Tesla and selling its all electric sedan....
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-29-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just a bit over 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Tesla and selling its all electric sedan....
Tesla’s stock fell recently now that early investors and the like can sell the stock and some will do so.
Since it may have been over-valued, that may be a good thing.
But the analysts also said that they thought Tesla would be outdone by the wave of plug-in hybrids and cheaper electric cars.
That could happen. But I don’t expect it to happen.
Tesla does need to do some pretesting and quality control to help ensure the model S will have trouble free and bug free operation right away or within just a couple or three months of its initial release.
But if they do that, they have three markets that I think they can sell to or even dominate.
1. Because of the recession, people forget there are still people who can afford and want upscale cars and will pay for them. The Model S design is quite stylish and it has good acceleration for an upscale sedan. It appeals to buyers of BMW, Mercedes, Acura, etc. The cheaper electric cars are not really in the niche the Tesla Model S fits. Tesla already has some of these buyers and is known by them due to its Roadster which has upscale buyers around the world. The Tesla Model S can easily be competitive with BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes.
2. Many people who work in technology jobs are early adapters and like buying the latest technology. And, these people have incomes that are well above average. They will be a strong market for the Model S and all over the country or even the world, NOT just in the Silicon Valley.
3. Within 2 years or less after the Model is scheduled to be available, in 2014, the Kuwaiti’s have predicted peak oil. Plug in hybrids and cars still burning gasoline will have much higher fuel prices and maybe less availability of supply. With new renewable energy sources for electricity coming online and more efficient use of electricity, all electric cars may sell at a premium since they still will be able to get power and for less money. Plug in hybrids will be more competition than cars burning gasoline. But they too are not yet here. And, by the time they are, they may also have these fuel problems.
What if gas lines come back? What if gasoline goes to over $6 a gallon? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a car where you don’t have to worry about that? Tesla Model S owners will escape all that. And, it does look like these two things are on their way here!
So, my take is that working the bugs out of the Model S and selling it well to these three markets, will make it very competitive indeed.
In short, if Tesla does these things well, the analysts will be so wrong as to look a bit foolish.
We’ll see how Tesla does!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Real LED light bulbs are now available....
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-22-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just a bit over 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Real LED light bulbs are now available
It’s nice to have some good news to report.
There are literally huge numbers of homes where lighting fixtures and various kinds of lamps are already there in these homes and designed to take incandescent light bulbs.
1. Incandescent light bulbs are still in a majority of those lighting fixtures and lamps.
2. More recently, compact fluorescent bulbs have become available. But with them, there is good news and bad news and some very bad news.
The good news is that they produce the same light as incandescent bulbs but use only a quarter of the watts of electricity to do so. That means that what was a 60 watt bulb or a 57 watt bulb can be replaced by an incandescent bulb of 14 or 15 watts but will deliver the same amount of light.
The bad news is that they cost about 14 times as much but although they do last longer, it’s only about four or five times longer with the bulbs I’ve had. And they burn slightly hotter and are slightly bigger than incandescent light bulbs. So you can’t put them in all the fixtures and lamps.
The very bad news is that they are a hazardous materials risk to have in your home and even more so when they wind up in the landfill along with regular trash. They contain mercury and release it into the air and nearby surfaces when they break.
Even worse, many if not most people who have installed compact fluorescent bulbs have no clue this is so and wind up with exposure to mercury when one breaks.
So, while compact fluorescent bulbs have been justified to some degree because they save so much energy, compact fluorescent bulbs get a very mixed review.
3. LED light bulbs have the by far the superior technology. They are almost twice as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs. And, they last as much as 20 times longer than compact fluorescent bulbs which is 80 to over 100 times as much as incandescent bulbs.
For some time now, LED lights have been going into stop lights and overhead street lights and commercial Christmas light displays for both their energy savings and dramatic savings on the labor to install new bulbs that LED light bulbs eliminate.
But LED light bulbs have not been available that would work in most lighting fixtures and lamps in homes.
Not any more! Real LED light bulbs are now available.
Their distributor, so far as I know now, only sells to building contractors and lighting stores and other commercial accounts. And, they don’t disclose the company that manufactures the bulbs they sell.
I recently asked at a local lighting products store if they as yet had any LED light bulbs that would fit our lamps and fixtures.
They then showed me the two sizes they had. One produced the same light as a 75 watt incandescent bulb but only used 9 watts! That’s also about half the watts it would take to run a compact fluorescent bulb that produced that much light.
The LED light bulbs I bought turned out to be just a bit too long to fit all our lamps and fixtures. But it was close even there. Better, unlike compact fluorescents, it looks more like an incandescent bulb.
The downside is I didn’t have enough money to buy all the LED bulbs that would fit.
They were $57 for one and $107 for two. We need about 12 to 14. But I was able to afford the first two. They work great!
And, even though I hope the cost drops by at least 5 to one soon, on a lifetime basis they aren’t that bad. Each LED bulb will replace about 80 to 100 incandescent bulbs -- which would otherwise cost at least $60 to $75 per light over that time. That’s actually a bit better than the compact fluorescents we’ve had as well.
So, to help cut our electricity use without cutting back on your light at home, please consider doing two things.:
A. Buy as many LED bulbs as you can afford now.
B. And, write the person who is the main executive or director for your State’s Utilities commission and urge them to give permission and to have all the utility companies in your state buy all the LED lights that each home needs and then allow the homeowner or renter to pay back the cost over 20 years or even 10 years.
For example, the 7 pairs of LED light bulbs we initially needed would be $399 or a bit less. If we paid back the utility $480 over 10 years that would be $4 a month and our cost for the electricity saved would likely be that much or more! Plus even if someone lost all the LED light bulbs to a house fire, virtually everyone can afford $4 a month.
The utility would be spared the cost of building a new generating plant or two by doing this, so it would be a win for them too!
It’s early yet. But this is very promising news indeed now. And, it will get better soon!
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-22-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just a bit over 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Real LED light bulbs are now available
It’s nice to have some good news to report.
There are literally huge numbers of homes where lighting fixtures and various kinds of lamps are already there in these homes and designed to take incandescent light bulbs.
1. Incandescent light bulbs are still in a majority of those lighting fixtures and lamps.
2. More recently, compact fluorescent bulbs have become available. But with them, there is good news and bad news and some very bad news.
The good news is that they produce the same light as incandescent bulbs but use only a quarter of the watts of electricity to do so. That means that what was a 60 watt bulb or a 57 watt bulb can be replaced by an incandescent bulb of 14 or 15 watts but will deliver the same amount of light.
The bad news is that they cost about 14 times as much but although they do last longer, it’s only about four or five times longer with the bulbs I’ve had. And they burn slightly hotter and are slightly bigger than incandescent light bulbs. So you can’t put them in all the fixtures and lamps.
The very bad news is that they are a hazardous materials risk to have in your home and even more so when they wind up in the landfill along with regular trash. They contain mercury and release it into the air and nearby surfaces when they break.
Even worse, many if not most people who have installed compact fluorescent bulbs have no clue this is so and wind up with exposure to mercury when one breaks.
So, while compact fluorescent bulbs have been justified to some degree because they save so much energy, compact fluorescent bulbs get a very mixed review.
3. LED light bulbs have the by far the superior technology. They are almost twice as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs. And, they last as much as 20 times longer than compact fluorescent bulbs which is 80 to over 100 times as much as incandescent bulbs.
For some time now, LED lights have been going into stop lights and overhead street lights and commercial Christmas light displays for both their energy savings and dramatic savings on the labor to install new bulbs that LED light bulbs eliminate.
But LED light bulbs have not been available that would work in most lighting fixtures and lamps in homes.
Not any more! Real LED light bulbs are now available.
Their distributor, so far as I know now, only sells to building contractors and lighting stores and other commercial accounts. And, they don’t disclose the company that manufactures the bulbs they sell.
I recently asked at a local lighting products store if they as yet had any LED light bulbs that would fit our lamps and fixtures.
They then showed me the two sizes they had. One produced the same light as a 75 watt incandescent bulb but only used 9 watts! That’s also about half the watts it would take to run a compact fluorescent bulb that produced that much light.
The LED light bulbs I bought turned out to be just a bit too long to fit all our lamps and fixtures. But it was close even there. Better, unlike compact fluorescents, it looks more like an incandescent bulb.
The downside is I didn’t have enough money to buy all the LED bulbs that would fit.
They were $57 for one and $107 for two. We need about 12 to 14. But I was able to afford the first two. They work great!
And, even though I hope the cost drops by at least 5 to one soon, on a lifetime basis they aren’t that bad. Each LED bulb will replace about 80 to 100 incandescent bulbs -- which would otherwise cost at least $60 to $75 per light over that time. That’s actually a bit better than the compact fluorescents we’ve had as well.
So, to help cut our electricity use without cutting back on your light at home, please consider doing two things.:
A. Buy as many LED bulbs as you can afford now.
B. And, write the person who is the main executive or director for your State’s Utilities commission and urge them to give permission and to have all the utility companies in your state buy all the LED lights that each home needs and then allow the homeowner or renter to pay back the cost over 20 years or even 10 years.
For example, the 7 pairs of LED light bulbs we initially needed would be $399 or a bit less. If we paid back the utility $480 over 10 years that would be $4 a month and our cost for the electricity saved would likely be that much or more! Plus even if someone lost all the LED light bulbs to a house fire, virtually everyone can afford $4 a month.
The utility would be spared the cost of building a new generating plant or two by doing this, so it would be a win for them too!
It’s early yet. But this is very promising news indeed now. And, it will get better soon!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
China seems to be winning on clean energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-15-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just a bit over 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: China seems to be winning on clean energy
In last Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 12, 2010), the Bottom Line column by Andrew S. Ross was titled:
“China has national plan for getting greener.”
He reported in part on the conference "Scaling Green Finance in China and the U.S.," put on by the Asia Society at PG&E's headquarters in San Francisco the previous Wednesday.
Main points:
China’s government has a national plan to increase clean energy in several ways. But the government of the United States does not yet have such a clear and focused plan.
One speaker said that China is beginning to outdo the United States on renewables, in harnessing wind and solar , particularly in solar panel production.
Ross reports the idea from this conference that unless the United States begins carbon pricing, with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (which California is about to try), it will keep falling farther behind on clean energy.
The good news is that many US CEO’s are willing to compete and will likely do more when carbon pricing does show up.
For more clean energy China already has a 5 year plan to generate 15% of China's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020 and will directly invest $1.5 trillion in making this happen. They also plan to build more third- and fourth-generation nuclear power plants.
And, as of last month, China has an "Energy Efficiency Resource Standard" which will go into effect nationwide in January.
It will require China's electricity industry to both reduce energy and set up programs for factories, other businesses and homes to become more energy efficient.
Energy efficiency saves money and reduces emissions. It also allows economic growth with far less need for new electricity generation. It’s also potentially far faster to put into place than building more renewable energy sources of electricity and other energy.
As Elton Sherwin explains in his superb but mistitled book, Addicted to Energy, this can be done with massive and positive effects throughout the US economy. Further this can be done using already available and developed technology. His book literally lists dozens of ways policies by the US government and state governments can cause these ways to increase efficiency to be put into use.
For three reasons, I think his work will be used soon.
1. Since we need to increase economic growth while using less fossil fuels, particularly oil, and removing CO2 and air pollution where fossil fuels are still used, electricity from burning carbon based fossil fuels will inevitably get more expensive even without new government charges on carbon use. And, those are likely too at some point.
2. If China does do an effective job of this, far more pressure will be brought on governments at all levels in the United States to keep up.
3. His work will be used because energy efficiency literally saves money for the end user and because that market will drive new businesses and old businesses to produce more and more products that work and which are much more energy efficient.
The bad news for China is that it depends far too heavily on coal and oil and has the most polluted cities in the world as they have not yet begun to adequately capture air pollutants where these are burned to generate electricity.
Their planned and expected economic growth will make changing this on such a large scale quite challenging.
This heavy and massive use of fossil fuels also is beginning to generate the most CO2 released in the world, let alone if they add more yet.
The good news, as we posted last week about Skyonic, is that there is now a way to remove most of the pollutants and CO2 from burning fossil fuels in one step.
But whether or not China, which has been doing things on the cheap to gain market share with lower production prices will do this pollution and CO2 removal on their own or respond well to world wide pressure and do so is not yet clear.
The United States and China are world’s two biggest energy users and greenhouse gas releasers in the world
So it’s at least possible that if the United States uses this technology and others to stop releasing most of their air pollution and CO2 from fossil fuel use and begins to use less fossil fuels, that example and the products and services developed by companies that do this in the United States may cause China to do the same.
Based on their hard work to minimize the air pollution for the last Olympics, China showed that they are not that happy with having their cities covered with bad air pollution either. So I’m moderately optimistic they will do this eventually.
The ideal would be:
For the United States to do as well or better than China on building more much renewable electricity generation and to use far less oil and somewhat less coal plus doing as well or better than China at increasing our energy efficiency in every part of our economy;
&
For China to begin to do dramatically more to remove air pollutants and CO 2 from plants that burn oil or coal throughout China.
This certainly will not happen as fast as we need for it to. But I do think it has a good shot at happening eventually.
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-15-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just a bit over 3 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: China seems to be winning on clean energy
In last Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, December 12, 2010), the Bottom Line column by Andrew S. Ross was titled:
“China has national plan for getting greener.”
He reported in part on the conference "Scaling Green Finance in China and the U.S.," put on by the Asia Society at PG&E's headquarters in San Francisco the previous Wednesday.
Main points:
China’s government has a national plan to increase clean energy in several ways. But the government of the United States does not yet have such a clear and focused plan.
One speaker said that China is beginning to outdo the United States on renewables, in harnessing wind and solar , particularly in solar panel production.
Ross reports the idea from this conference that unless the United States begins carbon pricing, with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (which California is about to try), it will keep falling farther behind on clean energy.
The good news is that many US CEO’s are willing to compete and will likely do more when carbon pricing does show up.
