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.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)