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 .
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
2 stories with large scale good news....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-9-2009
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.
That makes 2 stories that appeared in the last few days -- huge good news!
1. First Solar has signed a deal to build a 2 gigawatt solar installation in an appropriate desert region of China. This 25 square mile solar array will produce enough electricity to power 3 million homes, and – at least during the day on sunny days, it will provide as much power as two large coal burning plants.
It remains to be seen how successfully this project can be built and if it lives up to its potential. First Solar is one of the largest and most successful solar companies; and its technology works. So, it has a good shot at success.
But the two outstanding pieces of good news in this story are these two.: Finally a solar installation is being planned on a scale that measures up to the need and the opportunity. And, second, China is not only getting serious about adding renewable energy, it is providing a very positive example for other countries to follow. Since China is the largest emitter now of CO2, this is the first sign that the Chinese are seriously trying to do something to build the renewable energy they’ll need to stop doing so.
2. The portion of the stimulus package that was passed that targets energy efficiency and renewable energy has of necessity had a slow start according to a story titled,
“A Turning Point For Green-Energy Stimulus Projects?”
by Kevin Whitelaw that appeared, yesterday, Tuesday, 9-8-2009, on NPR’s online news.
The good news is that money and the resulting jobs from the stimulus package devoted to clean energy will soon begin to kick in on a very large scale. It may well eventually rival Eisenhower’s Interstate Freeway building or JFK’s Race to the Moon as one of the most significant programs ever initiated by a President of the United States or during his time in office.
This NPR story points out that the very small initial impact has been largely because so little was happening at first -- and it certainly didn’t help that the other economic news has until recently been so bad.
The NPR story explains that this is about to change dramatically and on a large scale.
Here are the key quotes.:
“The Energy Department was authorized to spend $36.7 billion, much of it on clean-energy programs. To date, however, only about $461 million has been spent. But officials say the pace will really start to pick up this fall.”
“In the 2009 fiscal year, only 1 percent of the stimulus funds being spent will go toward energy and the environment. By 2012, that figure will rise to 17 percent.”
“The various grants and projects are just now being awarded. "The next three months will be the most exciting time for the clean-technology industry in the last decade," …. "Every 10 days to two weeks, we will have another big block of funds going out the door." “
And, in addition to the other money spent on “weatherization” programs these funds will go for solar technology, wind power technology, & the next-generation smart electrical grid.
The article points out that the $2.4 billion in grants for advanced batteries and electric vehicles that was announced last month will start delivering new jobs between this November and next February
The article points out that the Energy Department has awarded some $9.9 billion in loans and contracts which will begin to add a significant number of new jobs in the same time period.
This stimulus spending will continue increasing for nearly 3 years. And, some of the companies and technologies funded will begin to deliver large scale results by 3 years from now while others will keep growing for 10 to 15 years after that.
To turn down our production of CO2 and avoid economic downturns or collapses from run ups in the prices of fossil fuels or from shrinking supplies, we must have a more energy efficient economy and massive amounts of new renewable energy.
These two stories show there is now beginning to be hope that we will be able to transition enough of our economy to these other sources to prevent the worst of the CO2 effects and keep our economy & us going.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-9-2009
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.
That makes 2 stories that appeared in the last few days -- huge good news!
1. First Solar has signed a deal to build a 2 gigawatt solar installation in an appropriate desert region of China. This 25 square mile solar array will produce enough electricity to power 3 million homes, and – at least during the day on sunny days, it will provide as much power as two large coal burning plants.
It remains to be seen how successfully this project can be built and if it lives up to its potential. First Solar is one of the largest and most successful solar companies; and its technology works. So, it has a good shot at success.
But the two outstanding pieces of good news in this story are these two.: Finally a solar installation is being planned on a scale that measures up to the need and the opportunity. And, second, China is not only getting serious about adding renewable energy, it is providing a very positive example for other countries to follow. Since China is the largest emitter now of CO2, this is the first sign that the Chinese are seriously trying to do something to build the renewable energy they’ll need to stop doing so.
2. The portion of the stimulus package that was passed that targets energy efficiency and renewable energy has of necessity had a slow start according to a story titled,
“A Turning Point For Green-Energy Stimulus Projects?”
by Kevin Whitelaw that appeared, yesterday, Tuesday, 9-8-2009, on NPR’s online news.
The good news is that money and the resulting jobs from the stimulus package devoted to clean energy will soon begin to kick in on a very large scale. It may well eventually rival Eisenhower’s Interstate Freeway building or JFK’s Race to the Moon as one of the most significant programs ever initiated by a President of the United States or during his time in office.
This NPR story points out that the very small initial impact has been largely because so little was happening at first -- and it certainly didn’t help that the other economic news has until recently been so bad.
