Turning down global warming directly....

Today’s post: Wednesday, 4-8-2009

We have started far too late to reverse the increase of the level of CO2 in the earth’s air and the global warming that is clearly going on almost certainly because of this increase.

And, though we are making progress & there is reasonable hope for more soon, our progress is about 5% of what’s required to reverse the increase -- if that much.

It was in today’s news from AP that John Holdren, the president's new science adviser, said that the dangerous effects of global warming will be so damaging that the Obama administration is discussing radical ways to cool the Earth's air.

Two methods were in the news story.:

1. Purposely causing a dust cloud similar to the ones created by huge volcanoes that would cool the earth by preventing some of the thermal heating from the sun.

He did note that the negative side effects of using this would be quite severe.

2. Using a device that has been invented and apparently at least partly developed called “artificial trees” that effectively removes carbon dioxide from of the air and stores it was the second method listed. He also said that there may be a way to make this more affordable to do than was at first thought.

First the bad news.:

The first alternative simply has too many harsh side effects to be considering as more than an out of the box creative effort that we respond to by saying, let’s keep trying to generate some more, we might find one that we can do or upgrade to one we can.

Global warming will already reduce our food supply by floods and droughts in places we now grow food. Should we make this problem worse by shading the plants we grow as food or as animal feed? This alone makes this idea completely unusable. It would make a problem this potential solution is supposed to help worse instead!

Second, to avoid economic collapse when fossil fuels run out; &/or a repeat of price increases and shortages of energy from burning fossil fuels for energy for over 90 percent of our use of it; AND to begin to turn off CO2 induced global warming at its source and stop making that problem even worse, it is of critical path importance that we begin to switch to renewables and some nuclear and some biofuels and begin to stop using fossil fuels as close to 100 % as we can get.

Solar power, including both photovoltaics and solar thermal, has the potential to do close to 100 % of the job and so far, the sun is a far safer source than nuclear power. And, if we fully fund making nuclear terrorist proof and its waste safely stored, it costs at least 10 times as much. So, if we purposely turn off a significant enough percentage of solar energy the earth gets to cool our planet, we quite literally will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Last but potentially the most important, we already are massively impacting the ecology of our planet in enough ways already that it may make the living system we depend on to live dangerously unstable if we do this sun shading and make it a permanent state of affairs also.

In short, purposely shading the earth to cool it has what the computer people call several “fatal errors.”

Desperation has nothing to do with it, planetary sun shading will cause more problems than it would solve and must not be used.

However, the second method sounds promising in the extreme. That’s part of the good news.

If every coal fired plant we keep using was able to send its exhaust to algae that use the CO2 to make biofuels and any left over went to these CO2 removing artificial trees, that would enable us to keep using the plants longer and still stop releasing CO2.

And, since the costs of doing this would be added to the cost of the energy produced at these plants, that would make renewable energy less expensive sooner.

Second, if every urban area planted trees and made an effort to preserve those it already has AND built thousands of these artificial trees and hundreds of algae growing for biofuel and artificial tree using stations, far more C02 would be removed from our air as we generate it.

If this technology is developed and the cost of doing this is added to the price of fossil fuels still in use, it will also make renewable energy less expensive sooner.

So, that one is potentially a game winner and should be very aggressively pursued.

The other part of the good news is that we already a have proven way to massively increase our supplies of renewable energy that we are not using yet.

If we simply begin using it everywhere, we will begin to make enough progress on switching to renewable energy it will make the problem of excess CO2 more manageable and less extreme. It even will eventually turn off excess CO2 production. The sooner it’s used everywhere the safer we will be & the more solvable global warming will become.

Germany has already perfected this method & proved it works well to create new sources of renewable energy and to create jobs. With relatively little solar light and heat coming in due to their distance from the equator, in about 15 years, Germany has built about half the world’s solar installations, begun to get 16 % of its energy from renewable sources, and created 300,000 jobs.

Do you think we cannot use it because it would be hard to finance in today’s economy? You may be surprised to know you would be wrong. One of the reasons it works so well is that it makes financing renewable energy projects as safe or safer than investing in T-bills; but it pays a higher return.

It’s called the feed-in tariff, or FIT by acronym.

