's either coal or the lights go out--that's a fact. None of the other fuel sources, not even natural gas, even come close to what we need, and history has shown us that if it's between the environment and electricity (which is now considered a necessity in the developed, and increasingly in the underdeveloped, world), the environment looses every time. Even with massive increases in nuclear and alternatives and even natural gas, we'll still need to use coal for decades, and we should burn it most cleanly, which is through IGCC coal gasification.
True, there are a lot of technologies that can make all things more fuel efficient, the 787 being a posterchild of those technologies.
Big buisness gets a bad rap from 99.99% of environmentalists, but they also are in the best possition to do good, which they are doing more and more. These companies include GE (look up Ecomagination program), Boeing (see 787), Walmart (see Walmart sustainablility goals), Toyota (see prius), and GM (see chevy volt) are finding that they can make a great deal of money not while being environmentally friendly, but BY being environmentally friendly.
Could you point that out a little better?
Daniel: "...it's because for the forseeable future, it's either coal or the lights go out--that's a fact."
Well, that's more of an assumption. It may be correct - your DoE references would indicate that. But the DoE is not necessarily the last word on what our energy situation is. There are other knowledgeable people.
But given that your assumption is correct, there are much better ways to use coal, which are more efficient and more profitable.
Daniel: "...history has shown us that if it's between the environment and electricity...the environment looses every time."
True. However, 1. environmental concerns are increasingly driving business policies, 2. it is increasingly being shown economically that environmental responsibility is the most economical way to do business, and 3. environment vs. economy is an an illusion of poor business practice. All of that is confirmed by your last point:
Daniel: "Big buisness gets a bad rap from 99.99% of environmentalists, but they also are in the best possition to do good, which they are doing more and more."
Big business is not undeserving (completely) of the "bad rap" they get, but you're right - in recent years, big business is leading the charge to reform our polluting economy. Lovins has been in the middle of many of these reforms, which you mention above, e.g., Walmart, and he frequently states that solutions to climate are being driven by business for profit. Once again, the fallacy economy vs. environment is being shown to be false - which is good for environment (and our health) and good for the economy.
Agreed! The subsidized price we pay at the electric meter is not an accurate measure of the true cost of using coal. If we paid what coal actually costs, then renewables would be quickly "cost-competitive" with coal. Wind has already broken that threshold periodically in some locations.
Daniel: "Big buisness gets a bad rap from 99.99% of environmentalists, but they also are in the best possition to do good, which they are doing more and more."
No doubt! Add to your list of impressive corporations making excellent contributions to our energy solutions: Google, ECD Ovonics, Nanosolar
Solar Power Approaches Launch Pad
The thing about wind and solar (and nuclear, for that matter) is that even if the price reaches grid parity, the problem is capacity. Solar power would have to increase 1400 times current capacity to reach 10% of our electricity by 2030. Wind, even if we could get the needed capacity of turbines is often opposed by local and environmental groups for destroying views and killing birds. Wind power growth has been the highest in Texas because there are few environmentalists to oppose their construction (rather ironic IMO). Even under the most aggressive (and unlikely) construction plan, nuclear will keep its percentage of electricity production.
I'm not saying big buisness has an overall positive general grade on the environment, but that grade is improving pretty rapidly, and people generally don't give any credit where credit is due.
Perhaps. PBS/NOVA just re-ran "Saved by the Sun", a documentary re: solar energy, that was not even up to date with some of the newest developments. Even so, the program reported that Germany (that solar Mecca) will obtain 30% of its electricity by 2020, due to incentives to do so. People are renting space on their neighbors' roofs to put up solar panels - and these are not even the newer, more efficient ones. And instead of marking off large tracts of land, and in addition to using roofs, they are lining the Autobahn with solar panels. I have advocated for years lining our interstate highway system with concentrated solar devices.
By contrast, the U.S. presently gets less than 1% of its electricity from solar because incentives are primarily for fossils. That needs to change.
Just how is that supposed to change? The "incentive" you are talking about is that it is so damn cheap and plentiful. Without the insecurity of the Middle East being the supplier or having supplies cut off oil would be back to $18 a barrel.
You seem to just want to tax everyone to pay for your expensive dream projects that will be expensive dinosaurs when and if the oil situation is solved?
Roofs are good places for solar cells, or hot water heater collectors, the problem is we live more high density than ever and that is increasing ... meaning less sunlight on the roof per person underneath - not to mention at night there is no sun.
