More very good news and very bad news on clean energy....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-30-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

1. The very bad news first.:

Last Sunday, 12-27-2009, I found an article in the local free paper that comes on Sundays. In it someone had written -- but had not signed -- an article that could have easily been written by the disinformation editor for the petroleum and coal industries. To be fair, the editor of the paper may actually have believed what was in the article and written it. But it was not labeled as editorial comment nor had that editor signed it. So I do wonder about who really wrote it.

Either way, some people actually believe the statements in the article. And some people who like their current gas using car or truck or are quite worried about the economy will read this other similar statements and vote against even reasonable clean energy measures or vote for politicians who will.

This could be quite harmful to our economy and our planet within 10 or 15 years.

The article title was “Green Christmas Presents America could do without.”

It said green energy measures backed by President Obama will soon increase our utility bills. It also said that since oil, coal, and natural gas supply 84% of our electricity we will soon have less electricity generated to power our economy.

It also points out that no new offshore oil leases have been done since Obama took office & that soon new fees will be charge the existing offshore oil production.

It then states that instead of the 25% of our power coming from renewable energy that Obama has set as a goal, one recent estimate expects we will actually get 8%.

Its conclusion is that Obama’s changes will lower the “American standard of living.”

And, it said that most American’s who voted for Obama in 2008 would dislike that change -- & that it was NOT what they voted for.

Some of this is accurate. Utility bills will go up at first. Renewable energy generation additions are not yet on track to do a lot better than the 8% figure. (The credit crunch that launched the current recession killed many large projects and some companies that were well on their way to the 25% figure before that, for example.)

And, despite it being harmful to global warming efforts and potentially harmful to the people living on the nearby coasts, more domestic oil drilling particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, would increase our national security and slow gasoline price increases somewhat.

To be fair, these issues need to be addressed to help be sure our efforts to make the future economy far more reliable, stronger, and larger by switching towards renewable energy, energy efficiency, and some increases in nuclear power don’t harm the economy too much now or put our national security at risk.

That’s why I very much like the collaboration between John Kerry and Lindsay Graham to do these things that Joe Lieberman has more recently joined. It will address many of these issues while continuing to add more renewable energy.

But such writers as the person who wrote “Green Christmas Presents America could do without” totally ignore the risks of global warming, of total economic collapse if oil begins to run out before we are sufficiently weaned off of it and add enough alternatives, & of run ups in energy costs five to ten times larger than the cost of green energy programs that may well otherwise repeat our recent economic downturn -- only worse.

To write such ignorant and one sided stuff is both irresponsible and potentially harmful.

So it’s sad to see it.

And, unfortunately it’s clearly still with us.

2. The very good news is that when technology and entrepreneurial companies – both start ups and large companies -- begin to make new renewable energy cost less than energy from fossil fuel and there are energy efficient choices for many products that will save enough to pay back buyers in 4 years or less, the problem will rapidly be solved as ignorant writers like the one I recently read will become close to irrelevant.

And, we ARE getting there.

Electric cars and plug-in hybrids that mostly run on electricity cause less global warming and use less oil than gasoline or diesel burning cars -- even if the electricity still comes from coal. They will thereby increase the national security of the United States, Europe, and Japan who now over-rely on oil from politically unstable places such as Venezuela and Nigeria, etc.

A tidal wave of such cars has begun. By 10 or 15 years from now most cars and many trucks will have such power plants.

And, as renewable energy and nuclear come online to create the electricity, we will even burn less coal despite using more electricity.

In addition, the economy will improve since such cars need less maintenance than the cars that ran only on gasoline or diesel. Electric cars need far less maintenance; & the fossil fuel engines in plug-in hybrids will run far less often and take far less of the load even when they do run than they otherwise would have, so they will also require a good bit less frequent repairs.

Backing that up are new technologies and companies providing them that will soon deliver batteries that are lighter, take more of a charge, charge up faster, are more efficient, and maybe even cheaper eventually than what we have now.

Similarly, solar photovoltaic and solar thermal and wind generated power technologies and the economies of scale will soon make electricity generated by them cost less than electricity generated from coal costs now, let alone what it will cost when the real costs of pollution and combating global warming are added to their costs. This is already well on its way to happening.

This real drop in costs from renewable sources is happening now even if for now the politics of such measures now postpone those added costs for burning coal for awhile yet.

In the Silicon Valley alone there are two venture funds devoting a billion dollars each to creating such technologies and turning them into real and cost effective products soon. And, just here in the Silicon Valley there’s probably another 8 billion dollars in clean energy investments by smaller funds.

When you add venture funds in some large companies, the rest of the United States, venture funds outside the United States and the direct investment in such projects by China, you begin to talk about some real money aimed at producing precisely such effects. And, it’s beginning to happen.

That’s why the title of this blog, Renewable Energy Arrives is more news than prediction at this point.

And, that’s very good news indeed.

People need to see that NOT fixing energy will cost them MORE money....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-23-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

Last Tuesday, 12-17-2009, I found that a recent AP-Stanford University poll found that while 75% of respondents said they support action to stop global warming, 75% said they would oppose specific plans to do so if their electricity bills went up by $25 a month. And 59 % said they wouldn't support such action if their electricity bills just $10 more.

This shows that one or more of several things are true.

75% of the people are so tight on money, that they would find having their monthly costs go up that little a hardship.

75% of the people are scared to part with more than a very small amount of money they don’t absolutely have to because of the recession.

I suspect both of these things are true.

But it also means that people have not yet learned that:

$25 a month added to their utility bills right away and spent effectively on fixing the energy situation and strongly slowing our dependence on coal and petroleum will help ensure that they can avoid:

paying MORE than $25 more a month for their utility bills as energy costs increase AND

paying more than an extra $50 a month on gas for their car AND

paying an extra $50 a month for food due to increased transport costs & reduced yields

AND

having taxes of all kinds go up $50 a month to pay for increasing damage control due to the extra global warming – costs doing the fixes now would prevent

AND

having the recession come back even worse as discretionary incomes and other spending shrink due to all these extra costs preventing that discretionary spending.

Yes, any action program needs to show it will help solve the problems enough to prevent more of these added costs than it costs to implement.

But, NOT having the increases in utility bills going to pay for far more renewable energy installations & some more nuclear power; many more effective energy efficiency programs, & more and better transmission lines to get the electricity from large scale renewable energy or new nuclear plants to where it’s needed and used will create exactly those results.

So, paying $25 a month extra now may not be comfortable. But it’s far less than the $175 a month or more added costs it will prevent.

And, if more than half of all Americans don’t realize that -- & this research shows that they do not, we may well not do enough to prevent these very harsh results that cost far more.