For more clean energy China already has a 5 year plan to generate 15% of China's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020 and will directly invest $1.5 trillion in making this happen. They also plan to build more third- and fourth-generation nuclear power plants.
And, as of last month, China has an "Energy Efficiency Resource Standard" which will go into effect nationwide in January.
It will require China's electricity industry to both reduce energy and set up programs for factories, other businesses and homes to become more energy efficient.
Energy efficiency saves money and reduces emissions. It also allows economic growth with far less need for new electricity generation. It’s also potentially far faster to put into place than building more renewable energy sources of electricity and other energy.
As Elton Sherwin explains in his superb but mistitled book, Addicted to Energy, this can be done with massive and positive effects throughout the US economy. Further this can be done using already available and developed technology. His book literally lists dozens of ways policies by the US government and state governments can cause these ways to increase efficiency to be put into use.
For three reasons, I think his work will be used soon.
1. Since we need to increase economic growth while using less fossil fuels, particularly oil, and removing CO2 and air pollution where fossil fuels are still used, electricity from burning carbon based fossil fuels will inevitably get more expensive even without new government charges on carbon use. And, those are likely too at some point.
2. If China does do an effective job of this, far more pressure will be brought on governments at all levels in the United States to keep up.
3. His work will be used because energy efficiency literally saves money for the end user and because that market will drive new businesses and old businesses to produce more and more products that work and which are much more energy efficient.
The bad news for China is that it depends far too heavily on coal and oil and has the most polluted cities in the world as they have not yet begun to adequately capture air pollutants where these are burned to generate electricity.
Their planned and expected economic growth will make changing this on such a large scale quite challenging.
This heavy and massive use of fossil fuels also is beginning to generate the most CO2 released in the world, let alone if they add more yet.
The good news, as we posted last week about Skyonic, is that there is now a way to remove most of the pollutants and CO2 from burning fossil fuels in one step.
But whether or not China, which has been doing things on the cheap to gain market share with lower production prices will do this pollution and CO2 removal on their own or respond well to world wide pressure and do so is not yet clear.
The United States and China are world’s two biggest energy users and greenhouse gas releasers in the world
So it’s at least possible that if the United States uses this technology and others to stop releasing most of their air pollution and CO2 from fossil fuel use and begins to use less fossil fuels, that example and the products and services developed by companies that do this in the United States may cause China to do the same.
Based on their hard work to minimize the air pollution for the last Olympics, China showed that they are not that happy with having their cities covered with bad air pollution either. So I’m moderately optimistic they will do this eventually.
The ideal would be:
For the United States to do as well or better than China on building more much renewable electricity generation and to use far less oil and somewhat less coal plus doing as well or better than China at increasing our energy efficiency in every part of our economy;
&
For China to begin to do dramatically more to remove air pollutants and CO 2 from plants that burn oil or coal throughout China.
This certainly will not happen as fast as we need for it to. But I do think it has a good shot at happening eventually.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Possible solution to the coal problem....
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-8-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Possible solution to the coal problem
For several reasons major players in the world’s economy now rely on coal to generate electricity. With cars beginning to switch to electricity for power and the current prediction for peak oil now only a bit over 3 years away, this may even get worse before it gets better.
But the way we use coal now pollutes the air and, on this scale, is a massive contributor to CO2 release and the related global warming.
We’re in a challenging situation to put it mildly.
We actually need the electricity we can get from coal more and that trend will increase as cars begin to run on electricity and oil becomes to expensive to use; but we need just as badly to stop dumping pollutants and CO2 into the air.
I’ve known these things. But even I had no idea of the massive scope and size of this problem. Nor had I known of anything more than somewhat better methods to use coal.
Since last week, I found both things.
I found an article detailing the massive current size of the problem and why a solution to keep using coal is imperative at this point. (Excerpts from the article are below.)
>>> The much better news is that I found that there actually may be a doable solution!
That information is in this post also!
Here’s the article: “December 2010 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE
….two ideas that are taken with complete seriousness by businesses, scientists, and government officials in China and America, and are the basis of the most extensive cooperation now under way between the countries on climate issues.
One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now.
The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the world’s unavoidable energy demands.
….the role that coal now plays around the world, and especially for the two biggest energy consumers, America and China.
Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total demand.
In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing total electric demand: at least 70 percent, with the Three Gorges Dam and similar hydroelectric projects providing about 20 percent, and (in order) natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar energy making up the small remainder.
For the world as a whole, coal-fired plants provide about half the total electric supply.
On average, every American uses the electricity produced by 7,500 pounds of coal each year.
Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.”
It will be with us because of where it’s located: the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal.”
Possible solutions:
A. You can use coal to make methane by adding hydrogen to the carbon.
That has three advantages.
1. The gas can be shipped by pipeline -- which might be extremely useful for China.
2. The process removes some of the worst pollutants like metals BEFORE the gas is used to make electricity.
3. The gas can be used to make electricity in fuel cells that are more efficient and generate still less air pollution. Bloom Energy in the Silicon Valley is already selling these fuel cells for larger scale electricity generation. Pollutants are removed when the gas is made and only gas enters the fuel cells. Heat is generated; but only CO2 and water leave as exhaust. Particulates, metals, acidic chemicals, and oxides of nitrogen are NOT.
That would solve much of the problems except for CO2 release for new coal generated electricity plants.
B. For both existing plants and plants that burn coal gas or run it through a fuel cell, a company Skyonic, has a technology that both prevents CO2 from being released and also does a far superior job of removing pollutants from the exhaust of existing coal fired plants.
You can feed some of the CO2 to algae which can then be harvested for biofuel as a replacement for oil; but that just delays the CO2 release into the air.
With a few exceptions, "sequestration" of CO2 is both close to undoable on a large scale and if done in most places even if it were possible would add unbelievably to the costs. It's a nonstarter, in other words.
Skyonic's process will be expensive too. But it looks like a real solution unlike sequestration. And, the fact that it can be used to remove other pollutants and is usable on existing coal fired plants looks very promising.
Skyonic Corporation has this web address: http://skyonic.com/ .
They lead with this:
“At Skyonic, we believe that clean air and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We believe that mineralizing CO2 emissions is the best-available method for reversing global warming.”
The technology even has some economically practical and doable aspects.
“THE SKYMINE PROCESS:
Skyonic’s SkyMine® technology removes CO2 from industrial waste streams through co-generation of saleable carbonate and/or bicarbonate materials. In addition to capturing and mineralizing CO2, the SkyMine® process cleans SOx and NO2 from the flue gas, and removes heavy metals such as mercury. Existing power plants and industrial plants can be retrofitted with SkyMine®. Successful implementation of the SkyMine® technology establishes pathways for mitigating CO2 in areas where geologic storage, the predominant competing CO2 sequestration technology, is not an optimal solution.
A SkyMine® plant can be retrofitted to stationary emitters to economically remove CO2 from the exhaust stream and transform it into solids instead of a gas. Solid carbonates and bicarbonates can be profitably sold to market and are ideal for long-term, safe storage such as minefill or landfill. Solid storage of CO2 means that there is no need for pipeline transport, injection, or concern about CO2 re-release, as with other CO2 capture and sequestration technologies.
Another key advantage of the SkyMine® process is its scalability, as it allows an industrial or power plant owner to configure the degree of CO2 removal anywhere from 10% to 99%. This is important because industrial plants and power plants around the world have unique designs requiring different CO2 removal configurations.
The SkyMine® technology can be operated at a profit, due to the sale of byproducts. The solid carbonates and bicarbonates are saleable for use in bio-algae applications. SkyMine® also produces green chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, bleach, chlorine, and hydrogen, which are also profitable and can replace less environmentally-friendly products in market.
The fact that the SkyMine® process removes virtually all SOX, NO2, and mercury and other heavy metals that would otherwise be emitted by the plant means it can replace existing scrubber technologies and eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expense and tens of millions of dollars in ongoing expenses.“
They have $25 million in starter funding from a DOE Grant, apparently announced on July 29, 2010.
The only bad news is that the company is still in the very early stages.
1. But just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to contact the Governors of the “four corners” western states and the US Department of Energy to set up their process on several of the coal fired plants that are ruining the clean air in these Rocky Mountain states.
Many of these plants are now located near the “four corners” where the states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico come together. So those states which depend on the electricity from the plants but also benefit from tourism would be affected if those plants or some of the worst ones were cleaned up.
2. The air in the whole Eastern half of the United States has enough air pollution from coal to increase death rates and medical care costs according to a map I found.
So, similarly, just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to begin to retrofit their technology to the three or four most polluting coal fired plants in this area.
3. It would also make sense to involve the key coal mining states in beginning to retrofit this technology to existing coal fired plants.
Just 8 states mine 84.3 % of the coal mined in the United States according to an online source I just saw: (Here are those states and their percentages.)
“Montana 25.4
Illinois 16.5
Wyoming 14.4
West Virginia 8.0
Kentucky 6.3
Pennsylvania 6.1
Ohio 4.0
Colorado 3.6”
The other 19 states where coal is mined produce the other 15.7 %.
Montana, Wyoming, and West Virginia all have smaller economies which greatly magnifies the importance to their economies of continuing to mine coal. So they should be included in this effort. Kentucky also fits in this group to some degree.
Colorado is also one of the four “four corners” states and is often a progressive state. So it should be included for all three reasons.
And, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio should be included since they have larger and stronger economies and can best afford to help fund the initial installations.
It seems to me that Skyonic and the Department of Energy would do well to launch these three projects as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the stronger clean energy venture funds work together to get Skyonic something like $500 million in venture money to expand and perhaps an initial $50 million to do these three projects.
There are dozens of such funds but some of the bigger and better known are:
Kleiner Perkins; Kholsa Ventures; GE, Braemar Ventures; Nth Power; and Vantage Point Venture Partners.
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-8-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Possible solution to the coal problem
For several reasons major players in the world’s economy now rely on coal to generate electricity. With cars beginning to switch to electricity for power and the current prediction for peak oil now only a bit over 3 years away, this may even get worse before it gets better.
But the way we use coal now pollutes the air and, on this scale, is a massive contributor to CO2 release and the related global warming.
We’re in a challenging situation to put it mildly.
We actually need the electricity we can get from coal more and that trend will increase as cars begin to run on electricity and oil becomes to expensive to use; but we need just as badly to stop dumping pollutants and CO2 into the air.
I’ve known these things. But even I had no idea of the massive scope and size of this problem. Nor had I known of anything more than somewhat better methods to use coal.
Since last week, I found both things.
I found an article detailing the massive current size of the problem and why a solution to keep using coal is imperative at this point. (Excerpts from the article are below.)
>>> The much better news is that I found that there actually may be a doable solution!
That information is in this post also!
Here’s the article: “December 2010 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE
….two ideas that are taken with complete seriousness by businesses, scientists, and government officials in China and America, and are the basis of the most extensive cooperation now under way between the countries on climate issues.
One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now.
The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the world’s unavoidable energy demands.
….the role that coal now plays around the world, and especially for the two biggest energy consumers, America and China.
Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total demand.
In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing total electric demand: at least 70 percent, with the Three Gorges Dam and similar hydroelectric projects providing about 20 percent, and (in order) natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar energy making up the small remainder.
For the world as a whole, coal-fired plants provide about half the total electric supply.
On average, every American uses the electricity produced by 7,500 pounds of coal each year.
Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.”
It will be with us because of where it’s located: the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal.”
Possible solutions:
A. You can use coal to make methane by adding hydrogen to the carbon.
That has three advantages.
1. The gas can be shipped by pipeline -- which might be extremely useful for China.
2. The process removes some of the worst pollutants like metals BEFORE the gas is used to make electricity.
3. The gas can be used to make electricity in fuel cells that are more efficient and generate still less air pollution. Bloom Energy in the Silicon Valley is already selling these fuel cells for larger scale electricity generation. Pollutants are removed when the gas is made and only gas enters the fuel cells. Heat is generated; but only CO2 and water leave as exhaust. Particulates, metals, acidic chemicals, and oxides of nitrogen are NOT.
That would solve much of the problems except for CO2 release for new coal generated electricity plants.
B. For both existing plants and plants that burn coal gas or run it through a fuel cell, a company Skyonic, has a technology that both prevents CO2 from being released and also does a far superior job of removing pollutants from the exhaust of existing coal fired plants.
You can feed some of the CO2 to algae which can then be harvested for biofuel as a replacement for oil; but that just delays the CO2 release into the air.
With a few exceptions, "sequestration" of CO2 is both close to undoable on a large scale and if done in most places even if it were possible would add unbelievably to the costs. It's a nonstarter, in other words.
Skyonic's process will be expensive too. But it looks like a real solution unlike sequestration. And, the fact that it can be used to remove other pollutants and is usable on existing coal fired plants looks very promising.
Skyonic Corporation has this web address: http://skyonic.com/ .
They lead with this:
“At Skyonic, we believe that clean air and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We believe that mineralizing CO2 emissions is the best-available method for reversing global warming.”
The technology even has some economically practical and doable aspects.
“THE SKYMINE PROCESS:
Skyonic’s SkyMine® technology removes CO2 from industrial waste streams through co-generation of saleable carbonate and/or bicarbonate materials. In addition to capturing and mineralizing CO2, the SkyMine® process cleans SOx and NO2 from the flue gas, and removes heavy metals such as mercury. Existing power plants and industrial plants can be retrofitted with SkyMine®. Successful implementation of the SkyMine® technology establishes pathways for mitigating CO2 in areas where geologic storage, the predominant competing CO2 sequestration technology, is not an optimal solution.
A SkyMine® plant can be retrofitted to stationary emitters to economically remove CO2 from the exhaust stream and transform it into solids instead of a gas. Solid carbonates and bicarbonates can be profitably sold to market and are ideal for long-term, safe storage such as minefill or landfill. Solid storage of CO2 means that there is no need for pipeline transport, injection, or concern about CO2 re-release, as with other CO2 capture and sequestration technologies.