Assuming you're right (and I don't think you are), when do you expect the Middle East to be "without insecurity"? How many more troops are you willing lose their lives to that end? How many more $100Billions? (And you call MY drean expensive!!!)
bruce: "You seem to just want to tax everyone to pay for your expensive dream...."
You keep using that strawman arguement. My position is: 1. If there is a carbon tax, it should be offset by cutting the income tax - so that there is no change in revenue. 2. Incentives also means tax cuts on solar - which is what Germany did.
bruce: "...the problem is we live more high density than ever and that is increasing ... meaning less sunlight on the roof per person underneath...."
The equivalent of 100 square miles of solar panels would meet our entire electrical need. That is 10,000 contiguous miles. Lining our interstate and intrastate highway systems with concentrated solar devices (as Germany is doing along the Autobahn) would provide many more than 10,000 miles of solar collectors. Now, back to my "expensive dream", the interstate highway system was started in the 1950s. It has been a sizeable investment in our nation's infrastructure. But I think you would have a great deal of trouble claiming that that investment hasn't had economic benefits.
bruce: "...not to mention at night there is no sun."
Do you intentionally ignore the fact that solar energy can be stored as hydrogen, or are you just unaware of that fact?
And yet you're they fellow, who wrote this:
"The proviso I would put on nuclear, let's not do it for profit. Let's let NASA design and build the plants, and the military or the government run them so the profit motive does not lead to cutting corners on the plant hardware, training, personnel or security. Do you want security officers like at the airport who get paid practically nothing guarding or servicing nuclear plants?....We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it."
Do you suppose that would be expensive or require hefty taxes?
When and if the US government decided to build a secure and not-for-profit nuclear infrastructure, it might require bonds to borrow money for construction, but the ongoing cost of the energy would be priced and sold to recoup and pay back those bonds, as well as pay for maintenance and growth of the infrastructure.
It seems fair to question your understanding of bonds and government finance a bit when you make an accusatory statement to me like this.
In addition the cost that we are expending in the Middle East is large, but the cost of allowing a festering den of terrorist high-tech undemocratic and hostile nuclear tyrannies to ripen and go to seed makes anything we are doing now seem like a the biggest bargain in history.
When I criticized you ideas I was not including a carbon tax as you idea. A properly incentivized carbon .... or environmental tax is completely appropriate.
I am not against solar energy, but I think there is no support or belief that the country can be run on solar panels alone, prove it somewhere if all this technology exists ... get whoever it is to run the state of AZ on solar, then I'm sure you will be able toget more support for this. 100 square miles of solar cells connected how, synchronized how, debugged how? It is not here, and it is not yet what you claim, and there exists no hydrogen conversion, storage and generation capacity yet.
The scenario you proposed, having NASA build nuclear plants, then having the military manage them, along with security - financed by bonds? That isn't just funding start-up, but on-going maintenance. But, deficit speding is a good thing, right?
bruce: "...the cost of allowing a festering den of terrorist high-tech undemocratic and hostile nuclear tyrannies to ripen and go to seed makes anything we are doing now seem like a the biggest bargain in history."
You're aware, of course, that we're funding our enemies with oil purchases, and our activities in the middle east are helping to keep prices high. Anyway, terrorism is always about expelling an occupying force. The best way to deal with terrorism is to build cooperative relations with China, Russia, India around a mutually beneficial renewable energy expansion.
bruce: "A properly incentivized carbon .... or environmental tax is completely appropriate."
Well see? We agree on something! I'll buy you a beer on that one!
bruce: "I think there is no support or belief that the country can be run on solar panels alone...."
I've never made that claim, though the potential is certainly there - it's really just a matter of how many solar panels you build. There's plenty of sunlight to do it.
bruce: "...prove it somewhere if all this technology exists...."
The technology exists already (I don't know how many times I have to say that), but is improving rapidly - and the costs are decreasing rapidly. Nanosolar is a highly innovative solar company on the brink of mass producting moderately efficient, inexpensive solar "cells".
bruce: "solar cells connected how, synchronized how, debugged how?"
Solar systems are already connected to the existing "grid". In Germany, solar will provide 30% electricity by 2020. In the U.S., the best adapted use presently is for peak demand, when the sun is hot and demand for AC is high. Solar is growing, but with incentives, it will do so more quickly.
bruce: "It is not here, and it is not yet what you claim, and there exists no hydrogen conversion, storage and generation capacity yet."
I never said it is here now - obviously! In the 1950s the interstate highway system wasn't here yet, either. In the 1980s, computers and the internet weren't here yet. This is about planning, making decisions about what direction we go in. And interestingly, much of the solar innovation is coming out of former IT companies.