Global warming may be the bigger threat in the long run.

But in the short run, having enough people know these economic risks may be more important in determining if we will do enough in time to prevent both problems.

I think President Obama actually understands and himself knows these economic risks.

That’s why I voted for him & supported him.

But unless he sells and educates the people of the United States well enough that they also know and understand these economic risks, he won’t be effective enough while he is President and may not be elected to a second term in office.

Some hope for Copenhagen but more for multiple efforts....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-16-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

1. It looks like the Copenhagen talks will have mixed results at best. As I read it, there are some hopeful points however.

We may see a relatively good mechanism put in place to help countries with large areas of forests receive money to compensate them for not cutting them down for sale as lumber or for new agricultural areas plus enough money to enforce & police not allowing businesses & criminal groups to cut down forests on their own.

Despite the perhaps unbridgeable differences, it does look like more countries are each beginning to do more to combat global warming. And, the governments of almost every country on earth now know this is a priority to address.

One interesting point is that many countries in Europe and Japan are planning to hit some quite ambitious targets for CO2 reductions. To the extent they succeed, there will be methods and technologies used that can then be emulated elsewhere to improve the effectiveness of CO2 reduction there. It will be interesting to watch which of these countries actually achieve their targets and how those that did so managed it.

2. The number of effective ways to prevent further global warming and to begin to use far less coal and petroleum is beginning to get quite large.

And, the number of governments at all levels that are making specific plans to do more is also beginning to be quite large.

One trend I like is to find more ways to create green jobs by doing things to increase energy efficiency or to better finance individuals to install renewable energy generation.

For example, if buying $1,000 worth of more energy efficient household appliances produces more than $150 a year of savings & thousands of people do it, the 15% annual return makes it financeable; & doing it will preserve or add jobs at the appliance makers and sellers.

Where people can install much better insulation and double pane windows and solar panels and, in some areas, wind driven generators of electricity for direct savings on their utility bills or even payment for any excess electricity generated AND finance that through their municipality and then pay it back with slightly increase property taxes over 20 or 30 years, thousands more people will do these things and jobs will be created.

These measures will add jobs now; & the new energy generated or released by energy efficiency improvements will increase the strength of the economy as they come online.

As another example, gradually nearly every state in the United States is developing some kind of program to boost renewable energy generation or energy efficiency or both.

These projects include new wind generated electricity, new solar installations, new biofuel production, and new geothermal power production.

If the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman compromise plan passes, we will also gradually have more nuclear plants – and, I think we will also have more conversion of natural gas and coal in the United Sates to liquid fuels to replace imported oil, and more biofuel production from feeding the CO2 from burning natural gas or coal to generate electricity to algae to make more liquid biofuels that will also help to replace imported oil thus increasing the energy independence of the United States and helping to gradually wean the world economy from its current and dangerous overdependence on oil.

3. The good news for the countries that now supply the world with oil is that initially their sales will be flat or very little changed due to the slowness of these transitions and changes combined with the huge installed base of oil using energy uses plus world economic and population growth.

And, for many of these countries, notably Saudi Arabia, they will be in a position to harvest solar photovoltaic and solar thermal power so well, if they use their oil money to build these facilities and transmission lines, they will be able to support enough local industry and sell enough electricity to European countries to prosper without any sales of oil; & they will continue to sell oil if only to make petrochemicals as J Paul Getty forecasted many years ago.

But, best of all, if they build solar facilities, diversified local businesses, and invest in businesses elsewhere with their oil money while it’s still coming to them, they’ll continue to prosper when they begin to simply run out of oil to sell.


In summary, the results at Copenhagen will likely disappoint many who had hoped for far more. But, despite that & almost in contradiction to it, the real progress IS beginning to happen and pick up speed in so many places and in so many ways, the reality is beginning to look far more promising.

President Obama at Copenhagen....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-9-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

Just recently the Union of Concerned Scientists sent out an email which I read.

It asked the readers to email Carol Browner, President Obama’s energy advisor, to request that he do two things.

1. Increase the near term target to reduce CO2 from 17% of what it was in 2005 that was already announced to 20%.

2. Show the other countries that the United States is taking action to reduce destruction of forests and tropical forests and ask that all other countries place a priority on doing likewise.

1. In my email I said this about part 1.

Since what he would like and what the congress will actually deliver may have little in common, I included the idea that he say that but to also say that even though that’s the case, he would at least ASK for the 20%.

But even more importantly I suggested he make a commitment personally to the 20% goal and announce that as long as he is President, he will ask for pieces of specific legislation and regulatory activity and other programs his administration can do on its own to increase energy efficiency, add renewable and other non-carbon energy generation, add begin charging at least part of the most obvious real costs not previously charged to the coal and oil companies for the damage they do other than burning carbon
AND, to do these things well enough that the target of 20% has a real chance of being achieved.

I didn’t say so in that email; but I also think that he has already done many of these things. It would make good sense and add to his credibility to list those actions of this kind he and his administration have already done at least briefly.

I did point out that he could use the occasion as a “bully pulpit” as Theodore Roosevelt liked to do to say that the worst of global warming comes from burning coal and to suggest that the way for the coal industry to respond includes such things as:

Making coal into liquid fuels and natural gas that burn more cleanly to help our oil and natural gas supplies last longer;

& Seeing to it that all existing coal fired plants filter their exhaust through algae that will extract all or most of the CO2 and then use them to make biofuels.

They could also buy liquid biofuels from production by algae on land not now used for forests or farms and combine that with the liquid fuels from coal and the biofuels from the algae fed the CO2 that now goes directly into the atmosphere.

He might also suggest that no new coal fired plants be built. And he might suggest that all new electricity generation should come from renewable sources or nuclear and that sharp increases in energy efficiency and local & onsite renewable energy generation be aggressively pursued to allow for economic growth with fewer new electricity generating plants to allow the new renewable and nuclear sources time to get built and come online.

I also think it might make sense for him to suggest as a goal for the United States and China and all other nations that now burn coal that we begin to focus on setting the goal of economic growth AND releasing less CO2 at the same time. It may be harder to achieve and take longer than just slowing the growth of CO2 release; & we should suggest it rather than demand it of other countries.

But if he commits the United States to that goal and acts accordingly & at least plants the seed of that idea, I think it would be of great value.

2. In my email I agreed that stopping deforestation and his supporting that in the United States and worldwide would be a sound policy.

The email from the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that as much as 15% of global warming is caused by such deforestation.

We’re so far behind where we should be that an area with that much impact deserves attention. We need all the help we can get.

And, in my email I pointed out the forests now in place remove CO2 at no cost and are already in place.