Another key advantage of the SkyMine® process is its scalability, as it allows an industrial or power plant owner to configure the degree of CO2 removal anywhere from 10% to 99%. This is important because industrial plants and power plants around the world have unique designs requiring different CO2 removal configurations.
The SkyMine® technology can be operated at a profit, due to the sale of byproducts. The solid carbonates and bicarbonates are saleable for use in bio-algae applications. SkyMine® also produces green chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, bleach, chlorine, and hydrogen, which are also profitable and can replace less environmentally-friendly products in market.
The fact that the SkyMine® process removes virtually all SOX, NO2, and mercury and other heavy metals that would otherwise be emitted by the plant means it can replace existing scrubber technologies and eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital expense and tens of millions of dollars in ongoing expenses.“
They have $25 million in starter funding from a DOE Grant, apparently announced on July 29, 2010.
The only bad news is that the company is still in the very early stages.
1. But just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to contact the Governors of the “four corners” western states and the US Department of Energy to set up their process on several of the coal fired plants that are ruining the clean air in these Rocky Mountain states.
Many of these plants are now located near the “four corners” where the states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico come together. So those states which depend on the electricity from the plants but also benefit from tourism would be affected if those plants or some of the worst ones were cleaned up.
2. The air in the whole Eastern half of the United States has enough air pollution from coal to increase death rates and medical care costs according to a map I found.
So, similarly, just as soon as their pilot projects and company building allow, it would make sense to begin to retrofit their technology to the three or four most polluting coal fired plants in this area.
3. It would also make sense to involve the key coal mining states in beginning to retrofit this technology to existing coal fired plants.
Just 8 states mine 84.3 % of the coal mined in the United States according to an online source I just saw: (Here are those states and their percentages.)
“Montana 25.4
Illinois 16.5
Wyoming 14.4
West Virginia 8.0
Kentucky 6.3
Pennsylvania 6.1
Ohio 4.0
Colorado 3.6”
The other 19 states where coal is mined produce the other 15.7 %.
Montana, Wyoming, and West Virginia all have smaller economies which greatly magnifies the importance to their economies of continuing to mine coal. So they should be included in this effort. Kentucky also fits in this group to some degree.
Colorado is also one of the four “four corners” states and is often a progressive state. So it should be included for all three reasons.
And, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio should be included since they have larger and stronger economies and can best afford to help fund the initial installations.
It seems to me that Skyonic and the Department of Energy would do well to launch these three projects as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see the stronger clean energy venture funds work together to get Skyonic something like $500 million in venture money to expand and perhaps an initial $50 million to do these three projects.
There are dozens of such funds but some of the bigger and better known are:
Kleiner Perkins; Kholsa Ventures; GE, Braemar Ventures; Nth Power; and Vantage Point Venture Partners.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Mixed news on sudden increases in global warming....
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-1-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Mixed news on sudden increases in global warming
Last week we wrote about how the thawing of the permafrost could soon release up to 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, now locked into the tundra & permafrost, into the atmosphere – as methane. This could lead to dangerously rapid climate change or having this extra warming develop its own momentum and become unstoppable by us.
This week the other shoe dropped. It seems the tundra and the permafrost are just part of the earth’s surface that will release more methane as warming continues! Ouch !
The good news is that if we can at least sharply slow the increases in CO2 release soon, this will become a gradual and potentially reversible process instead of creating sudden flooding of coastal cities and developing its own momentum and become unstoppable by us.
The recession has temporarily slowed the increase in CO2 release and will not improve quickly, so if we can become more energy efficient in hundreds of ways and add thousands more sources of clean energy as the recession gradually ends, we may be able to catch this extra carbon release in time to be able to survive it and reverse it. This might actually be doable!
Here’s the story I found today on Livescience.com . They released a story today by their, writer, Jeremy Hsu.
It seems Earth's biggest store of carbon dioxide is locked within the decaying vegetation found in peatlands, from tropical peat swamps to Arctic permafrost – which is just a part of this problem. British researchers have calculated that a too fast-warming world would cause all these peatlands to dump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
A global warming rate of about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) per decade might well be enough to destabilize these peatlands compost, according to Sebastian Wieczorek, one of these mathematicians at the University of Exeter in England.
“Peat soils contain from 400 billion to a trillion metric tons of carbon, "which is about the same as the carbon content in the atmosphere," Wieczorek said. "A release of the soil carbon from peatlands into the atmosphere would therefore have an enormous impact on the climate system."
Peatlands cover just 3 percent of the world's land area, but they store almost 30 percent of all global soil carbon - about as much carbon as found in the atmosphere or in the total of terrestrial biomass (plants and animals). “
The article goes on to say, however, that slowing this rate of increase would allow the peatlands to release less carbon more slowly as the peatlands evolved relatively more stable ways to adapt to the warming.
This would allow people to take more like 30 years to dike off or abandon coastal areas before they are flooded and move people and businesses in an orderly way that will need to be moved.
If this process reaches a runaway stage because we failed to do this, we would have more like a year or two at most to do this. This would be quite catastrophic as it simply would cause much of the world’s population to become homeless and destroy much of the world’s economy that’s now located in these coastal cities in that year or two.
And, almost as bad, the process of global warming would get worse and become unstoppable even if we stopped adding CO2 to the air totally.
The only good news in this is that we may have enough of a start on implementing solutions to catch this in time.
At the very least, each of us can help contribute something to making our economy more energy efficient and adding more sources of clean energy. This can range from adding just one LED light bulb that saves a few watts of electricity each month or improving the ceiling insulation in your house to helping launch several billion dollar solar farms to generate renewably sourced electricity.
If everyone who can, does something productive, we have a shot.
What can you do?
Today's post: Wednesday, 12-1-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Mixed news on sudden increases in global warming
Last week we wrote about how the thawing of the permafrost could soon release up to 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, now locked into the tundra & permafrost, into the atmosphere – as methane. This could lead to dangerously rapid climate change or having this extra warming develop its own momentum and become unstoppable by us.
This week the other shoe dropped. It seems the tundra and the permafrost are just part of the earth’s surface that will release more methane as warming continues! Ouch !
The good news is that if we can at least sharply slow the increases in CO2 release soon, this will become a gradual and potentially reversible process instead of creating sudden flooding of coastal cities and developing its own momentum and become unstoppable by us.
The recession has temporarily slowed the increase in CO2 release and will not improve quickly, so if we can become more energy efficient in hundreds of ways and add thousands more sources of clean energy as the recession gradually ends, we may be able to catch this extra carbon release in time to be able to survive it and reverse it. This might actually be doable!
Here’s the story I found today on Livescience.com . They released a story today by their, writer, Jeremy Hsu.
It seems Earth's biggest store of carbon dioxide is locked within the decaying vegetation found in peatlands, from tropical peat swamps to Arctic permafrost – which is just a part of this problem. British researchers have calculated that a too fast-warming world would cause all these peatlands to dump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
A global warming rate of about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) per decade might well be enough to destabilize these peatlands compost, according to Sebastian Wieczorek, one of these mathematicians at the University of Exeter in England.
“Peat soils contain from 400 billion to a trillion metric tons of carbon, "which is about the same as the carbon content in the atmosphere," Wieczorek said. "A release of the soil carbon from peatlands into the atmosphere would therefore have an enormous impact on the climate system."
Peatlands cover just 3 percent of the world's land area, but they store almost 30 percent of all global soil carbon - about as much carbon as found in the atmosphere or in the total of terrestrial biomass (plants and animals). “
The article goes on to say, however, that slowing this rate of increase would allow the peatlands to release less carbon more slowly as the peatlands evolved relatively more stable ways to adapt to the warming.
This would allow people to take more like 30 years to dike off or abandon coastal areas before they are flooded and move people and businesses in an orderly way that will need to be moved.
If this process reaches a runaway stage because we failed to do this, we would have more like a year or two at most to do this. This would be quite catastrophic as it simply would cause much of the world’s population to become homeless and destroy much of the world’s economy that’s now located in these coastal cities in that year or two.
And, almost as bad, the process of global warming would get worse and become unstoppable even if we stopped adding CO2 to the air totally.
The only good news in this is that we may have enough of a start on implementing solutions to catch this in time.
At the very least, each of us can help contribute something to making our economy more energy efficient and adding more sources of clean energy. This can range from adding just one LED light bulb that saves a few watts of electricity each month or improving the ceiling insulation in your house to helping launch several billion dollar solar farms to generate renewably sourced electricity.
If everyone who can, does something productive, we have a shot.
What can you do?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
We may need the good news in Clean Energy more urgently than we thought....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-24-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: We may need the good news in Clean Energy more urgently than we thought
1. Progress is happening in almost every area of clean energy.
Every part of the transition to cars and other vehicles being powered mostly by electricity and less and less by oil is showing progress.
Some biofuels that do NOT need to take farmlands or cut down forests to produce are beginning to show progress.
We will have more nuclear power -- which I pray will be as safe as the nuclear power in France and Japan has been.
More wind power is coming online gradually.
Every part of solar generated electricity and hot water is making progress.
And, a start is being made on becoming a more energy efficient economy and in saving money that was being spent on energy unnecessarily.
We may even begin to see oil and coal companies have to be less polluting in use and begin to pay the true costs using their products actually incur.
So, clean energy will soon cost less than energy from fossil fuels in many parts of our economy.
2. It’s still 40 years late and going at one fifth the needed speed or less. But, finally, it IS beginning to pick up speed and momentum.
3. The scary news is that we may need this far more urgently than we thought.
Day before yesterday I saw an AP article titled :
“Leaking Siberian ice raises a tricky climate issue” By ARTHUR MAX, Associated with a dateline of: CHERSKY, Russia. I think I found it on NPR
Here are the key paragraphs:
“Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.
Some scientists believe the thawing of permafrost could become the epicenter of climate change. They say 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, locked inside icebound earth since the age of mammoths, is a climate time bomb waiting to explode if released into the atmosphere.
"Here, total carbon storage is like all the rain forests of our planet put together," says the scientist, Sergey Zimov — "here" being the endless sweep of snow and ice stretching toward Siberia's gray horizon, as seen from Zimov's research facility nearly 350 kilometers (220 miles) above the Arctic Circle.”
And:
“….global warming is amplified in the polar regions. What feels like a modest temperature rise is enough to induce Greenland glaciers to retreat, Arctic sea ice to thin and contract in summer, and permafrost to thaw faster, both on land and under the seabed.
Yet awareness of methane leaks from permafrost is so new that it was not even mentioned in the seminal 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned of rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, dramatic shifts in rainfall disrupting agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
"In my view, methane is a serious sleeper out there that can pull us over the hump," said Robert Corell, an eminent U.S. climate change researcher and Arctic specialist. Corell, speaking by telephone from a conference in Miami, said he and other U.S. scientists are pushing Washington to deploy satellites to gather more information on methane leaks.”
And:
“Katey Walter Anthony, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, has been measuring methane seeps in Arctic lakes in Alaska, Canada and Russia, starting here around Chersky 10 years ago.
She was stunned to see how much methane was leaking from holes in the sediment at the bottom of one of the first lakes she visited. "On some days it looked like the lake was boiling," she said. Returning each year, she noticed this and other lakes doubling in size as warm water ate into the frozen banks.”
“More than 50 billion tons could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere, she said.”
“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in its 2010 Arctic Report Card issued last month, said the average temperature of the permafrost has been rising for decades, but noted "a significant acceleration" in the last five years at many spots on the Arctic coast. “
4. If the rest of the arctic also emits methane as the permafrost is melted, the total could be 20 to 35 times the amount now in the atmosphere.
This could have rather severe repercussions.
In most places, the 2 inch to 16 inch increase in sea level many people now forecast by 2050 could wind up being five to eight times that. Since many of the most populated and the most economically productive cities are coastal, the several feet higher sea level this makes look possible, could be a rather severe problem.
The added warming it also may cause could increase disastrous weather events, cut the amount of food grown world-wide, and cause more tropical diseases in place that have not had them.
The article makes clear that despite the scary trends, it’s too early to tell for sure how bad this will actually get as we go forward.
a) If we do manage to stop putting out more CO2 or even cut back some on producing it and forces we do not yet completely understand slow this methane release, this may make things worse but not by that much.
b) If the economy improves and we fail to switch to clean energy fast enough and keep up some increase in CO2 release and this methane release is a bit less than it looks like now it will be, there might be a way to make this better. But the increased warming will cause problems.
By direct use or better by using it to generate electricity, if we capture this methane and replace using oil for transport, this might be economically helpful. If we also generate the electricity with Bloom Energy fuel cells instead of burning it and feed the CO2 release initially to algae to make biofuels, there might be a way to benefit the economy and make profits for energy companies in this methane release.
c) If this methane release begins to speed up as much as these report suggest it will, no one will disbelieve in global warming again! And, we will be in quite serious trouble.
So, the race is on!
Can we speed up clean energy and energy efficiency fast enough to improve our economy AND slow CO2 release soon enough to compensate for this effect?
We will see how it turns out.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-24-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: We may need the good news in Clean Energy more urgently than we thought
1. Progress is happening in almost every area of clean energy.
Every part of the transition to cars and other vehicles being powered mostly by electricity and less and less by oil is showing progress.
Some biofuels that do NOT need to take farmlands or cut down forests to produce are beginning to show progress.
We will have more nuclear power -- which I pray will be as safe as the nuclear power in France and Japan has been.
More wind power is coming online gradually.
Every part of solar generated electricity and hot water is making progress.
And, a start is being made on becoming a more energy efficient economy and in saving money that was being spent on energy unnecessarily.
We may even begin to see oil and coal companies have to be less polluting in use and begin to pay the true costs using their products actually incur.
So, clean energy will soon cost less than energy from fossil fuels in many parts of our economy.
2. It’s still 40 years late and going at one fifth the needed speed or less. But, finally, it IS beginning to pick up speed and momentum.