The NPR story explains that this is about to change dramatically and on a large scale.
Here are the key quotes.:
“The Energy Department was authorized to spend $36.7 billion, much of it on clean-energy programs. To date, however, only about $461 million has been spent. But officials say the pace will really start to pick up this fall.”
“In the 2009 fiscal year, only 1 percent of the stimulus funds being spent will go toward energy and the environment. By 2012, that figure will rise to 17 percent.”
“The various grants and projects are just now being awarded. "The next three months will be the most exciting time for the clean-technology industry in the last decade," …. "Every 10 days to two weeks, we will have another big block of funds going out the door." “
And, in addition to the other money spent on “weatherization” programs these funds will go for solar technology, wind power technology, & the next-generation smart electrical grid.
The article points out that the $2.4 billion in grants for advanced batteries and electric vehicles that was announced last month will start delivering new jobs between this November and next February
The article points out that the Energy Department has awarded some $9.9 billion in loans and contracts which will begin to add a significant number of new jobs in the same time period.
This stimulus spending will continue increasing for nearly 3 years. And, some of the companies and technologies funded will begin to deliver large scale results by 3 years from now while others will keep growing for 10 to 15 years after that.
To turn down our production of CO2 and avoid economic downturns or collapses from run ups in the prices of fossil fuels or from shrinking supplies, we must have a more energy efficient economy and massive amounts of new renewable energy.
These two stories show there is now beginning to be hope that we will be able to transition enough of our economy to these other sources to prevent the worst of the CO2 effects and keep our economy & us going.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
China and coal and CO2 reduction targets....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-2-2009
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.
Unfortunately, one resource many countries have turned to instead of using petroleum is burning coal. That both releases huge amounts of CO2; and, when the resulting exhausts allow particulates and other pollutants to escape when coal is burned, even worse problems are created.
Now China has added electric generation capacity by building new coal fired plants for this purpose so fast and for so long, China is now the largest emitter of CO2 in the world.
Now China is doing two things.:
1. They are delaying dealing with the problem much more than they should do for controlling global warming and insisting that the United States do more than is likely feasible in the next few years to lower its CO2 emissions before they fully begin.
2. They ARE beginning to ramp up decent looking long term programs to increase renewable energy enough to allow them to burn less coal or at least stop building new coal fired plants.
Here are my two conclusions:
First, I think that China needs to do far more in China’s own best interests alone than they have done or have in the pipeline to do now.
Global warming and huge amounts of particulates from the coal they burn and do not filter out of the exhaust generated are harming the health of China’s people; reducing the yields from their agriculture; & reducing their amount of sun enough to hamper solar sources of renewable energy.
Even if they weren’t harming the rest of the world also due to their size, they need to clean up the exhausts of their existing coal fired plants; begin building a huge amount of clean sources of energy -- renewable sources for sure and perhaps nuclear as well so that they can immediately stop building new coal fired plants; & begin adding some kind of CO2 sequestration to all their existing coal fired plants. (As I posted last time, since we may be running out of oil soon and need to be cleaning the exhaust of coal fired plants for other reasons, setting up immediate plans to sequester all the CO2 generated by burning coal to feed algae that would then be harvested to make biofuels and substitute for oil would also make excellent sense.)
Secondly, as a strategic way to avoid some of the political friction and make faster progress, I wonder if it might not make sense to set up international agreements based on:
a) setting up action programs now to get much more done that will lead to more renewable energy and less CO2 release;
and
b) to get agreement on very large reductions in C02 for 50 years from now;
and
c) begin to spend a LOT less time and emphasis on agreements on CO2 reductions sooner than that.
If we get agreement (& we don’t look at all likely to do so) for targets for 15 or 20 years from now; but do NOT get agreements that lead to massive action right away, the hassles of getting agreements for targets for 15 or 20 years from now; will be wasted anyway. Without the action to support them, they won’t happen on schedule. So why bother?
However, since it is the actions that will eventually do the job by 50 years from now and might reach the goals we’re hassling about now in 15 or 20 years, I think that asking for agreement on adding policies and programs similar to those used with great success in Germany over the last 15 years plus companion policies to clean up coal now in use and begin to stop using more of it is the set of goals where agreement is most needed.
And, this can be done by one country at a time or by small groups of countries. It may not be necessary or doable to get all countries to agree.
1. For example, both the United States and China now burn quite large amounts of coal.
Why not set up a joint venture between the United States and China to develop and roll out cost effective technologies to clean the exhaust generated and to sequester all the CO2 generated by burning coal to feed algae that would then be harvested to make biofuels and substitute for oil?
2. For example, United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and many other countries in the Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe, and elsewhere have abundant amounts of sun generated heat that can be used to power solar thermal power plants.