At a time where the funds to help reduce CO2 are far less than needed, I think it imperative to save resources already in place that require no new funds!

Here are some ways to avoid such deforestation.:

By seeing to it that biofuels and liquid fuels to replace oil come from:

sugar cane waste or other agricultural waste from existing farms as Brazil does;

biofuels from algae grown on land not now forested or used as farms;

biofuels from algae fed CO2 from plants now in place that burn coal or natural gas;

& liquid fuels made from coal;

AND making each of these programs a priority, we can help stop the incentives for such deforestation.

Lastly, though it wasn’t in my email, finding out the causes of deforestation now; who is doing it; and what resources for enforcement of existing laws against it countries now experiencing it might need and creating programs to give people incentives or other tools to do the things they now achieve by deforestation and preventing more of it at the same time with more effective enforcement would also make sense. And with the help of his advisors and staff, President Obama could describe and suggest or even launch such programs.

President Obama cannot speak for the congress of the United States and the congress may block some legislation that the coal and gas industries fear. But he CAN do virtually all of what I just described.

He can suggest goals and solutions and commit to those things he CAN do while he is in office.

And, perhaps of most importance, he can show that his administration is working to deliver on his desired goals plus highlight ways other coal producing countries, notably China, can keep economic growth without adding new coal fired plants & to suggest that as a goal for all the countries present.

International progress beginning....

Today's post: Wednesday, 12-2-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

1. More and more people AND countries are beginning to realize these things and take constructive action.

China has recently made several announcements that will soon add gigawatts of new electric generation from wind and solar sources. India has begun the process of adding gigawatts of solar electricity generation.

And, as these things come online they will gradually begin to trigger the transmission upgrades to deliver this new electricity to where it will be used.

The weekly CEN Weekly Intelligence Update has several other stories that show that, even though it’s still short of what’s needed, we ARE finally beginning to get more movement towards a clean energy future.

For example President Obama will attend the Copenhagen Talks December 9. He will bring several cabinet members and high-ranking Administration officials & apparently has pre-announced a goal of reducing U.S. global warming emissions, such as CO2, to roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. And, a goal of an 83 percent reduction in global warming emissions by 2050.

The 17 percent below 2005 levels target is consistent with the legislation that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year.

And, this near term goal is both:

weaker than many scientists would like & weaker than what might be needed to induce other countries to make an added effort to achieve such goals;

AND, given the programs in place & not yet in place to achieve it, it may be more than we can deliver.

The good news is that the U.S. has now joined much of the rest of the world in taking action to solve this world wide problem. The train is not yet going fast enough; but at least it has left the station and is picking up speed.

The 17 % goal may not be endorsed by the U.S. Senate or the combined House and Senate bill that finally passes; & it may be a bit too much too soon to expect even if it is.

But since we will make much more effort than we were and there is continuing and multiple technological and entrepreneurial innovation, we might achieve the 83 percent reduction in global warming emissions by 2050.

The Chinese propose to reduce carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic output – by 40-45 percent compared to 2005 levels.

This will very likely cause the emissions from China to increase overall instead of dropping as needs to be achieved if they do no more than that in actuality. It may also cause unsustainable increases in air and water pollution in China & in countries downwind from China.

China has not yet made the leap a goal of doubling their economic output per capita AND slashing their overall release of CO2 & other global warming emissions at least in half of 2005 levels.

But here again, the train has left the station. What they will do and ARE already beginning to do may well provide the foundation to achieve just that goal by 2050.

Both the United States and China are beginning to take constructive action. So is India. The rest of the developed world, Germany in particular, and much of Western Europe has already begun.

So, despite the fact that many of the key countries have a big list each of what goals they will NOT yet agree to, the real progress is actually substantial and promising.

2. Second, the less developed world countries are asking for help financially in dealing with the effects of global warming. The bad news is that the entire developed world may not be rich enough, even if they could promise it with their own internal politics, to give this help AND do what they should do to solve the underlying problem.

To me this means that the less developed countries need to prioritize what will make the most positive difference and then ask for seed money and organizational help to create workable programs that they can fund in part themselves and do private fund raising and even bank loans to get done. The seed money and organizational help, given that self-help attitude and well though through programs -- might be affordable and the developed countries might be able to sell it politically to their own people.

I suspect many less developed countries will simply demand more help and not do this. The bad news is that I suspect only those countries that do something like what I just suggested will be able to do a decently good job in combating global warming.

It is true the global warming was caused in the past by the now developed countries and now is largely due to them and the newly developed large countries China and India. What I see may not be entirely fair or desirable. But I think it describes the reality the less developed countries now face.

The good news is that some of the methods and technologies the developed countries develop to combat global warming WILL make it to many of the less developed countries. And that will do some good.

Clean energy reasons to be thankful....

Today's post: Wednesday, 11-25-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

More and more people AND countries are beginning to realize these things and take constructive action.

So, despite being badly rushed for time to act and the world-wide slow start, we are beginning to have some things to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

China has recently made several announcements that will soon add gigawatts of new electric generation from wind and solar sources. India has begun the process of adding gigawatts of solar electricity generation.

And, as these things come online they will gradually begin to trigger the transmission upgrades to deliver this new electricity to where it will be used.

Next, for several reasons, it turns out that global warming has temporarily slowed. Since we are so far behind in combating it, that’s a blessing. The world wide recession has caused many people to suffer and to a degree impoverished everyone. But we are generating and releasing far less CO2 than we would have been without it.

In addition, some of the effects of global warming have created some braking effects apparently. Just as ice cools a drink on a hot day, the increased melts of polar ice and glaciers has apparently caused some cooling of the oceans and changes in their currents that have temporarily slowed warming effects.

(Of course the people who want to believe burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 is not causing warming think this means they are correct. Their problem is that for the survival of our global economy as we run short of oil and the national security of the countries that now depend on imported oil, we need to act is if global warming is true even if they are right. Worse for them, the other and ample evidence shows they are likely only indulging in wishful thinking about CO2 releases not causing global warming.)

But regardless if they are right or wrong, we HAVE been cut a short break that will, or at least might, help us get started in time to prevent some of the worst energy related disasters.

In the United States and China, because of the huge installed base and massive economic dependence on coal fired plants, it will take far longer than many of us would like to begin to cut back on electricity from coal. But here too there are several signs of improvements to come.

Between the growing lack of patience of the people and politicians with the various kinds of pollution, other than releasing CO2, connected with mining and burning coal in BOTH the United States and China AND the need to burn far less to lower CO2 emissions AND the increasing availability of new clean sources of electricity that is finally beginning to come online, we may not yet be using less coal; but the amount of NEW coal fired plants being built is beginning to drop to zero.