3. The scary news is that we may need this far more urgently than we thought.
Day before yesterday I saw an AP article titled :
“Leaking Siberian ice raises a tricky climate issue” By ARTHUR MAX, Associated with a dateline of: CHERSKY, Russia. I think I found it on NPR
Here are the key paragraphs:
“Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane — a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — at a perilous rate.
Some scientists believe the thawing of permafrost could become the epicenter of climate change. They say 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, locked inside icebound earth since the age of mammoths, is a climate time bomb waiting to explode if released into the atmosphere.
"Here, total carbon storage is like all the rain forests of our planet put together," says the scientist, Sergey Zimov — "here" being the endless sweep of snow and ice stretching toward Siberia's gray horizon, as seen from Zimov's research facility nearly 350 kilometers (220 miles) above the Arctic Circle.”
And:
“….global warming is amplified in the polar regions. What feels like a modest temperature rise is enough to induce Greenland glaciers to retreat, Arctic sea ice to thin and contract in summer, and permafrost to thaw faster, both on land and under the seabed.
Yet awareness of methane leaks from permafrost is so new that it was not even mentioned in the seminal 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned of rising sea levels inundating coastal cities, dramatic shifts in rainfall disrupting agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
"In my view, methane is a serious sleeper out there that can pull us over the hump," said Robert Corell, an eminent U.S. climate change researcher and Arctic specialist. Corell, speaking by telephone from a conference in Miami, said he and other U.S. scientists are pushing Washington to deploy satellites to gather more information on methane leaks.”
And:
“Katey Walter Anthony, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, has been measuring methane seeps in Arctic lakes in Alaska, Canada and Russia, starting here around Chersky 10 years ago.
She was stunned to see how much methane was leaking from holes in the sediment at the bottom of one of the first lakes she visited. "On some days it looked like the lake was boiling," she said. Returning each year, she noticed this and other lakes doubling in size as warm water ate into the frozen banks.”
“More than 50 billion tons could be unleashed from Siberian lakes alone, more than 10 times the amount now in the atmosphere, she said.”
“The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in its 2010 Arctic Report Card issued last month, said the average temperature of the permafrost has been rising for decades, but noted "a significant acceleration" in the last five years at many spots on the Arctic coast. “
4. If the rest of the arctic also emits methane as the permafrost is melted, the total could be 20 to 35 times the amount now in the atmosphere.
This could have rather severe repercussions.
In most places, the 2 inch to 16 inch increase in sea level many people now forecast by 2050 could wind up being five to eight times that. Since many of the most populated and the most economically productive cities are coastal, the several feet higher sea level this makes look possible, could be a rather severe problem.
The added warming it also may cause could increase disastrous weather events, cut the amount of food grown world-wide, and cause more tropical diseases in place that have not had them.
The article makes clear that despite the scary trends, it’s too early to tell for sure how bad this will actually get as we go forward.
a) If we do manage to stop putting out more CO2 or even cut back some on producing it and forces we do not yet completely understand slow this methane release, this may make things worse but not by that much.
b) If the economy improves and we fail to switch to clean energy fast enough and keep up some increase in CO2 release and this methane release is a bit less than it looks like now it will be, there might be a way to make this better. But the increased warming will cause problems.
By direct use or better by using it to generate electricity, if we capture this methane and replace using oil for transport, this might be economically helpful. If we also generate the electricity with Bloom Energy fuel cells instead of burning it and feed the CO2 release initially to algae to make biofuels, there might be a way to benefit the economy and make profits for energy companies in this methane release.
c) If this methane release begins to speed up as much as these report suggest it will, no one will disbelieve in global warming again! And, we will be in quite serious trouble.
So, the race is on!
Can we speed up clean energy and energy efficiency fast enough to improve our economy AND slow CO2 release soon enough to compensate for this effect?
We will see how it turns out.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Good & much better news for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-17-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Good & much better news for Renewable Energy
1. Two trends look to intersect soon. There is a consistent push now to make solar more efficient and cost effective. And, due to increased demand for natural gas to make electricity for many reasons and the increased cost of acquiring it from shale without grave environmental damage, natural gas will gradually increase in price.
One company of the many that will likely get into this side of solar that already has a developed technology is Cogenra Solar of Mountain View, CA. Of the solar energy striking solar collectors, most of the 80 to 85% of it NOT used to make electricity is heat and is wasted by most solar collectors. Cogenra arrays make electricity and use the heat to make hot water. And the company claims to produce five times the useful energy as other solar collectors by doing so.
This combination, CEO Gilad Almogy says, enables them to beat current utility prices at today’s rates!
They’ve also found a way to do this with off the shelf components and can already begin to deliver systems. Since this is the case, they charge for the electricity and hot water they deliver rather than for the systems they install.
2. The even better news is in two parts.
A. The Boston Consulting Group released a study, “What’s next for Alternative Energy, “ a week ago today that said that cellulosic ethanol, wind farms, and large scale solar power plants are very soon to be competitive with fossil fuels without the need for subsidies. They said that this point will be reached much sooner than many people yet realize it will.
Cellulosic ethanol will become cost competitive by next year to four years from now, 2014. And, by 2020, 10 years from now, they see electricity generated from natural gas close to 9 cents per kilowatt hour and rising with solar electricity from large solar plants or farms to be at about the same price and falling.
They also see electric cars being up to 10 % of all new car sales by 2020.
Hopefully they are right on the first set of things.
But I think they may be far too conservative about electric car sales, particularly since plug-in hybrids in normal use, are likely to be over 90% electric powered.
In addition to the very large numbers of auto makers gearing up to make such cars, the next news today, suggests this trend may well accelerate.
B. Two stories recently show that GE is already very actively acting as a catalyst to make this trend speed up.
1) Last Friday, they announced plans to buy 25,000 electric cars by 2015, just five years from now – starting with 12,000 from GM next year.
It seems that GE build natural gas-fired generators for utilities and a home charging station they call the WattStation. GE also makes advanced design electric motors and sees this combined group of products as bringing them $500 million in revenue in just the next three years.
2) Today, the San Francisco Chronicle business section has a story that GE and a group of venture capital firms will invest $55 million in several start ups with some kind of smart grid technologies. The companies chosen were judged on whether or not they would contribute to a smarter electric grid, reduce energy use in buildings, &/or recharge electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Further, this effort will total about $200 million with about half of it from GE and the other half from the venture firms.
These developments are quite significant for several reasons.
First, virtually all clean energy except biofuels and cellulosic alcohol is used to generate electricity – from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these releases CO2 while they generate electricity.
Second, Bloom Energy has a product that makes electricity from natural gas with fuel cells that is more efficient than burning it and that produces no air pollution.
Third, running an electric car using even electricity made in coal fired plants releases less CO2 than the same car would release while burning gasoline.
Fourth, none of these energy sources for the electricity for electric cars and plug-in hybrids requires oil!
For the strength of the economy of the United States and its national security, this is extremely important news.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-17-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Good & much better news for Renewable Energy
1. Two trends look to intersect soon. There is a consistent push now to make solar more efficient and cost effective. And, due to increased demand for natural gas to make electricity for many reasons and the increased cost of acquiring it from shale without grave environmental damage, natural gas will gradually increase in price.
One company of the many that will likely get into this side of solar that already has a developed technology is Cogenra Solar of Mountain View, CA. Of the solar energy striking solar collectors, most of the 80 to 85% of it NOT used to make electricity is heat and is wasted by most solar collectors. Cogenra arrays make electricity and use the heat to make hot water. And the company claims to produce five times the useful energy as other solar collectors by doing so.
This combination, CEO Gilad Almogy says, enables them to beat current utility prices at today’s rates!
They’ve also found a way to do this with off the shelf components and can already begin to deliver systems. Since this is the case, they charge for the electricity and hot water they deliver rather than for the systems they install.
2. The even better news is in two parts.
A. The Boston Consulting Group released a study, “What’s next for Alternative Energy, “ a week ago today that said that cellulosic ethanol, wind farms, and large scale solar power plants are very soon to be competitive with fossil fuels without the need for subsidies. They said that this point will be reached much sooner than many people yet realize it will.
Cellulosic ethanol will become cost competitive by next year to four years from now, 2014. And, by 2020, 10 years from now, they see electricity generated from natural gas close to 9 cents per kilowatt hour and rising with solar electricity from large solar plants or farms to be at about the same price and falling.
They also see electric cars being up to 10 % of all new car sales by 2020.
Hopefully they are right on the first set of things.
But I think they may be far too conservative about electric car sales, particularly since plug-in hybrids in normal use, are likely to be over 90% electric powered.
In addition to the very large numbers of auto makers gearing up to make such cars, the next news today, suggests this trend may well accelerate.
B. Two stories recently show that GE is already very actively acting as a catalyst to make this trend speed up.
1) Last Friday, they announced plans to buy 25,000 electric cars by 2015, just five years from now – starting with 12,000 from GM next year.
It seems that GE build natural gas-fired generators for utilities and a home charging station they call the WattStation. GE also makes advanced design electric motors and sees this combined group of products as bringing them $500 million in revenue in just the next three years.
2) Today, the San Francisco Chronicle business section has a story that GE and a group of venture capital firms will invest $55 million in several start ups with some kind of smart grid technologies. The companies chosen were judged on whether or not they would contribute to a smarter electric grid, reduce energy use in buildings, &/or recharge electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Further, this effort will total about $200 million with about half of it from GE and the other half from the venture firms.
These developments are quite significant for several reasons.
First, virtually all clean energy except biofuels and cellulosic alcohol is used to generate electricity – from solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these releases CO2 while they generate electricity.
Second, Bloom Energy has a product that makes electricity from natural gas with fuel cells that is more efficient than burning it and that produces no air pollution.
Third, running an electric car using even electricity made in coal fired plants releases less CO2 than the same car would release while burning gasoline.
Fourth, none of these energy sources for the electricity for electric cars and plug-in hybrids requires oil!
For the strength of the economy of the United States and its national security, this is extremely important news.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Good & bad news for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-10-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Good & bad news for Renewable Energy
1. Due to the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, we will now see a good faith effort to put AB32 into practice. To the extent that this succeeds in creating new jobs, causing more renewable energy generation to be built, and cutting CO2 emissions without slowing the rest of California’s economy, this will provide a model for other states and for the nation.
It may not happen soon. But at some point, oil prices will again run up enough to slow the economy. And, we will begin to see more harm from global warming here in the United States.
When either of those happen, let alone both as I think likely, the country will follow California’s lead.
2. Even people who voted for leaders who say they think global warming is not happening or not caused by burning fossil fuels like to save energy and have more new jobs locally.
Such people also are fond of saving money personally. And, most people like useful new technology and products that contain it.
Clean energy advocates need to throw strong support to such programs because even these new leaders and the people who voted for them will support them.
3. President Obama suggested recently the new congress might be able to agree on and pass improved renewable energy standards, increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas, increasing domestic production of electric cars, and building more nuclear power plants.
I give this hopeful suggestion a mixed review.
1. Improved renewable energy standards would be welcome and are extremely desirable; but I think he may be too optimistic – maybe far too optimistic. But even some progress in this area, even if just a little bit at first, would help. So, adding that to something that will fly on its own that has stronger support might work.
He might well have better luck though with improving the energy efficiency standards for buildings and products that use energy –
and for programs that create jobs by helping businesses that help do this make money and hire new people and use existing technologies and new ones to make much more energy-efficient products.
He might get backing for creating jobs to retrofit to more efficient technologies and products and to insulate and heat proof buildings to help them use less energy.
People want more new jobs and help saving money. So these efforts might work.
2. Increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas has a shot. It would help us use less imported oil which would get the backing of conservatives and Republicans who see that as increasing our national security and a way to send less money out of the country when our domestic economy could use some help. Even better, the oil companies led by Exxon and Chevron will be on board. They have seen this coming and have invested heavily in increasing their ability to supply natural gas and make money doing it.
This also has clean energy and environmental value. It would help wean us from using oil before its price spikes or it simply runs out. And, it would generate less air pollution than burning coal, particularly if it’s used to run more efficient and dramatically less polluting fuel cells such as those already made commercially by Bloom Energy.
3. Increasing domestic production of electric cars also has a shot. The car makers are already onboard and are setting up to make both plug-in hybrids and all electric cars. Since this is happening in the rest of the world too, notably in Japan and Germany, doing more of it here, will help create US jobs that would otherwise be lost.
And, even when the electricity used is from burning coal, less CO2 is generated than would be by powering cars of the same weight with oil.
But, even better, as we generate more electricity from sources other than coal and oil from photovoltaic and thermal solar and wind to fuel cells using natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear, such cars give us a real shot at breaking our addiction to oil before it’s too late.
And, having more of such cars built here saves or create jobs here -- which for SURE has universal support.
4. Even conservative Republicans will find that with the recent Gulf oil spill that more offshore drilling may not fly, do quite often support building more nuclear power.
So that might work also. It has worked well in France.
But it does have some safety issues due to terrorism here.
And unless we switch to breeder reactors from use the uranium and then try to figure out where to put the radioactive waste method -- that we have been using, we will run short of uranium, have to transport these wastes with the terror risk that poses, and have it be more of a short term solution only.
That said, more nuclear that creates electricity as needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus far more electricity from renewable sources that vary from day to day and hour to hour would create a viable replacement for burning coal to make electricity.
5. He did not speak of it. But a program for coal producing states to help them switch to a cleaner way of making electricity from it instead of simply abandoning it would get very enthusiastic support from those states.
And, like increasing our use of natural gas, doing so would get support from conservatives who want to increase our independence from imported oil and to stop sending billions of dollars a week out of the United States.
Coal can be use to make gas that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity and burning it also produces less air and water pollution than burning coal directly. Coal has already been used to make gasoline. The technology exists. And, last but far from least, when gas from coal is used to make electricity, the CO2 created can be fed to algae to make biofuels.