Why not set up a joint venture between the United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and any other countries that wish to participate, to develop the relevant technologies and roll out large amounts of solar thermal plants?
3. Germany has put a set of policies in place that have produced great progress just in the last 15 years in building new solar photovoltaic installations, wind power installations, and innovative ways to become more energy efficient that have proven to work.
Why not have a program that every country in the world is invited to participate in to do the same in the next 15 years?
If we do those things right away, we will make the progress we need to make -- while if we continue to argue over short term goals, it seems unlikely to me that we will.
Since these same things also protect the economies of the countries that do them, the larger countries that have been hassling about goals, I think should work together on those sorts of programs and to take the lead in doing so.
And that specifically includes China, the United States, India, and the countries of Western Europe both individually and as a group.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-2-2009
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.
Unfortunately, one resource many countries have turned to instead of using petroleum is burning coal. That both releases huge amounts of CO2; and, when the resulting exhausts allow particulates and other pollutants to escape when coal is burned, even worse problems are created.
Now China has added electric generation capacity by building new coal fired plants for this purpose so fast and for so long, China is now the largest emitter of CO2 in the world.
Now China is doing two things.:
1. They are delaying dealing with the problem much more than they should do for controlling global warming and insisting that the United States do more than is likely feasible in the next few years to lower its CO2 emissions before they fully begin.
2. They ARE beginning to ramp up decent looking long term programs to increase renewable energy enough to allow them to burn less coal or at least stop building new coal fired plants.
Here are my two conclusions:
First, I think that China needs to do far more in China’s own best interests alone than they have done or have in the pipeline to do now.
Global warming and huge amounts of particulates from the coal they burn and do not filter out of the exhaust generated are harming the health of China’s people; reducing the yields from their agriculture; & reducing their amount of sun enough to hamper solar sources of renewable energy.
Even if they weren’t harming the rest of the world also due to their size, they need to clean up the exhausts of their existing coal fired plants; begin building a huge amount of clean sources of energy -- renewable sources for sure and perhaps nuclear as well so that they can immediately stop building new coal fired plants; & begin adding some kind of CO2 sequestration to all their existing coal fired plants. (As I posted last time, since we may be running out of oil soon and need to be cleaning the exhaust of coal fired plants for other reasons, setting up immediate plans to sequester all the CO2 generated by burning coal to feed algae that would then be harvested to make biofuels and substitute for oil would also make excellent sense.)
Secondly, as a strategic way to avoid some of the political friction and make faster progress, I wonder if it might not make sense to set up international agreements based on:
a) setting up action programs now to get much more done that will lead to more renewable energy and less CO2 release;
and
b) to get agreement on very large reductions in C02 for 50 years from now;
and
c) begin to spend a LOT less time and emphasis on agreements on CO2 reductions sooner than that.
If we get agreement (& we don’t look at all likely to do so) for targets for 15 or 20 years from now; but do NOT get agreements that lead to massive action right away, the hassles of getting agreements for targets for 15 or 20 years from now; will be wasted anyway. Without the action to support them, they won’t happen on schedule. So why bother?
However, since it is the actions that will eventually do the job by 50 years from now and might reach the goals we’re hassling about now in 15 or 20 years, I think that asking for agreement on adding policies and programs similar to those used with great success in Germany over the last 15 years plus companion policies to clean up coal now in use and begin to stop using more of it is the set of goals where agreement is most needed.
And, this can be done by one country at a time or by small groups of countries. It may not be necessary or doable to get all countries to agree.
1. For example, both the United States and China now burn quite large amounts of coal.
Why not set up a joint venture between the United States and China to develop and roll out cost effective technologies to clean the exhaust generated and to sequester all the CO2 generated by burning coal to feed algae that would then be harvested to make biofuels and substitute for oil?
2. For example, United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and many other countries in the Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe, and elsewhere have abundant amounts of sun generated heat that can be used to power solar thermal power plants.
Why not set up a joint venture between the United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Australia, and any other countries that wish to participate, to develop the relevant technologies and roll out large amounts of solar thermal plants?
3. Germany has put a set of policies in place that have produced great progress just in the last 15 years in building new solar photovoltaic installations, wind power installations, and innovative ways to become more energy efficient that have proven to work.
Why not have a program that every country in the world is invited to participate in to do the same in the next 15 years?
If we do those things right away, we will make the progress we need to make -- while if we continue to argue over short term goals, it seems unlikely to me that we will.
Since these same things also protect the economies of the countries that do them, the larger countries that have been hassling about goals, I think should work together on those sorts of programs and to take the lead in doing so.
And that specifically includes China, the United States, India, and the countries of Western Europe both individually and as a group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)