Additionally, though the political representatives of the states in the United States that depend on coal for jobs, statewide over-all business income, and electricity now -- may stop cap and trade legislation in the US Senate for a while longer, many of the individual states that are horribly strapped for cash during this severe recession are firing up or acting on plans to set up state or region wide cap & trade policies that send them new revenue.

So, we will soon be left with a very different and smaller coal industry. More ways will be found to mine it without horrible land, water, and air pollution; and other practices will gradually be outlawed. More ways to clean particulates and other kinds of air pollution from burning coal will be found and mandated with many sloppier and less responsible current practices then outlawed. Many coal fired plants will be in political areas that have some kind of CO2 cap & trade. Then at some point renewable sources of electricity both existing and new will generate electricity for less money than coal will be able to do.

Some utilities and coal companies will begin to produce biofuels from feeding their released CO2 to algae that produce it, make coal directly into cleaner burning and more easily transported methane & directly into gasoline and diesel fuel not dependent on using petroleum. And they will begin to use coal to make plastics and other carbon based commodities as the petrochemical industries have done and to compete with them.

The rest of the coal companies will go out of business.

All this will take 25 to 35 years when we need it to take 10. But it is happening and will happen.

The leaders of the coal companies need to decide which group they want to have their company be in.

All of this is progress to be thankful for and was NOT happening before now.

Lastly, the boom in cars and trucks that are hybrids, can burn other fuels than petroleum based ones, and plug in hybrids and all electric cars, biofuel production, and soon more carbon based fuels from coal all mean that, we have a shot at using enough less oil soon to increase the dependence of the United States and other countries in the developed world on oil from politically unstable places. And, it is beginning to look now as if this is happening in time to prevent gasoline and diesel prices from going above $10 a gallon in today’s dollars or having our economy collapse when we begin to truly run out of petroleum.

Energy bill in two parts may make sense....

Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.

It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.

A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.

We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:

One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.

The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.

Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.

I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.

But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.

What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.

And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:

being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;

being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;

being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;

& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.

Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.

And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.

To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?

Energy entrepreneurs doing better than politicians....

Today's post: Wednesday, 11-11-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

While there ARE some pieces of good news in posts I did two, three, & four weeks ago that show that some political leaders are beginning to take some decent first steps towards building the energy policy we ideally should have had 40 years ago, it’s mostly too little too late.

However, given the tiny bit of help from those political leaders, there are multiple examples of energy entrepreneurs who have already begun to create our new energy economy.

Those efforts are beginning to look more and more promising.

For example, since electricity can be generated by virtually all the renewable energy sources and by nuclear reactors and by burning the more clean burning than coal natural gas, NONE of which use petroleum, it clearly would help to run our transport systems more and more on electricity rather than by burning petroleum products such as diesel fuel and gasoline.

Not only that, even if you generate electricity by burning natural gas or coal, apparently electric vehicles, that incorporate regenerative electricity generation instead of using brakes to slow down and are more efficient in other ways, actually cause less CO2 to be released than comparable vehicles that burn gasoline or diesel fuel for the same mileage driven.

So while the politicians both in the United States are mostly playing roadblock instead of making workable compromises that move in the right direction and saying we’ll only do the harder stuff if everyone else does it first and few do very much, the progress towards well done all electric cars is breathtaking and the progress on plug in hybrids that use far less petroleum is getting there.

For example, as of today, you can go to: http://www.teslamotors.com/blogs.php & see the story of a man who bought one of the Tesla Motors Roadsters.

Of course, they are priced for multi-millionaires & for the people almost that fortunate market now, a bit over $100,000.

But Tesla Motors will soon sell their model S sedan that will sell for about half that, comparable to what other more affordable and existing high end cars sell for.

And, the comments by Eric Brechner who tells about his experience with the Tesla Roadster he bought while he and his wife waited to get their model S are very promising.

In software, even from well thought of major companies, it’s not uncommon for the first version of a new release to need multiple fixes before it really becomes a decent product.

So, since the Tesla Roadster was Tesla Motors initial product, he had expected comparable glitches. Instead he found it more user-friendly and reliable and easy to maintain than the best gasoline powered car he could have found to buy.

Further, due to the simplicity of the design, that advantage in maintenance will last the life of the car when compared to the complexity of a gasoline powered car.

(He also notes that their Roadster is so much fun to drive, when the model S is available, his wife will get one and they’ll use it when they need the added passenger seats as a family car; but he will keep the Roadster to keep driving himself instead of his original plan to sell it to buy himself a second model S.)

As more and more communities have electricity provided by solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear sources and more and more people drive all electric cars and trucks and mostly electric plug-in hybrids, we will begin to use far less petroleum even without the policies to revoke the multiple incentives the oil companies now have or the added taxes and regulations on CO2 release that the politicians may not be able to pass.

So, while the progress on energy by the politicians is still too little too late, the energy entrepreneurs are beginning to solve the problem.

So, although I still hope to influence the politicians to do the right things, as in my post last week, I’m placing my hopes and expectations for success mostly with the energy entrepreneurs.

Energy information for Republicans....

Today's post: Wednesday, 11-4-2009

As you can see from the paragraphs below, I think taking steps to stop the growth of fossil fuel use and making huge progress on alternative sources of energy and electricity generation are crucial.

I completely understand that we need to be careful not to create rapid increases in energy costs in the middle of a recession.

Similarly, in any state or district that contains large businesses that are part of the fossil fuel economy, as their representative, you have a responsibility and strong incentives to see to it that their views are represented well and that they are treated fairly and if they must be downsized or their growth slowed, it be done in such a way they can still thrive in some way and not throw large numbers of their employees out of work in the middle of the recession.

However, nearly all Republicans in the United States congress seem not to understand what is happening in the modern world in the field of energy or to realize we need quick action to avoid truly frightening consequences – or they are willing to act as if they don’t.

Instead of seeing to it that reasonable short term protections are given the fossil fuel businesses in the areas they represent and adding to the energy bill things they favor that would increase energy efficiency or our national security they are mostly working to block any bill at all.

1. We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

(We have global warming. The evidence is in. Most scientists say the huge increases in world wide CO2 levels are the prime cause. And, the increases in CO2 levels are also documented to be real. The effects on emergency services that will be needed and on agriculture and on coastal cities if this warming trend continues are also quite clear.

Could it be that the CO2 is not the prime cause of the global warming? It doesn’t look at all likely. But, given these other facts, it will pay us to try to stop further increases in CO2 levels to help slow the warming even if there is another cause or two that is causing most of the warming.

In addition, virtually all the leaders of the developed countries in Europe believe that the global warming is real and believe that the people in the United States who are failing to act to contain it are under-informed and irresponsible. Worse, leaders in many other countries are even less happy with the United States for these reasons.