The next two years or more may be quite challenging. But good things are likely to happen more and more in California. And nationally, some productive things might yet come out of the next congress.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-10-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Good & bad news for Renewable Energy
1. Due to the defeat of Proposition 23 in California, we will now see a good faith effort to put AB32 into practice. To the extent that this succeeds in creating new jobs, causing more renewable energy generation to be built, and cutting CO2 emissions without slowing the rest of California’s economy, this will provide a model for other states and for the nation.
It may not happen soon. But at some point, oil prices will again run up enough to slow the economy. And, we will begin to see more harm from global warming here in the United States.
When either of those happen, let alone both as I think likely, the country will follow California’s lead.
2. Even people who voted for leaders who say they think global warming is not happening or not caused by burning fossil fuels like to save energy and have more new jobs locally.
Such people also are fond of saving money personally. And, most people like useful new technology and products that contain it.
Clean energy advocates need to throw strong support to such programs because even these new leaders and the people who voted for them will support them.
3. President Obama suggested recently the new congress might be able to agree on and pass improved renewable energy standards, increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas, increasing domestic production of electric cars, and building more nuclear power plants.
I give this hopeful suggestion a mixed review.
1. Improved renewable energy standards would be welcome and are extremely desirable; but I think he may be too optimistic – maybe far too optimistic. But even some progress in this area, even if just a little bit at first, would help. So, adding that to something that will fly on its own that has stronger support might work.
He might well have better luck though with improving the energy efficiency standards for buildings and products that use energy –
and for programs that create jobs by helping businesses that help do this make money and hire new people and use existing technologies and new ones to make much more energy-efficient products.
He might get backing for creating jobs to retrofit to more efficient technologies and products and to insulate and heat proof buildings to help them use less energy.
People want more new jobs and help saving money. So these efforts might work.
2. Increasing the domestic supply and use of natural gas has a shot. It would help us use less imported oil which would get the backing of conservatives and Republicans who see that as increasing our national security and a way to send less money out of the country when our domestic economy could use some help. Even better, the oil companies led by Exxon and Chevron will be on board. They have seen this coming and have invested heavily in increasing their ability to supply natural gas and make money doing it.
This also has clean energy and environmental value. It would help wean us from using oil before its price spikes or it simply runs out. And, it would generate less air pollution than burning coal, particularly if it’s used to run more efficient and dramatically less polluting fuel cells such as those already made commercially by Bloom Energy.
3. Increasing domestic production of electric cars also has a shot. The car makers are already onboard and are setting up to make both plug-in hybrids and all electric cars. Since this is happening in the rest of the world too, notably in Japan and Germany, doing more of it here, will help create US jobs that would otherwise be lost.
And, even when the electricity used is from burning coal, less CO2 is generated than would be by powering cars of the same weight with oil.
But, even better, as we generate more electricity from sources other than coal and oil from photovoltaic and thermal solar and wind to fuel cells using natural gas, geothermal, and nuclear, such cars give us a real shot at breaking our addiction to oil before it’s too late.
And, having more of such cars built here saves or create jobs here -- which for SURE has universal support.
4. Even conservative Republicans will find that with the recent Gulf oil spill that more offshore drilling may not fly, do quite often support building more nuclear power.
So that might work also. It has worked well in France.
But it does have some safety issues due to terrorism here.
And unless we switch to breeder reactors from use the uranium and then try to figure out where to put the radioactive waste method -- that we have been using, we will run short of uranium, have to transport these wastes with the terror risk that poses, and have it be more of a short term solution only.
That said, more nuclear that creates electricity as needed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, plus far more electricity from renewable sources that vary from day to day and hour to hour would create a viable replacement for burning coal to make electricity.
5. He did not speak of it. But a program for coal producing states to help them switch to a cleaner way of making electricity from it instead of simply abandoning it would get very enthusiastic support from those states.
And, like increasing our use of natural gas, doing so would get support from conservatives who want to increase our independence from imported oil and to stop sending billions of dollars a week out of the United States.
Coal can be use to make gas that can be used in fuel cells to make electricity and burning it also produces less air and water pollution than burning coal directly. Coal has already been used to make gasoline. The technology exists. And, last but far from least, when gas from coal is used to make electricity, the CO2 created can be fed to algae to make biofuels.
The next two years or more may be quite challenging. But good things are likely to happen more and more in California. And nationally, some productive things might yet come out of the next congress.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Four wins for Renewable Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-3-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Four wins for Renewable Energy
1. Voters including me and perhaps you voted against Proposition 23. It LOST. That means that California will begin to work on a large scale to build more renewable energy, become more energy efficient, and begin gradually to cut the release of CO2.
The effort to do this will begin to add even more new jobs than it has in the last 3 years and do this every year. And, most of these jobs will be in California. The new sources of energy and the increased energy efficiency of California’s economy will also strengthen the California economy.
2. In California, the candidate for Governor who had actually taken action to protect renewable energy and supported No on 23 and the clean energy and jobs that AB32 will now create defeated the woman who was so clueless about this she would have suspended AB32 as being bad for the economy. He was qualified by this to be Governor despite his faults and she was NOT despite her good points. The candidate that will actually be most likely to bring new jobs and a strong economy to California won.
California’s economy and its ability to lead the transition to the new clean energy economy are now MUCH better off!
3. In the Senate races, two of the most valuable supporters of clean energy in the United States congress have been Senator Barbara Boxer from California and Harry Reid of Nevada. They both won reelection against candidates who also were unqualified to be in the US Senate because they were clueless about clean energy.
In either case to have lost a knowledgeable supporter and had an unqualified person to replace them who opposed clean energy would have had grave and negative consequences.
So, to have won both these races is a very important victory for clean energy.
And, since each of their states, California and Nevada, have such large potential for both photovoltaic and thermal solar power, it was extremely important that each of them win and they did.
4. Despite having less solar energy than California, Germany has been consistently building about 15 times as much solar every year as California.
If California built as much solar in relation to its available solar energy as Germany has been doing it would begin to build about TWENTY-FIVE times as much solar!
Since that’s exactly what we need now, it makes superb sense to use the proven incentive system that Germany has been using and that California has not.
This system is called the Feed-in Tariff or FIT. Companies, builders, and developers – even homeowners --who are willing to contract to supply solar electricity are offered a fixed contract and at just enough of a higher rate than other sources to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit.
That in turn makes their project financeable even in today’s tough credit environment.
But if California cannot offer rates high enough to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit, even a modest one, virtually no new solar will be built for many years or at all.
As of late last month, it was ruled that California now CAN offer rates high enough to do the job!
Since that literally may increase the amount of solar built here and producing clean electricity by as much as twenty-five times in just a few years, that IS a very significant piece of good news for clean energy!
I get news from CEN, the clean energy network and from the FIT Coalition by email. In the last one I got from CEN a few days ago, it had this news.
They also had a link to a story about it in the GreenTech Solar news. (They had the link; but I was unable to do a cut and paste to show it here. But you should be able to find the GreenTech Solar website and this article in it online.)
Their story was by Herman K. Trabish. And October 28, 2010 was its publication date.
“FERC Decision Boosts Renewables
Federal regulator’s ruling makes the price paid to renewable energy producers more competitive.
.
The federal transmission system regulator ruled October 21 that California can require its utilities to pay a price for renewable energy that will support its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) plan. The ruling resets the existing price standard and is expected to drive the deployment of renewable energy.”
The news for clean energy from yesterday’s election on a national basis was far less promising.
But these four things were quite good. And, since their combination strongly suggests clean energy in California will begin to do really well soon, once people see a stronger economy and more new jobs in California soon, the national picture should improve also.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-3-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Four wins for Renewable Energy
1. Voters including me and perhaps you voted against Proposition 23. It LOST. That means that California will begin to work on a large scale to build more renewable energy, become more energy efficient, and begin gradually to cut the release of CO2.
The effort to do this will begin to add even more new jobs than it has in the last 3 years and do this every year. And, most of these jobs will be in California. The new sources of energy and the increased energy efficiency of California’s economy will also strengthen the California economy.
2. In California, the candidate for Governor who had actually taken action to protect renewable energy and supported No on 23 and the clean energy and jobs that AB32 will now create defeated the woman who was so clueless about this she would have suspended AB32 as being bad for the economy. He was qualified by this to be Governor despite his faults and she was NOT despite her good points. The candidate that will actually be most likely to bring new jobs and a strong economy to California won.
California’s economy and its ability to lead the transition to the new clean energy economy are now MUCH better off!
3. In the Senate races, two of the most valuable supporters of clean energy in the United States congress have been Senator Barbara Boxer from California and Harry Reid of Nevada. They both won reelection against candidates who also were unqualified to be in the US Senate because they were clueless about clean energy.
In either case to have lost a knowledgeable supporter and had an unqualified person to replace them who opposed clean energy would have had grave and negative consequences.
So, to have won both these races is a very important victory for clean energy.
And, since each of their states, California and Nevada, have such large potential for both photovoltaic and thermal solar power, it was extremely important that each of them win and they did.
4. Despite having less solar energy than California, Germany has been consistently building about 15 times as much solar every year as California.
If California built as much solar in relation to its available solar energy as Germany has been doing it would begin to build about TWENTY-FIVE times as much solar!
Since that’s exactly what we need now, it makes superb sense to use the proven incentive system that Germany has been using and that California has not.
This system is called the Feed-in Tariff or FIT. Companies, builders, and developers – even homeowners --who are willing to contract to supply solar electricity are offered a fixed contract and at just enough of a higher rate than other sources to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit.
That in turn makes their project financeable even in today’s tough credit environment.
But if California cannot offer rates high enough to guarantee the person or group building the solar capacity a reliable profit, even a modest one, virtually no new solar will be built for many years or at all.
As of late last month, it was ruled that California now CAN offer rates high enough to do the job!
Since that literally may increase the amount of solar built here and producing clean electricity by as much as twenty-five times in just a few years, that IS a very significant piece of good news for clean energy!
I get news from CEN, the clean energy network and from the FIT Coalition by email. In the last one I got from CEN a few days ago, it had this news.
They also had a link to a story about it in the GreenTech Solar news. (They had the link; but I was unable to do a cut and paste to show it here. But you should be able to find the GreenTech Solar website and this article in it online.)
Their story was by Herman K. Trabish. And October 28, 2010 was its publication date.
“FERC Decision Boosts Renewables
Federal regulator’s ruling makes the price paid to renewable energy producers more competitive.
.
The federal transmission system regulator ruled October 21 that California can require its utilities to pay a price for renewable energy that will support its Feed-In Tariff (FIT) plan. The ruling resets the existing price standard and is expected to drive the deployment of renewable energy.”
The news for clean energy from yesterday’s election on a national basis was far less promising.
But these four things were quite good. And, since their combination strongly suggests clean energy in California will begin to do really well soon, once people see a stronger economy and more new jobs in California soon, the national picture should improve also.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Two reasons for optimism on Clean Energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-27-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Two reasons for optimism on Clean Energy
1. If you’ve not yet voted and can vote in California, be SURE to vote against Proposition 23 that would kill off new clean energy jobs and even some existing ones and increase air pollution in the state.
The very good news is that the polls have the NO side ahead by a healthy margin as of the most recent poll.
That’s a relief. But games and wars and political contests can be lost by the side that’s ahead at the last minute if the people who are ahead stop making an effort before they are over.
So while the news is good, be SURE to vote against prop 23 if you can but have not yet done so.
Also, the two state wide candidates for Governor and for the US Senate who would like to do as prop 23 suggests and suspend AB 32, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, are also losing in the polls.
As a progressive Republican, I support more jobs in California and more participation by Californians in the major growth business sector of the next 30 or 40 years, clean energy.
The evidence for clean energy doing these things is clear enough that, despite the fact that Whitman and Fiorina are Republicans, they are not competent for the positions they are seeking due to their ignorance. That makes the issues on which I agree with them irrelevant.
Conversely, though neither is perfect, both Jerry Brown and Barbara
Boxer DO know and ALREADY have a track-record of taking action personally to support clean energy.
So, similarly, please be sure to vote for Brown and Boxer if you can vote in California and have not yet done so.
Still, the news that in the 3 races in California that can most impact clean energy, the good guys are clearly ahead is welcome news indeed.
2. The other news on clean energy is quite different. But it has HUGE implications.
To build the clean energy economy large enough and to get it done fast enough, we need most of the people helping get it done.
So far, that has NOT happened.
People who believe the science that global warming will cause huge and expensive problems beginning right now if it isn’t turned way down soon support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Similarly, the people who see the reports saying fossil fuel availability will fall behind energy demand enough to cause severe price run ups within 15 or 20 years or even sooner, as I do, support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Why the people who understand that science and the understanding it provides enables them to drive cars that work at least most of the time and use electronic communications that work even more reliably fail to believe in science when it reveals global warming and the likely problems it causes are real is not something I completely understand.
But between their wishing it wasn’t so and the disinformation they see from short sighted and badly managed companies that fear they will lose money unless they fight efforts to use less fossil fuels, a very large number of people DO disbelieve the science behind global warming.
To be fair one writer points out that the media have announced many problems that looked to be quite serious that never were a few years later. He thinks that global warming is real but will turn out to be no big deal as those previous problems did.
He has a serious point. Unfortunately, this time it looks like from the science that he is horribly mistaken.
So, what’s the good news about all this?!
It’s been recently proven that even people who disbelieve in global warming and running short on fossil fuels will support taking action on clean energy! Even better, they will actually take action on making clean energy happen!
That is extremely good news and is critically important to making clean energy happen soon enough and on a large enough scale.
What happened?
A woman realized that the climate warming deniers all still liked saving money, they all liked creating more local jobs, and they all were patriotic enough and knowledgeable enough about the risks of our extreme dependence on imported oil they ARE willing to take action on clean energy when it saves them money, creates more local jobs, and increases our freedom from dependence on imported oil.