BTW, the nuclear plants you think should be built aren't here yet either. Tell you what - you raise the bond money to build them, and I won't have an economic arguement against them. But you sign the pledge
against $50Billion in federal loan guarantees. I'll go with the private investment capital already being committed to solar and other renewables. We'll see which gets built first!
Stick to what is out there now. plants that have been operating safely for decades now producing cheap clean power with zero CO2 emissions.
OK, your talk about bonds shows you don't understand what I am saying, or what a bond is. A bond does not have to be deficit spending.
Because you keep throwing these huge posts at me I am going to ignore your keyboard diarhea and only reply to the few things that either make some sense or deserve correcting.
It does not matter if we buy the oil from the middle east or not, it is on the world market and someone will buy it, thus funding a threatening terrorist totalitarian system inimical to our civilization. Yes part of our oil cost goes to them, but the war and the money we spend on defense will need to be expended on militarily standing up to them now, or rebuilding after we get hit by them with a bomb or have to go to war with them.
Solar as it is - is barely economically viable to make electricity, you want to add hydrogen conversion, and then regeneration to it and pretend that does not up the price to absurdity, not to mention the technology does not exist and is not tested. Comparing that to the highway system really takes the cake ... I think we knew how to build roads pretty well even back to the 19th century.
In virtually all of your comments are the little cracks of untruth, and every time I point them out, you just replay them, or make the same statement, all over Gather. I am really sorry if due to your verbosity someone might get the idea that you really know what you are talking about, because you appeal to those who are already nucleophobic and positively predisposed to running the country on hemp oil or whatever.
The bottom line is that if it works, it is here now and someone is doing it bigtime and making money, if it will work the same thing will happen when someone figures out how to do it make money bigtime. Nuclear is here, it works, not just well, but exceedingly well, hugely well. The time to start letting nuclear expand and compete with everything else is now, the reasons not to are outdated, and there is more reason to exploit the atom everyday if you give a damn about the environment.
It was your opinion, and you have never backed away from it.
bruce: "It is a straw argument since that is unlikely to happen here in the US."
So you're backing away from it now - the straw is yours, not mine, then.
bruce: "Stick to what is out there now. plants that have been operating safely for decades now producing cheap clean power with zero CO2 emissions."
I disagree with that, and have posted reasons why.
bruce: "A bond does not have to be deficit spending."
Given the scenario you have now backed away from, tell me how THAT would not involve massive deficits. Probably it's a mute point now, since you backed away from it.
Since you back away from that scenario, that leaves us with nuclear as business for profit (which you had said we could not trust), and that leaves us with a highly regulated industry, with industry complaining of the regulations as the reason it takes so long to open a new plant, costs, etc. But not having the regulations and oversight leaves us with potential to have an Enron style nuclear industry, something that you have alluded to before, yourself.
bruce: "Because you keep throwing these huge posts at me...."
You need not respond or read them (I think you don't read half of them anyway, judging by your responses). However, you'll notice that most of my lengthy posts consist of re-posting your remarks so you'll know exactly what I'm addressing. Pardon the courtesy.
bruce: "Solar as it is...."
I already addressed that.
bruce: "In virtually all of your comments are the little cracks of untruth...."
No. You just don't read the links I substantiate my comments with.
bruce: "I am really sorry if due to your verbosity someone might get the idea that you really know what you are talking about...."
No need to apologize. People can read my comments and judge for themselves. Mostly, what you have are personal insults - I don't know who will be convinced by those.
bruce: "The bottom line is that if it works, it is here now and someone is doing it bigtime and making money...."
I'm glad Bill Gates didn't figure that out back in the early 1980s. Anyway, as I've said, technology already exists, and it's improving. But since you belive in nuclear so much, maybe you should try to go sell nuclear bonds. BTW, I notice you don't drop the lobbyists' demand for $50 Billion in federal loan guarantees. I don't guess I blame you - no loan guarantees, no new plants.
bruce: "...there is more reason to exploit the atom everyday if you give a damn about the environment."
Your way or the highway, huh, bruce? Sounds like Bush!
North American investments reach new high of $1.26 billion.
Ann Arbor, Michigan & Toronto, Canada [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
The Cleantech Network announced that investor momentum in clean technologies reached an all-time high as venture capitalists in North America and Europe invested a record $1.74 billion in the third quarter.
This brings the year-to-date level of investment in cleantech to $3.64 billion, a 13% increase over the same period in 2006.