Given these considerations, we clearly must do far more than we have. And we must do it soon. Delay is not a good option. Great harm will befall the United States and all the people in the area that you represent will be harmed if we delay.)

2. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

(Nuclear energy has enough risks from either the real cost of fail safe nuclear waste storage or fail safe protection from terrorists or both that it is a far less desirable and likely far less cost effective solution than renewable energy if we pay up to do the nuclear additions safely.

But, the need is so great and the ability of nuclear to generate electricity when and where there is no wind and little sunshine -- or none at night -- means that adding more nuclear power plants as a priority likely does make sense.

Large increases in renewable energy AND increases in nuclear clearly gives us & our economy better protection from running out of oil than renewables only.)

Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to the economy of the United States and the people in the area you represent if oil were to suddenly run out world wide BEFORE we have alternatives in place?

It would make the so called “Great Depression” look like a small hill by comparison!

3. Today we send staggering sums of money paid by people from the areas you represent and everyone else in the country to oil producers outside the United States. So do the people in Japan, China, India, and virtually all of Europe. Worse, many of the countries that the oil comes from – and who get the money – are either politically unstable or run by governments that don’t like the United States at all.

If we learn to use far less oil soon and become more energy efficient and add huge amounts of renewables and some more nuclear soon, we can put a screeching halt to this.

Even if you believe global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels, it seems reasonable to act to protect our national security and get this done soon.

4. Finally, as California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it well, “You are losing at the Box Office.”

You lost the Presidency in the last election in large part because many people saw that the Republican leadership was under-informed or irresponsible on these issues.

And they saw that instead of adding to the solutions to these problems or working to make the solutions safer to implement economically, Republicans were the party advocating nothing be done at all about them.

Unfortunately, that has as yet changed little. Republicans have become and remained the party of “Just say no.” That’s simply not going to work.

To be fully functional and successful as a political party instead of being a dwindling minority that grows ever smaller, Republicans must do better at implementing and moving forward on actually helping to take action to solve these problems.

3 pieces of good economic AND renewable energy news....

Today's post: Wednesday, 10-28-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

There are 3 pieces of extremely good news in the last week showing that money is being spent & will be spent to build more and more useful renewable energy and which will create jobs in the next few months to three years and more!

1. For example, if you are a homeowner, you may well have a home that would do well to have solar photovoltaic panels on your roof and perhaps other parts of your property. Or, you may own a shopping center where you could install solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and on canopies over all or most of your parking lot.

But with what money?

For many reasons, over time the price for grid electricity will rise, so in addition to the environmental benefits you might actually save money on your costs for electricity over a 20 year time period.

But with the possibility that you might sell your property or be foreclosed on and many banks not having the resources to lend on anything but a sure thing these days, if you don’t have the entire construction cost in savings or in your checking account that has no other demands on it, how on earth will you finance installing the solar you’d like to install and may even save money on?

The reality is that most people won’t have access to the financing or the upfront cash & won’t install the solar.

Magic wand time has arrived!

8 days ago on Tuesday, 10-20-2009 the San Francisco Chronicle has a story that a local & famous community has found a solution. Even better, the current federal administration is taking steps to see that communities all over the United States begin to adopt this plan.

Here’s a few excerpts from that story.:

“Biden to model solar finance plan on Berkeley's

The solar financing plan that originated in Berkeley in 2007 will become a national model, Vice President Joe Biden said Monday.

San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones@sfchronicle.com.

Biden's program, known as Recovery Through Retrofit, creates a framework for cities, counties and states to set up tax districts that allow residential and business property owners to install solar panels and make other energy improvements, repaying the investment over a 20-year property tax assessment.”


“Since Berkeley adopted its financing plan, cities across the nation have adopted similar models, and California, New York, Texas and 11 other states have passed legislation making it easier for municipalities to create their own financing plans.

Berkeley's plan intends to eliminate the up-front cost of solar installation, which could total about $20,000 for an average bungalow, and the financial commitment that could follow property owners after they move from the home.

Under the plan, the assessment stays with the property, not the person. Property owners pay no money up front but pay about $180 a month on their property tax bill….”

“The federal plan and those adopted in most other cities allow property owners to make other energy-efficiency upgrades, too, such as installing new windows, insulation and weather stripping.

Solar financing plans have been a boon for installers. A Berkeley firm, Sungevity….seen its business increase dramatically in California, including in Sonoma County and Palm Desert, which have adopted versions of the financing plan. "Where it's available, it's a clear market driver," said Danny Kennedy, Sungevity president. "There's no question there's a demand out there, and this goes a long way to removing the barriers."

(Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/BAKT1A7R72.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0VGMDGa7Z /)”

This one innovation in financing alone could multiply solar and energy efficiency upgrades in every community that adopts this plan.

Now it looks as if nearly every community will have it soon.

This could make our entire country 25% more energy efficient in its energy use in housing & multiply our total solar installations by five over the next 10 or 15 years.
Even better, as most of this will be done where the electricity will be used on the exact site where it’s generated, no new transmission lines need to be built to enable it.

2. Yesterday, Tuesday, 10-27-2009, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Energy Secretary, Steven Chu announced the first $151 million in grants for potentially high reward experiments in energy related projects.

“U. S. looking for clean-tech ‘home runs’ “

Some of these will fail or not do very much. But those that succeed will quite literally generate billions in venture capital to expand them and tens of thousands of new jobs.

There will be another $249 million in such grants as the total was reported to eventually be $400 million.

These included:

a way intended to make desalinization of water enough more energy efficient to enable us to stop over-drawing our rivers and underground water supplies AND supply growing populations and farmers.

an experiment designed to potentially double the amount of electricity held by lithium ion batteries used in electric cars, plug-in hybrids, electronic devices and possibly storage for solar generated electricity in homes and commercial facilities.

a way to make wind turbines at lower cost.

a membrane that may be able to capture carbon dioxide thus enabling cost effective storage or redirection to algae to make biofuels in coal or natural gas burning installations.

work on systems to enable individuals and institutions to easily monitor energy use and reduce and optimize the amount of energy used and its cost.

And those were just the grants in the area served by the San Jose Mercury News!

3. For large scale solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity generation to be useful and cost effective, we must have a transmission system that can quickly be attached to such plants and deliver the electricity to the people and industries that need it and are not nearby. (Many new wind generation areas and some locations for new nuclear plants have the exact same problem.)

In addition, we need to make that transmission system safer and more reliable and waste less electricity than the one we have now.

Upgrading our current transmission system for electricity enough to accomplish these things will create thousands of new jobs and improve our economy as much or more than the Interstate Highway system did when it was built.