She put together a program showing ways people could act on clean energy that would do these things and she added a religious faith based appeal for clean environment as a way of preserving God’s creation. That too is sound. Cleaner sources of energy and more pollution reduction do help keep their local environment in its original condition instead of having it get worse.
This was done in Kansas where there is significant wind power potential. Her program emphasized ways to save money, make money, and create local jobs by tapping wind power and by finding many other ways to save energy and become more energy efficient – and save money personally.
People were quite fond of these benefits and actually took action. Kansas landed a very large wind power equipment manufacturer and began to do more to harvest wind generated electricity there. And, there are many places in Kansas that are saving money still due to the increases in energy efficiency in those places.
In short, even people who don’t believe scientists and oil supply experts -- or don’t want to -- are happy to support clean energy if they see what it does for them in other ways that do not relate to those concerns.
The clean energy supporting people need to find more ways to build on these themes to make enough happen soon enough and to get the wide based political support needed to do so.
The very good news is that there is such a winning strategy and it has been proven to work!
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-27-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Two reasons for optimism on Clean Energy
1. If you’ve not yet voted and can vote in California, be SURE to vote against Proposition 23 that would kill off new clean energy jobs and even some existing ones and increase air pollution in the state.
The very good news is that the polls have the NO side ahead by a healthy margin as of the most recent poll.
That’s a relief. But games and wars and political contests can be lost by the side that’s ahead at the last minute if the people who are ahead stop making an effort before they are over.
So while the news is good, be SURE to vote against prop 23 if you can but have not yet done so.
Also, the two state wide candidates for Governor and for the US Senate who would like to do as prop 23 suggests and suspend AB 32, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, are also losing in the polls.
As a progressive Republican, I support more jobs in California and more participation by Californians in the major growth business sector of the next 30 or 40 years, clean energy.
The evidence for clean energy doing these things is clear enough that, despite the fact that Whitman and Fiorina are Republicans, they are not competent for the positions they are seeking due to their ignorance. That makes the issues on which I agree with them irrelevant.
Conversely, though neither is perfect, both Jerry Brown and Barbara
Boxer DO know and ALREADY have a track-record of taking action personally to support clean energy.
So, similarly, please be sure to vote for Brown and Boxer if you can vote in California and have not yet done so.
Still, the news that in the 3 races in California that can most impact clean energy, the good guys are clearly ahead is welcome news indeed.
2. The other news on clean energy is quite different. But it has HUGE implications.
To build the clean energy economy large enough and to get it done fast enough, we need most of the people helping get it done.
So far, that has NOT happened.
People who believe the science that global warming will cause huge and expensive problems beginning right now if it isn’t turned way down soon support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Similarly, the people who see the reports saying fossil fuel availability will fall behind energy demand enough to cause severe price run ups within 15 or 20 years or even sooner, as I do, support clean energy and building it up fast enough and on a large enough scale.
Why the people who understand that science and the understanding it provides enables them to drive cars that work at least most of the time and use electronic communications that work even more reliably fail to believe in science when it reveals global warming and the likely problems it causes are real is not something I completely understand.
But between their wishing it wasn’t so and the disinformation they see from short sighted and badly managed companies that fear they will lose money unless they fight efforts to use less fossil fuels, a very large number of people DO disbelieve the science behind global warming.
To be fair one writer points out that the media have announced many problems that looked to be quite serious that never were a few years later. He thinks that global warming is real but will turn out to be no big deal as those previous problems did.
He has a serious point. Unfortunately, this time it looks like from the science that he is horribly mistaken.
So, what’s the good news about all this?!
It’s been recently proven that even people who disbelieve in global warming and running short on fossil fuels will support taking action on clean energy! Even better, they will actually take action on making clean energy happen!
That is extremely good news and is critically important to making clean energy happen soon enough and on a large enough scale.
What happened?
A woman realized that the climate warming deniers all still liked saving money, they all liked creating more local jobs, and they all were patriotic enough and knowledgeable enough about the risks of our extreme dependence on imported oil they ARE willing to take action on clean energy when it saves them money, creates more local jobs, and increases our freedom from dependence on imported oil.
She put together a program showing ways people could act on clean energy that would do these things and she added a religious faith based appeal for clean environment as a way of preserving God’s creation. That too is sound. Cleaner sources of energy and more pollution reduction do help keep their local environment in its original condition instead of having it get worse.
This was done in Kansas where there is significant wind power potential. Her program emphasized ways to save money, make money, and create local jobs by tapping wind power and by finding many other ways to save energy and become more energy efficient – and save money personally.
People were quite fond of these benefits and actually took action. Kansas landed a very large wind power equipment manufacturer and began to do more to harvest wind generated electricity there. And, there are many places in Kansas that are saving money still due to the increases in energy efficiency in those places.
In short, even people who don’t believe scientists and oil supply experts -- or don’t want to -- are happy to support clean energy if they see what it does for them in other ways that do not relate to those concerns.
The clean energy supporting people need to find more ways to build on these themes to make enough happen soon enough and to get the wide based political support needed to do so.
The very good news is that there is such a winning strategy and it has been proven to work!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-20-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23
1. There are jobs in clean energy at stake if 23 passes. Not only that many of these are jobs where young people are wanted and can do well.
The backers say 23 will prevent jobs from being lost. But the people who actually did the study the backers pointed to came out in the paper saying that their study found that the number of old industry jobs would likely remain constant instead. The backers made up the lost jobs claim to scare the uninformed in other words.
2. The backers have refineries in California now that already release pollutants that the regulations now say they should not and refuse to pay to clean up the mess. Now, they ARE spending money on 23 to cut back on the regulations so they can spend even less and pollute more.
I live clear on the other side of the San Francisco Bay from the refineries and some mornings, they release so much I can smell the pollution now. If 23 passes that might get even worse.
3. Adding more clean energy will put more money into the economy by giving us alternatives to oil. So when oil begins to go way back up in price, we will still have energy sources and sources that are cheaper. And, when oil begins to run out, maybe our economy will survive without collapsing.
Voting against 23 makes sense. The people who think otherwise are mostly ignorant or believe the lies they've been told.
If enough of us vote and vote against 23, we can have a better economy, safer air, and more jobs.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-20-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Why be SURE to Vote NO on 23
1. There are jobs in clean energy at stake if 23 passes. Not only that many of these are jobs where young people are wanted and can do well.
The backers say 23 will prevent jobs from being lost. But the people who actually did the study the backers pointed to came out in the paper saying that their study found that the number of old industry jobs would likely remain constant instead. The backers made up the lost jobs claim to scare the uninformed in other words.
2. The backers have refineries in California now that already release pollutants that the regulations now say they should not and refuse to pay to clean up the mess. Now, they ARE spending money on 23 to cut back on the regulations so they can spend even less and pollute more.
I live clear on the other side of the San Francisco Bay from the refineries and some mornings, they release so much I can smell the pollution now. If 23 passes that might get even worse.
3. Adding more clean energy will put more money into the economy by giving us alternatives to oil. So when oil begins to go way back up in price, we will still have energy sources and sources that are cheaper. And, when oil begins to run out, maybe our economy will survive without collapsing.
Voting against 23 makes sense. The people who think otherwise are mostly ignorant or believe the lies they've been told.
If enough of us vote and vote against 23, we can have a better economy, safer air, and more jobs.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-13-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23
I’ve already posted that the jobs California would LOSE if the current Proposition 23 were to pass ARE real while the jobs the backers of 23 said we would lose if it is not are not at all likely to be real.
Shortly after I got home last week after my last post, I found out the backers of proposition 23 completely FAKED the lost jobs. They have been lying on purpose and have been quite conscious of it.
Last Wednesday, 10-6-2010, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story showing that the actual researchers who did the study the proposition backers have been quoting said four things:
1. If proposition 23 fails and AB 32 goes into effect, more new clean tech jobs will be created to go with those already created once AB 32 was passed. If Proposition 23 is passed, many of those jobs will either be lost or NOT be created. They noted that, “….jobs in the clean energy sector have grown by 5 percent during the recession while overall employment has fallen."
2. The increases in energy efficiency and supply from AB 32 will IMPROVE the California economy. But that’s ONLY if 23 fails and we can implement AB 32.
3. Businesses that are impacted will have some increased costs initially; but historically such changes mandated by changes in technology tend to increase jobs –NOT make them disappear. These industries will actually have to hire people to make the now necessary changes.
4. Passing Proposition 23 would decrease jobs and harm the California economy. It’s actually the enemy of having more jobs and losing fewer jobs – NOT the reverse.
In short, the people who actually did the study that looked at the issue were quoted as saying the reverse by the backers of Proposition 23.
Proposition 23 IS the enemy of jobs in California. The backers of Proposition 23 lied on purpose. Their credibility was based on this study. But the people who did the study actually found the reverse of what the backers of Proposition 23 said. Their argument was FAKED to scare people who have been concerned about jobs.
The good news is that many of these less educated people who now favor 23 based on those scare tactics tend to not always vote.
So please join me in voting NO on 23. And, be SURE to vote!
My wife and I did that by voting last weekend by absentee ballot.
Also, despite the fact that I think some of what Meg Whitman says is sound, the fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would suspend AB 32 while the economy is bad means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be Governor of California. I voted against her for that reason.
Carly Fiorina talks a good game but actually came out in FAVOR of Proposition 23. Some of her backers are coal companies that promote the idea that global warming isn’t real.
The fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would help suspend AB 32 means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be a United States Senator representing the state where I live. I voted against her for that reason.
Since the energy economy is to me the most important issue today, I suggest you join me in those two votes also.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-13-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post:
The backer's claims of job loss are FAKES -- Vote NO on 23
I’ve already posted that the jobs California would LOSE if the current Proposition 23 were to pass ARE real while the jobs the backers of 23 said we would lose if it is not are not at all likely to be real.
Shortly after I got home last week after my last post, I found out the backers of proposition 23 completely FAKED the lost jobs. They have been lying on purpose and have been quite conscious of it.
Last Wednesday, 10-6-2010, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story showing that the actual researchers who did the study the proposition backers have been quoting said four things:
1. If proposition 23 fails and AB 32 goes into effect, more new clean tech jobs will be created to go with those already created once AB 32 was passed. If Proposition 23 is passed, many of those jobs will either be lost or NOT be created. They noted that, “….jobs in the clean energy sector have grown by 5 percent during the recession while overall employment has fallen."
2. The increases in energy efficiency and supply from AB 32 will IMPROVE the California economy. But that’s ONLY if 23 fails and we can implement AB 32.
3. Businesses that are impacted will have some increased costs initially; but historically such changes mandated by changes in technology tend to increase jobs –NOT make them disappear. These industries will actually have to hire people to make the now necessary changes.
4. Passing Proposition 23 would decrease jobs and harm the California economy. It’s actually the enemy of having more jobs and losing fewer jobs – NOT the reverse.
In short, the people who actually did the study that looked at the issue were quoted as saying the reverse by the backers of Proposition 23.
Proposition 23 IS the enemy of jobs in California. The backers of Proposition 23 lied on purpose. Their credibility was based on this study. But the people who did the study actually found the reverse of what the backers of Proposition 23 said. Their argument was FAKED to scare people who have been concerned about jobs.
The good news is that many of these less educated people who now favor 23 based on those scare tactics tend to not always vote.
So please join me in voting NO on 23. And, be SURE to vote!
My wife and I did that by voting last weekend by absentee ballot.
Also, despite the fact that I think some of what Meg Whitman says is sound, the fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would suspend AB 32 while the economy is bad means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be Governor of California. I voted against her for that reason.
Carly Fiorina talks a good game but actually came out in FAVOR of Proposition 23. Some of her backers are coal companies that promote the idea that global warming isn’t real.
The fact that she knows so little about today’s economy and what it needs that she would help suspend AB 32 means to me she is so ignorant that she is not qualified to be a United States Senator representing the state where I live. I voted against her for that reason.
Since the energy economy is to me the most important issue today, I suggest you join me in those two votes also.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
New technology for lower cost LED lights....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-6-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: New technology for lower cost LED lights
Late last week, it was in the technology company news for the Silicon Valley that there is a new company with a technology that may dramatically cut manufacturing costs for LED lights.
As many know, the two reasons that LED lights have yet to completely take over the market for homes and smaller businesses for light bulbs are
that almost none of them fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs;
&
that LED light bulbs despite dramatic savings on the electricity to operate them of 4 or 5 to one over incandescent light bulbs and they last over 10 times longer, they cost almost 100 times as much per bulb.
Philips is rumored to have begun to make LED light bulbs that fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs. And, as a company large enough to get an economy of scale, their bulbs may cost $45 instead of $75 or $100 apiece.
But only really serious people about supporting clean energy an energy efficiency will buy at that price.
But if the LEDs themselves cost a fifth or a tenth as much to make, they would rapidly take over the market for light bulbs once they come out in the right sizes.
Maybe that will happen in the next few years.
Here’s the announcement.
GLO-AB-Establishes-Engineering-Center-Silicon-Valley in Sunnyvale
Founded in 2005, glo AB is a venture-backed, development-stage company focused on development and commercialisation of entirely new, highly energy efficient and very low cost nanowire light-emitting diodes (nLED)
glo employs novel, cutting-edge semiconductor nanotechnology to dramatically lower production cost at the die level of Ultra-High-Brightness (UHB) light emitting diodes (LEDs).
A novel type of LED-chip - each with millions of nanowire LEDs or nLED - is expected to offer all the advantages of state-of-the-art conventional planar UHB-LEDs, including high lighting efficiency with very low energy consumption, long lifetime and good functionality,
but at radically lower manufacturing costs.
This is expected to open the door to solid state lighting (SSL) for general illumination markets worldwide.
Sweden's Glo Opens Sunnyvale Facility, Lands $25M and New CEO
Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Glo AB, a Swedish developer of nanowire semiconductor LEDs, said on Friday it has raised $25 million in new funding and established a new engineering center in Sunnyvale. The company also named Fariba Danesh as its CEO. New investor Wellington Partners joined previous backers Provider Venture Partners, Hafslund Venture, Agder Energi Venture, Teknoinvest and VantagePoint Venture Partners.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-6-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: New technology for lower cost LED lights
Late last week, it was in the technology company news for the Silicon Valley that there is a new company with a technology that may dramatically cut manufacturing costs for LED lights.