If used in every state in the United States, it has the potential to produce close to 100 % of the energy we are now using from renewable sources alone while creating 6,000,000 jobs. That’s enough jobs to end the recession all by itself.

So if your state’s Governor and state legislators don’t already know this kind of Feed-in tariff exists or why it’s important, let them know ASAP.

The main reason it’s not being used is they don’t know yet. My guess is that less than 1% now do.

Given what’s at stake, that’s not acceptable. So, let’s change it.

3 Poor ideas to lower rising fuel prices...

Today’s post: Weds, 7-9-2008

When a commodity is rising in price, you can stop the rise by increasing the supply or lowering the demand.

Here are 3 current ideas to do that to lower gasoline & diesel prices in the United States.

1. Increase oil drilling in environmentally & now prohibited areas.

2. Reinstate the 55 mph national speed limit.

3. Take oil from the national oil reserve.

We now have two huge & deadly serious problems in addition to the rise in fuel prices.

A. We have that price rise precisely because we now are massively over-dependent on petroleum for fueling transport -- & at a time when the cheap & easy growth in petroleum supply is over AND a time when the supply itself may begin shrinking. At the same time economic growth & population growth have increased demand.

Producing vehicles that are much more energy-efficient or which run in whole or in part on electricity or on biofuels produced in an energy efficient way from nonfood sources, unlike the 3 ideas above, will solve this problem.

We have the rise in fuel prices because we haven’t already done these things. Increases in drilling for oil, help continue the problem & distract time & money from accelerating the real solutions.

Taking oil from our national oil reserve also does nothing to solve this real problem. Worse, it’s like spending savings needed for much more serious emergencies on continuing to go to the movies twice a week. If we use it now for something that would be nice but is not that serious, it won’t be there when it’s desperately needed.

A revival of the 55 mph speed limit also does nothing to solve the real problem. And, by slowing the delivery of goods & services it will brake the economy & tend to increase inflation in a different way.

Lastly, each of these ideas might create some price reductions in fuel prices or temporarily slow their increase. Unfortunately, they will tend to SLOW DOWN the solutions which can prevent MUCH worse price increases later.

At current levels, fuel prices are producing elimination of waste & improving the market & profit incentive for the development of long term solutions we so desperately need. So, as long as we can accelerate the development & deployment of the needed long term solutions soon, some increase in fuel prices now may actually save us from even worse problems as soon as 10 years from now & dreadfully worse problems 20 years from now.

B. It looks like we are already more than 5 years too late in reducing the global increase in CO2 emissions. We cannot afford to slow converting our energy sources to renewable ones or nuclear sources or both.

Increasing the supply of fuels based on oil by drilling in new places for oil & using our national oil reserve, will make this part of the problem worse. They will result in more oil being turned into CO2 than if we do not do them.

Producing vehicles that are much more energy-efficient or which run in whole or in part on electricity or on biofuels produced in an energy efficient way from nonfood sources unlike the 3 ideas above will solve this problem. This is particularly true if we begin to switch totally to electricity produced by solar or other renewable sources or nuclear & to dramatically speed up this process.

Each of these 3 ideas will distract from solving these two really serious problems, the now frightening overdependence on oil & the equally frightening overproduction of CO2.

They are like taking an aspirin to bring down a fever when we have just contracted bubonic plague.

At these levels, we are more likely to survive if we leave the fever alone since fevers short of the harmful level act to warn us of the problem & boost our immune response.

And, we are MUCH more likely to survive if we focus only on finding out & using what will get rid of the bubonic plague.

None of these 3 ideas pass this test in my view.

I think we will be much better off if we do not do any of them. We should be entirely focused nationally on speeding the real solutions into place.

That being said, politically we may need to compromise with the people who think these 3 ideas are a worth doing.

One possible compromise might be to set the national posted speed limit at 65 mph with extra fines for exceeding 70 in more populated areas & for exceeding 75 on highways.
Another compromise might be to pass that law with a national posted limit of 60 mph. We may need one day to go to 55 mph again. But I’m not sure we are at that point now.

That would reduce fuel consumption from current levels without slowing the economy too much.