That will take billions of dollars.

As of last Tuesday, we have an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on that system!

On Tuesday, 10-27-2009, President Obama announced a $3.4 billion dollar government supported fund for electricity grid modernization projects. With the matching $4.7 billion in private investments, that’s an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on making an upgrade to our electric transmission grid comparable to building the Interstate Highway System.

That will create so many jobs and boost the economy so much even the US Chamber of Commerce praised this clean-energy initiative.

These three developments each individually will enable the building and use of far more renewable energy than we have now and create jobs and improve our economy.

The effects of all three together over the next one to 3 years and beyond is the first thing I’ve seen that gives me real confidence our recession has something that will cause it to end -- and that it will end and put people back to work.

So they will each increase our energy efficiency and amount of renewable energy AND improve our economy.

Bipartisan progress in the Senate....

Today's post: Wednesday, 10-21-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Supporting federal legislation would help. That’s why the news I got last week that begins to make that much more likely was such welcome news.:

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) published a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday (10-10), calling for bipartisan support for passing climate legislation soon.

They stressed that clean energy is an economic & national security issue, and argued that the United States could lead the world in the increasingly competitive global clean economy. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20graham&st=cse.

(From the Clean Economy Network
CEN Weekly Intelligence Update October 13, 2009.
You can sign up for this free weekly email at http://www.cleaneconomy.net .)

Here’s a key quote from their Op Ed piece.:

“Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.”

Their solution is to work a compromise that does its best to combine the best and most safely doable from each party’s wish list.

Their key idea is to build an energy bill to both reduce our impact on global warming AND increase our energy independence while installing safeguards to prevent near term increases in energy costs at a rate that would cause economic harm.

With only one exception, their Op Ed piece lists a good compromise and combined wish list.

A. For global warming,

1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.

Such plants use no fossil fuels and release no CO2; and a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity PLUS more nuclear generated electricity produces a much more stable and predictable energy supply than only a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity. Paradoxically, because that makes a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity more practical, it may well make it more doable and faster to arrive.

2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.

We already have a lot of it & burn huge amounts of it to make electricity now which releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration looks more than a bit iffy to me because it’s hard to do in volume and looks iffy to do securely plus adding a massive extra cost. But turning much of the coal into natural gas which generates much of its heat by burning the hydrogen and with far less air pollution, turning some of it into gasoline as the Germans once did during World War II, and whenever any coal or natural gas is burned in plants to generate electricity, feeding all or most of the CO2 generated to algae to make biofuels allows us to use the Carbon twice and to substitute for oil supplies that would otherwise run out sooner.

3. Increase energy efficiency.

This reduces CO2 release since you can burn the same or less amount of fossil fuels and still have economic growth. It means you no longer have to keep building more coal fired plants for example.

4. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.

By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce CO2. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce CO2 release even more over time. Further, they begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources.

5. The only aspect their Op Ed piece fails to address directly is a strong emphasis on legislation ensuring massive increases in renewable energy installations.

They do however suggest that ensuring that we are competitive with the best clean technology companies in the world and developing and supporting such companies here in the United States would help ensure a strong economy. And, if that set of goals is met, it will help ensure much more building of renewable energy installations.

Clearly, however it is fostered, building of renewable energy installations in large quantities will help slow global warming.

B. For breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil and doing so in ways that avoid over-taxing or slowing our economy,

1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.

Since these plants generate electricity at night when so many more people are asleep, added nuclear power is a superb way to provide electricity at a time of day when it can recharge the batteries in all electric vehicles and plug-hybrids. That has the potential of cutting our entire use of petroleum in half or more. And that in turn makes importing far less oil from outside sources much more doable.

2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.

Since two of the more doable ways, making methane gas and gasoline from coal; and making gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, and/or jet fuel from algae that eats the CO2 released when coal or methane made from it is burned -- both generate fuels cars and trucks can burn with no outside oil, or ANY oil at all for that matter, needed.

3. More but highly environmentally responsible offshore oil drilling.

The level of environmental safety needed &/or direct political resistance from West Coast states suggest that this is either undoable or in far smaller volume than proponents might like in those locations.

But, the prospects both politically and from the potential amount of accessible oil are vastly better for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, if the track record of the environmental controls is good enough there & once oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling off our West Coast might become more likely.

Also, both off Baja California and in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, a deal with Mexico might add yet another way to add more offshore drilling.

Lastly, as oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling into oil deposits offshore from our West Coast may be become economically affordable by drilling into them from rigs actually located ONSHORE.

4. Increase energy efficiency.

Every time we use new more energy efficient devices in them or retrofit more energy efficient devices and systems into our vehicles and buildings we need less oil and less natural gas or oil or coal generated electricity. That enables us to use far less oil and can substantially contribute to reducing our dependence on outside sources of oil.

5. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.

By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce the amount of oil we use. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce the amount of oil we use even more over time. In addition, they will begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources and that will also reduce the amount of oil we use and sharply reduce the amount of oil we need to import.

X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*

By the way, it’s my opinion that the countries that supply the oil now that we will no longer need will do fine if these things come to pass.

1. The process will take many years and they will have very slow drop offs in the amount of oil they send our way at first.

2. Since the rest of the world is developing economically, they will have other customers for most of the oil we stop getting from them.

3. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have as much solar thermal reserves as they do oil. As the world turns to more renewable energy and the solar thermal industry develops more cost effective technology and economies of scale, these countries will add very large revenues from that source at about the same time they get less from oil either because they have fewer buyers eventually or when they begin to run out.

Very good news in California for renewable energy....

Today's post: Wednesday, 10-14-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

There are two ways that have been proven to help do this.

One is to pay the going rate for renewable energy fed into the grid even from small generators.

The other is to use the same kind of Feed-in tariff that guarantees builders of larger renewable energy generation projects that Germany used so successfully that makes it profitable AND FINANCABLE up front for builders to build the renewable energy generation production projects they will build. The contracts that give them a modest profit and guaranteed income over the life of the contracts are the key to this.

The state of California just took two key steps in the right direction.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two key bills Sunday, 10-11, 2009 that will boost solar power. Since I live in California & also know that what we do here is often copied elsewhere, I’m extremely pleased and encouraged.

Here are the two key bills he signed.:

1. AB920, requires the utilities to pay a homeowner whose solar array or small wind generator produces more electricity during the year than the customer uses. Until now, if a homeowner's panels produced more energy than the home used in an entire year, the utilities got the excess for free.

For people with larger homes with room for a lot of solar cells this may make installing solar cells much more affordable since they will get some income in return in some cases. It will also make installing a large enough system to come close to powering the home by itself even in less sunny weather, since they will get paid for the excess they generate in sunny weather.