As many know, the two reasons that LED lights have yet to completely take over the market for homes and smaller businesses for light bulbs are
that almost none of them fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs;
&
that LED light bulbs despite dramatic savings on the electricity to operate them of 4 or 5 to one over incandescent light bulbs and they last over 10 times longer, they cost almost 100 times as much per bulb.
Philips is rumored to have begun to make LED light bulbs that fit the lamps and sockets people now have that did fit their old incandescent light bulbs. And, as a company large enough to get an economy of scale, their bulbs may cost $45 instead of $75 or $100 apiece.
But only really serious people about supporting clean energy an energy efficiency will buy at that price.
But if the LEDs themselves cost a fifth or a tenth as much to make, they would rapidly take over the market for light bulbs once they come out in the right sizes.
Maybe that will happen in the next few years.
Here’s the announcement.
GLO-AB-Establishes-Engineering-Center-Silicon-Valley in Sunnyvale
Founded in 2005, glo AB is a venture-backed, development-stage company focused on development and commercialisation of entirely new, highly energy efficient and very low cost nanowire light-emitting diodes (nLED)
glo employs novel, cutting-edge semiconductor nanotechnology to dramatically lower production cost at the die level of Ultra-High-Brightness (UHB) light emitting diodes (LEDs).
A novel type of LED-chip - each with millions of nanowire LEDs or nLED - is expected to offer all the advantages of state-of-the-art conventional planar UHB-LEDs, including high lighting efficiency with very low energy consumption, long lifetime and good functionality,
but at radically lower manufacturing costs.
This is expected to open the door to solid state lighting (SSL) for general illumination markets worldwide.
Sweden's Glo Opens Sunnyvale Facility, Lands $25M and New CEO
Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Glo AB, a Swedish developer of nanowire semiconductor LEDs, said on Friday it has raised $25 million in new funding and established a new engineering center in Sunnyvale. The company also named Fariba Danesh as its CEO. New investor Wellington Partners joined previous backers Provider Venture Partners, Hafslund Venture, Agder Energi Venture, Teknoinvest and VantagePoint Venture Partners.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
New resource for energy solutions news....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-29-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: New resource for energy solutions news
Today my CEN National Update email came.
It had some potential good news and some bad news.
But then I noticed that it had a new resource for mostly good news about new projects on many kinds of topics.
The CEN description did not seem to match what I found on the website. BUT, the website was well enough done, I decided to post about it.
www.energyempowers.gov is the web address.
It has some headline stories of different kinds. It had a story about geothermal power, a story about wind power, and one on the new Porsche hybrid. And, it also featured 8 other stories.
But the part I liked best was that they also post stories by energy solutions category and by state.
In California there was a story about a Silicon Valley company that has a way of cutting silicon for wafers with dramatically less waste to cut costs and a Navy location in the Mojave desert to build carports for personnel that protect their cars and their paint from the sun and its heat while also generating photovoltaic solar power on their roofs.
The 3 main story areas are also subdivided. So the site is also useful to find articles on many different energy solution topics.
1. Renewable Energy contains stories by renewable energy source such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Energy Savings has stories by in which area of the economy such as vehicles, homes, buildings, and industry.
3. Grants and tax credits lists those and has stories on people who used them to finance energy solution projects including 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit and WAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program.
These stories show that despite our inability to be as competitive with China and European countries in renewable energy and CO2 reduction due to organized political opposition by old energy companies, the current federal government is making a lot of small progress in dozens of areas that will gradually improve our energy economy and so is the entrepreneurial business community.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-29-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: New resource for energy solutions news
Today my CEN National Update email came.
It had some potential good news and some bad news.
But then I noticed that it had a new resource for mostly good news about new projects on many kinds of topics.
The CEN description did not seem to match what I found on the website. BUT, the website was well enough done, I decided to post about it.
www.energyempowers.gov is the web address.
It has some headline stories of different kinds. It had a story about geothermal power, a story about wind power, and one on the new Porsche hybrid. And, it also featured 8 other stories.
But the part I liked best was that they also post stories by energy solutions category and by state.
In California there was a story about a Silicon Valley company that has a way of cutting silicon for wafers with dramatically less waste to cut costs and a Navy location in the Mojave desert to build carports for personnel that protect their cars and their paint from the sun and its heat while also generating photovoltaic solar power on their roofs.
The 3 main story areas are also subdivided. So the site is also useful to find articles on many different energy solution topics.
1. Renewable Energy contains stories by renewable energy source such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
2. Energy Savings has stories by in which area of the economy such as vehicles, homes, buildings, and industry.
3. Grants and tax credits lists those and has stories on people who used them to finance energy solution projects including 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit and WAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program.
These stories show that despite our inability to be as competitive with China and European countries in renewable energy and CO2 reduction due to organized political opposition by old energy companies, the current federal government is making a lot of small progress in dozens of areas that will gradually improve our energy economy and so is the entrepreneurial business community.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
An upcoming new way to use less oil....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-22-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: An upcoming new way to use less oil
Electric cars are coming soon. Soon there will be both all electric cars and plug-in hybrids available for sale.
That will be quite soon for the Nissan Leaf and GM’s Chevy Volt.
But if you can wait a couple of years or so, or if you only need a two-seater now and can afford to spend more on a car, Tesla Motors may be your best bet.
Their model S will be about as upscale a sedan as an Acura or a Lexus or car from Mercedes Benz.
And, it will get up to 300 miles on a charge. It looks great and will perform better than most upscale sedans that use tons of gas to perform well.
See www.teslamotors.com . Their two seat, tiny roadster will go up to about 200 miles on a charge and gets almost unbelievable performance. That only takes a bit over $100,000 a few months to get.
The model S will cost closer to $60,000 which is close to what comparable gasoline powered cars cost.
Driving these cars using electric power cuts oil use in many ways.
Electricity will increasingly be generated with solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, and even nuclear power. None of these sources use fossil fuels, let alone oil.
Electricity is already generated by natural gas. With Bloom Energy’s fuel cell technology, that will become even more efficient and create far less air pollution. And, the existing natural gas generation already uses no oil.
Coal is now used to generate electricity, particularly in the Eastern United States. Despite the air pollution and CO2 release problems with that, it uses no oil and thereby driving cars powered electricity from this source uses less oil than driving gasoline powered cars and increases the national security of the United States. Further, when coal is turned directly into natural gas and then fed to a Bloom Energy fuel cell to generate electricity and the CO2 resulting is fed to algae to make biofuels, this will be far cleaner and less polluting and generate less net CO2 than it does now.
So, in every case, driving on electricity, uses no oil and is more desirable than using gasoline.
But, that’s not all!
Electric cars use less energy per mile or per time you accelerate your car than is the case with gasoline or diesel powered cars.
That even means that driving an electric car powered by burning coal now, you cause less CO2 release than you would doing the same driving with a comparable car directly powered by gasoline or diesel.
Electric cars are far from perfect in any way and the technology is a bit new yet; but they will help us use far less oil and release far less CO2 by doing so.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Proposition 23 and jobs....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-15-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Proposition 23 and jobs
The San Francisco Chronicle had a special last Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010. They had one essay in favor of proposition 23 in California and one opposed to proposition 23.
The yes folks said that prop 23 would prevent AB 32 implementation from wiping out thousands or even more than a million jobs of jobs -- or even more than a million jobs.
The no folks said the reverse, that passing prop 23 and wiping out AB 32 implementation would kill new jobs.
Clearly, to voters in the November election, virtually all of whom would like a better economy with more available jobs, jobs are the key issue.
But both sides can’t be correct.
How people will vote depends on who they believe is right.
Since the Pipe Fitters union and a union group of fire fighters were backing 23 and a group of entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley business leaders saying to vote no, clearly the backers of 23 hope that blue collar workers will believe their side and vote in favor of 23.
The major backers of yes on 23 are, according to their official website, “major funding provided by Valero and Tesoro.” These two companies would have to pay more to better clean up the air pollution at their California refineries if 23 fails to cancel clean air provisions as they hope it will do. And, if AB 32 causes gasoline sales to fall a bit by helping provide alternatives and boosting the price of gasoline somewhat, their gasoline sales will fall.
Will that cause them to close their California refineries or layoff workers there? Maybe it might. If it did, since piping is used in their refineries, maybe the Pipefitters union will have some members get laid off too. Even if it happens though, this is hundreds of jobs at companies trying to cut costs by not paying up to clean up their own pollution. It is NOT many thousands of jobs all over the state.
Will a small boost to gasoline prices and utilities bills due to AB 32 being implemented cause the loss of millions of jobs beyond that as they say it will?
They say so just fine. It clearly would be recessionary if it were to happen and voters would prefer that not happen.
But do they present any kind of evidence for this assertion? Nope. Zero. Zilch. Nada. What jobs in what other places in California would be lost? They DO not say.
Conversely the new jobs in clean energy companies already created and likely to be created are verifiable.
In my regular job, I call new and promising companies in the Silicon Valley area. And, I follow clean energy companies from personal interest. I see the growth in clean energy jobs first hand. I know they are real. The solar part of Applied Materials; SunPower; Solyndra; and Nanosolar; and electric car maker, Tesla Motors; and smart grid companies like Trilliant and Silver Spring Networks together have created thousands of new clean energy jobs. And there are literally dozens of smaller clean energy and solar start ups each adding jobs.
If 23 is passed these larger companies will add fewer jobs and some of the smaller companies that would have survived and grown and added new jobs will go out of business instead with their current employees losing their jobs.
So, first of all to me the job losses predicted by the yes on 23 people look to me to be mostly smoke and mirrors while the jobs at stake in clean energy if it were to pass, I see directly.
Unless the yes on 23 people have some real data they are keeping secret and not publicizing, all they are doing is taking oil company money to hoodwink the public.
That’s what I believe is going on.
But what about the argument that increasing energy costs will slow the economy and thereby result in fewer jobs that way?
I agree that is a valid point.
But what the supporters for yes on 23 people fail to understand is that is a very strong reason to vote no on their proposition!
If AB 32 is implemented there will be small increases in gasoline and utility bills in the first year or two afterwards. But that will gradually become a nonissue as too much demand for natural gas and gasoline begins to hit decreasing supplies. In the near term those prices will go up soon anyway because of that supply-demand imbalance.
But if AB 32 is implemented and more energy efficiency efforts are made and more geothermal, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind power – maybe even nuclear power is added that would not have been without it, those prices will be moderated. They will still go up but much more slowly.
Conversely, if prop 23 passes and stops that from happening on that large a scale, both natural gas prices and gasoline will go up MORE and slow the economy more. And that’s on top of killing the new clean energy jobs that would have been created.
So, both groups have it right. The key issue is jobs.
Given the evidence I see, the yes on 23 people don’t have the evidence and the no on 23 people do.
Please vote NO on proposition 23.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Very bad and very good news on energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-8-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Very bad and very good news on energy
1. Here’s the mostly very bad news first.:
Since I am a moderate Republican and registered as a Republican, albeit one who believes in renewable and clean energy, I got on the email list of the "conservative action alerts."
Their most recent email says that there is a new government entity called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is taxing businesses that in some way contribute to the release of CO2.
It apparently is already in operation as they say that, "RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England."
They then decry this as an unnecessary tax and say that because global warming "ISN'T EVEN REAL!" the reader of the email should become angry enough to shout, "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
And they recommend the reader take this attitude out on their local US Representative or Senators to have congress cancel the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
I found the website for this Regional Greenhouse Gas Imitative to see what it is.
It's not a federal program but a program by a group of state governments in the Northeastern part of the United States:
"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI is spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and creating green jobs in each state."
So this program is funding small cuts in CO2 production AND green jobs in this area in adding renewable energy sources and in increasing the energy efficiency of homes and businesses in this area.
So, even if global warming was NOT real, it’s making these states more diversified in their energy sources, helping the homes and businesses there become more energy efficient, which SAVES money; and it’s adding new jobs to the area.
Since the increase is less than one percent of the utility bills in the New England part of the area, this “tax” is costing most people less than $5 a month.
For most homeowners and businesses in this area in fact, improvements in their energy efficiency could easily pay back their costs AND this tiny increase.
Unfortunately, the facts so far also indicate that global warming is real and will at the very least increase the number and severity of weather disasters and emergencies even if it doesn’t flood our coastal cities and severely cut back on the amount of food we can grow.
Here’s why I think this email is horribly bad news. It is designed to generate a large number of badly informed, hostile, and close-minded people to try to force our governments to move away from what to me look like reasonable and desirable changes in our energy policy.
A legitimate case can be made that the people and locations who depend on the jobs in the coal industry in this area need to be taken into account and that reasonable care needs to be taken while the country is in a severe recession not to go overboard on increased taxes and costs to the people in this area.
But the costs are relatively small and these added costs are funding new jobs and increases in energy efficiency that will create more economic benefit to these states and their people than the costs.
To be fair, I’ve seen Democrats deliberately mislead the uninformed and unthinking in this exact same way.
But, on the subject of energy, this is totally despicable and harmful.
The fact that some people will believe this email and push hard to end what so far looks like a mostly beneficial program based on the disinformation and hostility in this email is extremely bad news for the energy situation in this country.
I find this most unfortunate indeed & very, very bad news that this email even exists, let alone that such emails are going to people all over the United States.
Mercifully the very good news is dramatically better and will gradually begin to operate on a much larger scale than the deliberately deceptive people who composed this email and had it sent.
2. I just found out that the gains that can be made in increasing energy efficiency in ways that actually SAVE money to do can do some very large scale good.
It would create jobs while lowering costs and doubly strengthen our economy.