We could also drill for oil in all or most parts of Alaska. The oil companies have developed technologies to minimize the environmental impact of doing this. If it were only allowed when oil companies produced plans that also found solutions to the worst of the remaining impacts that environmentalists say is lacking now, it might be doable without causing excessive harm. Oil prices as they are now would support spending the extra money to do the drilling this way.

But I think the trade that must be made for these two compromises should be that we spend at least 10 percent annually of the money we have been spending on the wars in the Middle East to help ensure our oil supply be spent to put the real solutions into place & to get that done quickly.

How can China use less Coal?....

Today’s post: Weds, 5-14-2008

There is a lot of good news about China.

Their ability to develop a huge manufacturing industry that so far has been able to manufacture goods & consumer goods at lower cost than in most developed countries has benefited the economies of the other countries in the world including the United States.

It has benefited many corporations in the United States & increased the value of their stock.

And, this has been one of the key causes of the relatively low inflation rate in the United States over the last 20 years.

In addition, they have done this with an enthusiastic can-do attitude aimed at progress much like the United States did as it became an economic power. As someone who lives in the Silicon Valley, I personally like their entrepreneurial style, their focus on progress on purpose, & their energy.

And, this cash coming into China has influenced China in the direction of becoming somewhat more peaceful & tolerant in its international relations. They now have a lot to lose if that cash were to stop arriving.

Unfortunately, they have increasingly relied on coal & new coal burning plants to power this manufacturing.

That has produced incredibly bad air pollution in China itself. Some of that air pollution is even making it across the Pacific to the United States. AND it has made China one of the biggest sources of CO2 on the planet. They are or shortly will be the country that generates the most CO2 each year in all the world.

That means that the people in China now have a lower quality of life and poorer health than they would if this energy could be produced without burning coal as they have been.

And, it means that we CANNOT solve CO2 driven global warming without China switching to cleaner energy sources that do not release CO2.

So, how can China use less coal? And, what can the United States & other developed countries do to make that happen better & faster?

Here are some thoughts.

1. It would DEFINITELY help if we dramatically reduced the coal WE burn for energy in the United States. China will be much more likely to do this also if we walk the talk. Further, the technology & practices we use to do this can be shared with China.

Similarly, it would help if we only allowed coal to be burned for energy if & ONLY IF absolutely all pollutants generated by burning the coal were removed from the air AND as fast as we learn how & get the equipment installed we sequester all of the CO2 generated.

If that was phased in over 10 years at existing coal burning facilities & no new coal burning plants were built, that would help solve global warming; it would gradually make coal generated electricity more expensive; & it would improve the competitiveness of nuclear, solar, & wind generated electricity which will help develop new technologies and increase our electricity generated from cleaner sources than coal.

2. Similarly, it would help if we did everything we could to pass on information to China on rolling out solar and wind power generation. This could range from licensing technology at discounted rates to export incentives to solar and wind power companies to export their products to China.

It helps that China is already developing its own solar companies.

3. Since China is already a member of the so called “nuclear club” in the world it also might make sense to work with them to build more nuclear plants to generate electricity in exchange for asking for commitments to high levels of safety, security, and safe disposal & storage.

4. Only after we do all three of these things do I think we should put any kind of diplomatic pressure on China to reduce the amount of coal they burn or place a tax or tariff on their manufactured products that are sent to this country to compensate for the costs of global warming if they don’t.

That may make good sense later if it is still necessary. But I think making a massive push to make these changes here & do everything we can to speed our own move away from coal and to help them in ways they will find useful and effective is much better.

This will do three things. It will give them some of the tools & some momentum in the right direction first. And, it will allow them to see our pressure at that point as coming from a friend rather than an enemy if we still need to exert it. And, of greatest importance, we will then be doing the right things ourselves instead of asking them to do so when we haven’t bothered to do them here.

5. A related thought occurs to me. With its lower cost of manufacturing, it might make sense to help China become a major manufacturer of LED light bulbs for home & small business lighting world wide. One of the barriers to rapid deployment of this energy saving technology is the high cost of such bulbs now. Why not help put China in a position to contribute world wide to solving this problem?

An important benefit of this would also be to help China use far less electricity for lighting itself -- which would also help them stop building new coal burning plants to generate electricity.