It may even cause the building of micro-projects to generate renewable energy by guaranteeing the electricity they generate is marketable.

(I’ve not yet read the bill to see if such installations or a similar deal for businesses is included as well as the one reported for homeowners. One report I saw suggests it might but I do not yet know.)

If we need more renewable energy, & we very much do need it and soon, this policy has made such good sense, I’ve wanted this done for quite some time. So it’s great news that it has been made California law – or will be the day it takes effect it will be.

2. SB32, will expand California's feed-in tariff for renewable power. Used widely in Europe, feed-in tariffs establish a price the utilities pay to buy electricity from businesses with solar arrays.

California already has a feed-in tariff, but it only covers renewable power projects capable of generating 1.5 megawatts or less. Under SB32, the limit is increased to 3 megawatts.

This is much smaller progress since the existing program is quite a bit less than the German model that is proven to work so well.

But, since it is on a much bigger scale than paying those homeowners who manage to produce more electricity from renewables than they consume—and because even if partial it’s a step in the right direction and now can boost projects twice as large, it is still modest but important progress.

When ALL projects from tiny to much larger than 3 megawatts can get a feed-in tariff contract as good as the Germans used, I’ll be happier and we will get a lot more renewable energy built.

That said, in California, we now are headed there more than we were before.

And, it’s news of progress that will begin to help.

Warming is real & there are two other reasons to act....

Today's post: Wednesday, 10-7-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

1. I’ve seen first hand that global warming is real. And the likely costs of global warming are huge and a bit frightening.

For most of the last 25 years my parents had a cabin the Sierra of California just low enough in elevation that they didn’t get a lot of snow (& closer than the Lake Tahoe area to where they and most of the rest of our family lived in the San Francisco Bay Area.)

Because cold winter weather becomes colder, and in this location snowier, at higher elevations, if the climate warms up snow will fall at in increasingly higher elevations and plants that don’t grow where it gets too cold will be found at increasingly higher elevations.

That’s exactly what happened at my parents’ cabin. They saw the snow line go to higher elevations. And, poison oak, that doesn’t grow where it gets to cold, went from none at all in the community near my parents’ cabin to having some to having a lot over the last 25 years. They saw other similar changes in what plants grew there also.

The ample pictures of huge decreases in glaciers suggest strongly that this effect is world-wide and NOT just found in California.

So, since global warming looks quite real, what problems will it cause?

Since warming, as it continues, will flood coastal cities that contain much of the world’s population and economy now, that’s a very big deal indeed. The costs that look to be needed for flood protection, as the Netherlands has done, or relocations will be enormous.

We’ve seen initial evidence that global warming may increase the number of droughts and floods and storms such as tornados & hurricanes or make the ones that occur worse. The costs that look to be needed to combat these effects will be enormous. And the economic productivity lost that would not have been won’t help either. Worse, our food supply will potentially be reduced as these effects harm agriculture.

2. Mining and burning coal as it is now practiced has been expanding as our economy grows. But in addition to the huge amount of CO2 this has generated & will continue to do even under the best and most optimistic scenarios, this causes land and water pollution during mining and when the coal is burned, it kills trees with acid rain that we need to remove the CO2 from the air & poisons the fish and seafood we eat with the mercury it throws into the air. And, there is evidence this mercury is poisoning US. That harms our brains and can cause both decreases in reasoning ability & memory -- & it can lead to mental decline as well. That slows our economy and creates more medical costs.

Burning coal without adequate filtering of the smoke also creates enough haze to harm agriculture and cause lung and heart disease – as it has already begun to do in China and the countries downwind from China. That effect too creates more medical costs and harms the economic productivity of the people it harms.

So, even if global warming were not the concern it is, it’s become clear that until or unless we clean up the process of mining and burning coal AND burn far less, we will have increasing environmental problems and harm both to people AND to our economy.

That will make coal more expensive to burn even without any regulations on CO2 released that tax or limit the CO2 that is released. So it will pay us to have alternatives in place soon that cost less.

3. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

That means we have a number one priority to act to save our economy from these effects even if global warming weren’t real.

As gasoline prices went from $2.00 a gallon to over $4.50 a gallon in our part of California recently it slowed our economy noticeably here. And the similar increases in the cost of gasoline elsewhere in the United States helped trigger the recession since it both increased the cost of doing business and reduced the amount of other purchases consumers were able to make. It certainly did for my wife and me.

Imagine the effects of gasoline rapidly going to $10 a gallon or more in today’s dollars and having gas lines and rationing on top of that -- with worse to come.

Unless we very rapidly increase the energy efficiency of our economy and add huge amounts of renewable energy sources soon we may well see exactly that.

So, that means that opposing the switch from coal and oil to increasing the energy efficiency of our economy and adding huge amounts of renewable energy in part by increased regulation of fossil fuels and braking their use in some way -- will harm our economy and the people and businesses in it.

That means opposition to global warming and acting to switch our economy to these new sources is very BAD for business -- and will be so much sooner than many now think.

And, all three of these concerns make the recent opposition of exactly that kind by the US Chamber of Commerce an extremely ill advised policy indeed!

The companies with leaders who understand this likely complained to the leadership of US Chamber of Commerce apparently with no effect.

So, those companies recently have been leaving the US Chamber of Commerce and declining to any longer be members or associated with it.

I’m pleased to say that this includes PG&E and Apple Computer that are headquartered here in the Silicon Valley area.

There IS a point that makes sense to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy supplies more at first than making use fossil fuel energy more expensive to avoid shocking our reeling economy.

But not understanding that the need to make this switch is real and pandering to people as if they are not informed or quite bright to oppose it as the US Chamber of Commerce has been doing are simply not OK.

I think Tom Freidman’s idea of the United States racing the Chinese to do the most to develop and add huge amounts of renewable energy is dramatically better policy.

It’s on! The Green Energy Race has started….

Today's post: Wednesday, 9-30-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Years ago, one of the smartest and best informed people in the United States, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, said that the United States needed to take a Manhattan Project urgency to dramatic increases in energy efficiency & sources of renewable energy—or the race to the moon urgency.

My take has been that it’s more like the effort the United States needed to win World War II. And, interestingly enough, it’s Germany that has taken this approach to dramatic increases in energy efficiency & sources of renewable energy. They’ve done very well.

But, I knew he was right that we’ve needed something dramatic to get the public and our leaders excited and committed.

It’s on! The Green energy Race has started!

Tom Friedman saw this one too! In fact, he just wrote about it.

After Sputnik, the US & the then USSR, Russia and its then included countries, had a serious space race. Today, the equivalent of Sputnik has happened in green energy.