And, it goes far beyond the heat proofing of our house we once did that created a no energy needed way to cool our house BETTER than paying for air conditioning and the related energy use or just insulating houses in poor neighborhoods to lower heating costs and energy use.
It includes those on a nationwide scale. But like those, it simply employs ALREADY EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.
But what I did not know before is that almost every part of our energy use and economy has that much potential for energy and dollar cost savings.
We can make a huge difference in cutting CO2 release, in reducing our dependence on oil as peak oil approaches, in increasing our national security by sharply decreasing our imports of foreign oil, add new jobs, and save money and all at the same time!
This can be done without waiting for 200 times more renewable energy to be installed or new transmission systems built to deliver it or new energy technologies to be discovered, developed and put into widespread use.
We need to do all that as close to lightning speed as we can manage.
But we have had a horribly late start and are making too little progress. So it hasn’t been looking very good.
This new approach is much more promising. By using it, we can make progress fast enough to gain the time needed to do the other things even with the late start and too slow progress.
Best of all, everyone can get behind it. It adds jobs and saves money.
But, how do I know this and how can this be done in practice?
I would have had no clue this was so doable or had this vast a potential or how to get it done myself.
But someone did and does. He wrote a book about it. He was and is extremely well informed and covers almost every part of our economy in his book.
It’s one of the most important books published in the last 100 years.
I strongly recommend you read it and make sure all your political representatives know of it and how important it is.
The book’s unfortunate and not very fitting or descriptive title is “Addicted to Energy.”
“Energy salvation through energy efficiency IS doable” is or would be a more accurate title.
The author is Elton Sherwin, Junior.
He learned much of the information because his job is being a venture capitalist for clean energy companies.
How large scale is this?
We could end all imported oil and still grow our economy -- is just one example.
We could cut our nationwide CO2 release by up to 80%, need no carbon taxes to do it, and still grow our economy and save money and create jobs in the process.
To put it simply, I knew increased energy efficiency was an important part of the needed list of things to do about energy before. But I had no clue it was by far the biggest and most important part with the most doable and fastest payoff.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-8-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: Very bad and very good news on energy
1. Here’s the mostly very bad news first.:
Since I am a moderate Republican and registered as a Republican, albeit one who believes in renewable and clean energy, I got on the email list of the "conservative action alerts."
Their most recent email says that there is a new government entity called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is taxing businesses that in some way contribute to the release of CO2.
It apparently is already in operation as they say that, "RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England."
They then decry this as an unnecessary tax and say that because global warming "ISN'T EVEN REAL!" the reader of the email should become angry enough to shout, "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
And they recommend the reader take this attitude out on their local US Representative or Senators to have congress cancel the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
I found the website for this Regional Greenhouse Gas Imitative to see what it is.
It's not a federal program but a program by a group of state governments in the Northeastern part of the United States:
"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI is spurring innovation in the clean energy economy and creating green jobs in each state."
So this program is funding small cuts in CO2 production AND green jobs in this area in adding renewable energy sources and in increasing the energy efficiency of homes and businesses in this area.
So, even if global warming was NOT real, it’s making these states more diversified in their energy sources, helping the homes and businesses there become more energy efficient, which SAVES money; and it’s adding new jobs to the area.
Since the increase is less than one percent of the utility bills in the New England part of the area, this “tax” is costing most people less than $5 a month.
For most homeowners and businesses in this area in fact, improvements in their energy efficiency could easily pay back their costs AND this tiny increase.
Unfortunately, the facts so far also indicate that global warming is real and will at the very least increase the number and severity of weather disasters and emergencies even if it doesn’t flood our coastal cities and severely cut back on the amount of food we can grow.
Here’s why I think this email is horribly bad news. It is designed to generate a large number of badly informed, hostile, and close-minded people to try to force our governments to move away from what to me look like reasonable and desirable changes in our energy policy.
A legitimate case can be made that the people and locations who depend on the jobs in the coal industry in this area need to be taken into account and that reasonable care needs to be taken while the country is in a severe recession not to go overboard on increased taxes and costs to the people in this area.
But the costs are relatively small and these added costs are funding new jobs and increases in energy efficiency that will create more economic benefit to these states and their people than the costs.
To be fair, I’ve seen Democrats deliberately mislead the uninformed and unthinking in this exact same way.
But, on the subject of energy, this is totally despicable and harmful.
The fact that some people will believe this email and push hard to end what so far looks like a mostly beneficial program based on the disinformation and hostility in this email is extremely bad news for the energy situation in this country.
I find this most unfortunate indeed & very, very bad news that this email even exists, let alone that such emails are going to people all over the United States.
Mercifully the very good news is dramatically better and will gradually begin to operate on a much larger scale than the deliberately deceptive people who composed this email and had it sent.
2. I just found out that the gains that can be made in increasing energy efficiency in ways that actually SAVE money to do can do some very large scale good.
It would create jobs while lowering costs and doubly strengthen our economy.
And, it goes far beyond the heat proofing of our house we once did that created a no energy needed way to cool our house BETTER than paying for air conditioning and the related energy use or just insulating houses in poor neighborhoods to lower heating costs and energy use.
It includes those on a nationwide scale. But like those, it simply employs ALREADY EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.
But what I did not know before is that almost every part of our energy use and economy has that much potential for energy and dollar cost savings.
We can make a huge difference in cutting CO2 release, in reducing our dependence on oil as peak oil approaches, in increasing our national security by sharply decreasing our imports of foreign oil, add new jobs, and save money and all at the same time!
This can be done without waiting for 200 times more renewable energy to be installed or new transmission systems built to deliver it or new energy technologies to be discovered, developed and put into widespread use.
We need to do all that as close to lightning speed as we can manage.
But we have had a horribly late start and are making too little progress. So it hasn’t been looking very good.
This new approach is much more promising. By using it, we can make progress fast enough to gain the time needed to do the other things even with the late start and too slow progress.
Best of all, everyone can get behind it. It adds jobs and saves money.
But, how do I know this and how can this be done in practice?
I would have had no clue this was so doable or had this vast a potential or how to get it done myself.
But someone did and does. He wrote a book about it. He was and is extremely well informed and covers almost every part of our economy in his book.
It’s one of the most important books published in the last 100 years.
I strongly recommend you read it and make sure all your political representatives know of it and how important it is.
The book’s unfortunate and not very fitting or descriptive title is “Addicted to Energy.”
“Energy salvation through energy efficiency IS doable” is or would be a more accurate title.
The author is Elton Sherwin, Junior.
He learned much of the information because his job is being a venture capitalist for clean energy companies.
How large scale is this?
We could end all imported oil and still grow our economy -- is just one example.
We could cut our nationwide CO2 release by up to 80%, need no carbon taxes to do it, and still grow our economy and save money and create jobs in the process.
To put it simply, I knew increased energy efficiency was an important part of the needed list of things to do about energy before. But I had no clue it was by far the biggest and most important part with the most doable and fastest payoff.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
California Proposition 23 backers are unethical....
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-1-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: California Proposition 23 backers are unethical
As I’ve posted before, they wrote proof of this into their initiative!
They say their proposition is postponement or delay of AB 32; but they purposely wrote conditions into what would be needed to lift this postponement that, given today’s economic conditions are somewhere between totally impossible to meet and a one in a thousand chance. So, they deliberately call something a postponement when what they want it and know it to be is a permanent cancellation.
But I just found out, they also may have an ulterior motive besides.
If you live in either Los Angeles or near it or in the San Francisco Bay Area you have breathed in toxic pollution released by the refineries of the two companies backing Proposition 23. Since one of its effects will be to weaken pollution controls in California, they stand to save money and release more pollution if it’s passed.
Do you want to breathe extra toxic pollution or vote for something written by and supported by two unethical companies that want to cause that to happen just so it makes them a few extra bucks?
(To be sure, the poor and minority people living closest to their refineries are most likely to be harmed by this pollution.
But just in the last month, someone, & my bet is that it is one or both of their refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, has been releasing huge amounts of pollution in the early morning hours just before 7 am. The smell was pervasive enough to come into our car on the freeway with the windows rolled up and to go into the place where I work even though the doors there had been shut all night and the windows don’t open. I smelled this years ago when I went to school and lived in Berkeley and the releases this time appeared from Menlo Park to San Jose. So this has been going on for over 40 years and the amounts released are massive indeed. I don’t know how toxic this pollutant is; but their oil refineries are one of the few places operating on a large enough scale in our area to generate that much pollution.
So, if it IS harmful, it covers so much of the Bay Area, it is NOT just the people nearby to their refineries who are being harmed.)
Also, here are excerpts from the press release I just found.:
LOS ANGELES – The Ella Baker Center and the California Environmental Justice Alliance released a study that reveals that Valero and Tesoro, the two Texas oil companies bankrolling Proposition 23 to repeal California's clean air and energy standards, have been repeatedly cited for producing deadly chemicals at their refineries that are exposing millions of California families to harm. The two companies have contributed more than $4 million to put Proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The report was re-released at a press conference at Los Angeles’ Vista Hermosa Park attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; No on Prop 23 Campaign Committee Co-Chair Tom Steyer; Penny Newman, Executive Director of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and member of the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA); Bill Gallegos, Executive Director, Communities for a Better Environment; and Martha Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – LA.
The study, http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/docs/Toxic%20Twins%208-31-10.pdf , titled “Toxic Twins: Soiling the Southland,” found that the two Texas-based companies’ oil refineries in the Bay Area and particularly in the Los Angeles regions “annually produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.”
The study went on to demonstrate that Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly violated pollution laws in California by releasing chemicals into the air. This January, “Valero disclosed that it had 29 outstanding Violation Notices from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,” according to the report. Over 44 violation notices within a three year window have been settled between Tesoro and the Bay Area Quality Management District.
This study builds on a report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report (http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic100 ) which named Valero and Tesoro as the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation.
I’ve posted before that proposition 23 will cut back on the job creation from clean energy companies if it’s passed.
So, if these two companies cared about California’s economy, they would have designed a proposition that only shut down parts of AB 32 to avoid that. The jobs just added by clean energy companies as other parts of the California economy just LOST jobs are a FACT.
Do you trust these two companies saying that passing Proposition 23 would improve the California economy given this significant omission?
I most certainly do not.
When implemented AB 32 will gradually lower their sales of their oil and increase the pressure on them to pollute less – both of which will cost them money.
The only certain economic winners if Proposition 23 passes are these two companies.
Please join me in voting against their proposition.
Today's post: Wednesday, 9-1-2010
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. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.
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.
Today’s post: California Proposition 23 backers are unethical
As I’ve posted before, they wrote proof of this into their initiative!
They say their proposition is postponement or delay of AB 32; but they purposely wrote conditions into what would be needed to lift this postponement that, given today’s economic conditions are somewhere between totally impossible to meet and a one in a thousand chance. So, they deliberately call something a postponement when what they want it and know it to be is a permanent cancellation.
But I just found out, they also may have an ulterior motive besides.
If you live in either Los Angeles or near it or in the San Francisco Bay Area you have breathed in toxic pollution released by the refineries of the two companies backing Proposition 23. Since one of its effects will be to weaken pollution controls in California, they stand to save money and release more pollution if it’s passed.
Do you want to breathe extra toxic pollution or vote for something written by and supported by two unethical companies that want to cause that to happen just so it makes them a few extra bucks?
(To be sure, the poor and minority people living closest to their refineries are most likely to be harmed by this pollution.
But just in the last month, someone, & my bet is that it is one or both of their refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, has been releasing huge amounts of pollution in the early morning hours just before 7 am. The smell was pervasive enough to come into our car on the freeway with the windows rolled up and to go into the place where I work even though the doors there had been shut all night and the windows don’t open. I smelled this years ago when I went to school and lived in Berkeley and the releases this time appeared from Menlo Park to San Jose. So this has been going on for over 40 years and the amounts released are massive indeed. I don’t know how toxic this pollutant is; but their oil refineries are one of the few places operating on a large enough scale in our area to generate that much pollution.
So, if it IS harmful, it covers so much of the Bay Area, it is NOT just the people nearby to their refineries who are being harmed.)
Also, here are excerpts from the press release I just found.:
LOS ANGELES – The Ella Baker Center and the California Environmental Justice Alliance released a study that reveals that Valero and Tesoro, the two Texas oil companies bankrolling Proposition 23 to repeal California's clean air and energy standards, have been repeatedly cited for producing deadly chemicals at their refineries that are exposing millions of California families to harm. The two companies have contributed more than $4 million to put Proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The report was re-released at a press conference at Los Angeles’ Vista Hermosa Park attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; No on Prop 23 Campaign Committee Co-Chair Tom Steyer; Penny Newman, Executive Director of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and member of the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA); Bill Gallegos, Executive Director, Communities for a Better Environment; and Martha Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility – LA.
The study, http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/docs/Toxic%20Twins%208-31-10.pdf , titled “Toxic Twins: Soiling the Southland,” found that the two Texas-based companies’ oil refineries in the Bay Area and particularly in the Los Angeles regions “annually produce hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.”
The study went on to demonstrate that Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly violated pollution laws in California by releasing chemicals into the air. This January, “Valero disclosed that it had 29 outstanding Violation Notices from the South Coast Air Quality Management District,” according to the report. Over 44 violation notices within a three year window have been settled between Tesoro and the Bay Area Quality Management District.
This study builds on a report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report (http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic100 ) which named Valero and Tesoro as the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation.
I’ve posted before that proposition 23 will cut back on the job creation from clean energy companies if it’s passed.
So, if these two companies cared about California’s economy, they would have designed a proposition that only shut down parts of AB 32 to avoid that. The jobs just added by clean energy companies as other parts of the California economy just LOST jobs are a FACT.
Do you trust these two companies saying that passing Proposition 23 would improve the California economy given this significant omission?
I most certainly do not.
When implemented AB 32 will gradually lower their sales of their oil and increase the pressure on them to pollute less – both of which will cost them money.
The only certain economic winners if Proposition 23 passes are these two companies.
Please join me in voting against their proposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)