The problems caused by overuse of fossil fuel in China have been serious enough, they’ve decided, for self-preservation motives, to make a massive and effective commitment to green energy.

So, I think Tom Friedman is correct.

It’s on! The Green energy Race has started!

The Green Energy Race now has all the world entered in a way that the Space race did not. But the main two competitors in the Green Energy Race now are the United States and China.

As venture capitalist John Doerr pointed out months ago, the United States is not doing well in this race.

So, let’s consider Tom Friedman’s recent column today’s equivalent of Sputnik.:

email the link to everyone you know after you read it.

It’s at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html?_r=1&em .

Natural gas might be a good transition fuel....

Today's post: Wednesday, 9-23-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Nuclear energy might help but despite the decent track record of many current nuclear plants that generate electricity as causing far less negative health impacts than other existing alternatives, its potential dangers are enormous. Nuclear also has both very high capital costs and is politically difficult to build even when done right. So, it can help somewhat and likely will become somewhat more used. But nuclear looks more like a supporting solution rather than one that can help enough by itself.

Coal is abundant. But it’s now mined and burned in ways that are extremely harmful to the environment and our health in addition to producing the most CO2. And, we already burn something like 10 times too much coal as far as CO2 release is concerned. CO2 sequestration from coal burning now looks to be expensive and quite limited. And, although coal can be used to make gasoline and other fuels both directly and by feeding the CO2 from burning coal into a feedstock for algae to produce biofuels, coal looks like a fuel that we will mostly need to wind down using as fast as possible.

So, the case for massive increases in renewable energy is overwhelmingly strong.

But even the best case scenarios suggest we will build more renewable energy far too slowly in the short term.

Earlier this week, I saw a potentially promising piece on NPR about having natural gas be a major transition fuel to help fill this gap.

Natural gas can run cars and trucks and already does so albeit on a very small scale. And, on a much bigger scale, natural gas is already used to generate electricity instead of coal.

In addition, all of coal is carbon, while methane, the main gas in natural gas has 4 hydrogen atoms and only one carbon atom in each molecule. So it produces far less CO2 as it’s burned than coal and somewhat less than gasoline. It also tends to burn far cleaner than coal and somewhat cleaner than gasoline. Although it does cost money and the risk must be managed, natural gas also costs far less to transport than coal.

So, if we had an abundant supply, we might be able to stop using more coal and petroleum and gradually substitute natural gas for half the petroleum and coal we now use.

That abundant supply of natural gas may actually exist in the United States and Canada now. It seems that it may be far less harmful to the environment and far less expensive to produce natural gas from shale deposits than it would be to use them to produce a petroleum substitute. In the United States, a large chunk of East Texas, about 60 % of Pennsylvania and Ohio, about 35% of New York state, and virtually all of West Virginia and Wisconsin have very large deposits of such shale. And, though the NPR article didn’t mention them or map them, I’ve heard that Canada has as much or more such shale.

So, most of our resources should be directed to sharply and quickly increasing our energy efficiency and building more renewable energy.

Some should be used to make liquid fuels from coal to give the coal mining regions a more humane transition than they would otherwise get as far less coal is used. In addition, those fuels can replace fuels from petroleum to make it last longer, enable its cost to rise more slowly, and increase the energy independence of the United States, Canada, and China.

Some of our resources should be used to make cost-effective biofuels not competitive with forests or farmland to replace petroleum for the same reasons.

Some of our resources likely will be used to build more nuclear plants in part to provide a stable 24 hour source of electricity to smooth out the supply from more variable renewable sources.

But converting from gasoline and coal in favor of natural gas on a large scale and using the natural gas from this new source of supply to do so may make good sense.

We may well not be able to stop burning too much coal and petroleum fast enough doing everything else unless we do.

And, the increased use of natural gas looks to be faster to increase than anything else except increased energy efficiency.

T. Boone Pickens has been saying so for many months now. But, to me, he didn’t make that case as persuasively as this NPR piece did.

I’ve long thought he was and is absolutely correct about wind power. But now it looks like he may well have been right about his views on using natural gas as well.

Energy efficiency acts fast....

Today's post: Wednesday, 9-16-2009

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

The bad news is that it’s going far to slow -- both beginning to charge fossil fuels and the businesses that produce them more of their true costs to make them less competitive & slow their use -- and adding the massive amounts of renewable energy, new transmission lines; & some nuclear it will take to use less fossil fuels without harming the economy.

The good news is that energy efficiency can act to help solve this because it acts so much faster.

Two examples are that:

1. It’s been found that a complete energy systems overhaul for many if not most commercial buildings can slash their annual energy use AND to such an extent that the cost savings per year once it’s done will be as great as the initial investment needed to do it.

Adobe in San Jose, California did exactly that. They invested about a million dollars in it for their headquarters building and then found they realized a million dollars a year in savings.

2. The highest peak electric demand in areas that have air conditioners in commercial and residential buildings is on the hottest days each summer.

But as much as 90 % of that electricity demand is removable by better heat proofing of buildings; better insulation; and by running the airconditioning if still needed early in the morning when there is less competing demand and the efficiency of the air conditioning is greatest due to the lower outside temperature.

We almost eliminated the need for air conditioning in a house we once owned by adding more intake vents around the base of our peaked roofs and installing convection powered turbines that enabled the solar heat in our attic to escape. Since that heat no longer came into our house, we had no further need to remove it by using air conditioning to remove it and use electricity to do so.

Now I’ve found a company in San Jose, California, NuLight Solutions, Inc. that makes a solar powered attic fan for the same purpose.

(Since this peak demand occurs when there is robust solar thermal and photovoltaic energy available, the other way to avoid the need for adding fossil fuel plants to provide for it, is to add more solar energy installations that produce peak electricity at the same time as this peak in demand.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you have an innovative program to save energy in similar ways that you would like funding or publicity for, check this out soon.

(The deadline to apply for one of them is 9-28-2009, just 12 days from now.)

From the CEN Weekly Intelligence Update for 9-15-2009 see http://www.cleaneconomy.net/

1. Yesterday, the Department of Energy announced a $450 million Retrofit Ramp-Up Program. Funded under the Recovery Act, the program will support innovative models for rolling out energy efficiency technologies to homes and businesses on a large scale. DOE envisions an energy upgrade that will save up to $100 billion annually in household and small business utility bills.

DOE issued a Request for Information, seeking local energy efficiency projects. Applications are due September 28, 2009.

For additional information, see http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=237.

2. On September 14, DOE announced more than $354 million in awards to 22 states to support energy efficiency and conservation activities under the Recovery Act-funded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. For additional information, see http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=238.