Clean energy reasons to be thankful....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-25-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
More and more people AND countries are beginning to realize these things and take constructive action.
So, despite being badly rushed for time to act and the world-wide slow start, we are beginning to have some things to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
China has recently made several announcements that will soon add gigawatts of new electric generation from wind and solar sources. India has begun the process of adding gigawatts of solar electricity generation.
And, as these things come online they will gradually begin to trigger the transmission upgrades to deliver this new electricity to where it will be used.
Next, for several reasons, it turns out that global warming has temporarily slowed. Since we are so far behind in combating it, that’s a blessing. The world wide recession has caused many people to suffer and to a degree impoverished everyone. But we are generating and releasing far less CO2 than we would have been without it.
In addition, some of the effects of global warming have created some braking effects apparently. Just as ice cools a drink on a hot day, the increased melts of polar ice and glaciers has apparently caused some cooling of the oceans and changes in their currents that have temporarily slowed warming effects.
(Of course the people who want to believe burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 is not causing warming think this means they are correct. Their problem is that for the survival of our global economy as we run short of oil and the national security of the countries that now depend on imported oil, we need to act is if global warming is true even if they are right. Worse for them, the other and ample evidence shows they are likely only indulging in wishful thinking about CO2 releases not causing global warming.)
But regardless if they are right or wrong, we HAVE been cut a short break that will, or at least might, help us get started in time to prevent some of the worst energy related disasters.
In the United States and China, because of the huge installed base and massive economic dependence on coal fired plants, it will take far longer than many of us would like to begin to cut back on electricity from coal. But here too there are several signs of improvements to come.
Between the growing lack of patience of the people and politicians with the various kinds of pollution, other than releasing CO2, connected with mining and burning coal in BOTH the United States and China AND the need to burn far less to lower CO2 emissions AND the increasing availability of new clean sources of electricity that is finally beginning to come online, we may not yet be using less coal; but the amount of NEW coal fired plants being built is beginning to drop to zero.
Additionally, though the political representatives of the states in the United States that depend on coal for jobs, statewide over-all business income, and electricity now -- may stop cap and trade legislation in the US Senate for a while longer, many of the individual states that are horribly strapped for cash during this severe recession are firing up or acting on plans to set up state or region wide cap & trade policies that send them new revenue.
So, we will soon be left with a very different and smaller coal industry. More ways will be found to mine it without horrible land, water, and air pollution; and other practices will gradually be outlawed. More ways to clean particulates and other kinds of air pollution from burning coal will be found and mandated with many sloppier and less responsible current practices then outlawed. Many coal fired plants will be in political areas that have some kind of CO2 cap & trade. Then at some point renewable sources of electricity both existing and new will generate electricity for less money than coal will be able to do.
Some utilities and coal companies will begin to produce biofuels from feeding their released CO2 to algae that produce it, make coal directly into cleaner burning and more easily transported methane & directly into gasoline and diesel fuel not dependent on using petroleum. And they will begin to use coal to make plastics and other carbon based commodities as the petrochemical industries have done and to compete with them.
The rest of the coal companies will go out of business.
All this will take 25 to 35 years when we need it to take 10. But it is happening and will happen.
The leaders of the coal companies need to decide which group they want to have their company be in.
All of this is progress to be thankful for and was NOT happening before now.
Lastly, the boom in cars and trucks that are hybrids, can burn other fuels than petroleum based ones, and plug in hybrids and all electric cars, biofuel production, and soon more carbon based fuels from coal all mean that, we have a shot at using enough less oil soon to increase the dependence of the United States and other countries in the developed world on oil from politically unstable places. And, it is beginning to look now as if this is happening in time to prevent gasoline and diesel prices from going above $10 a gallon in today’s dollars or having our economy collapse when we begin to truly run out of petroleum.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Energy bill in two parts may make sense....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.
It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.
A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.
We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:
One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.
I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.
But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.
What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.
And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:
being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;
being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;
being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;
& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.
Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.
And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.
To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.
Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-18-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
The energy & climate change bills that are now being considered are both in favor of slowing the use of fossil fuels and increasing non-fossil fuel energy sources from renewables to energy efficiency and even nuclear power.
It may make sense to take up the issue in two parts instead of one.
A recent news article says that moderate Democrats have pushed for a “climate light” bill that focuses only on energy provisions which would leave the cap-and-trade part until after the economy recovers.
The Energy and Natural Resources committee passed an energy bill with bipartisan backing in June. And one moderate Democrat, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said he has found that a bill including renewable fuels mandates, energy-efficiency measures, and increased domestic exploration could attract significant Republican support.
The Kerry, Graham, Lieberman bill would cover both parts but would have some increased drilling for oil in the United States and increases in nuclear power.
We do need to do both parts. But to some degree I agree that we should phase in the direct reduction of fossil fuel use with Cap & Trade or a carbon tax and revoking incentives and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries until far more of the alternative sources are in place AND until the economy begins to recover.
But, there may be no Energy bill able to pass both the Senate and the House that contains both boosting more desirable energy sources AND beginning to cut back immediately on fossil fuels.
In addition, the members of congress facing large parts of their voters who have been laid off or are concerned they might be, so these politicians want to be sure to support bills that create jobs and avoid those that will remove jobs.
Right now, boosting the desirable alternatives is the priority. And, since that would create jobs and make it economically safer to add measures to restrict fossil fuels later, it may be far more politically doable and practical to get that part passed now.
There are two good ways theoretically to do both parts.:
One is to pass both parts now; but have the phase in of the fossil fuel restrictions contingent on having far more of the more desirable energy sources in place and rapidly expanding plus a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
The other is to pass the bill to rapidly increase the desirable energy sources now or very, very soon. And pass the part to restrict fossil fuels after far more of the more desirable energy sources are in place and rapidly expanding plus achieving a better economy with a far smaller unemployment rate.
Both methods would do the job. But moderate or conservative Democrats and Republicans, according to this information, will vote for the first of the two parts now and get it passed while trying to do both parts now may not.
I like the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that contains both domestic energy increases from renewable energy sources that liberals support and some that conservatives support and does both.
But we may need to add to that approach dropping the direct regulation of fossil fuels now to get even that passed.
What may make sense is to pass a version of the Kerry, Graham, Lieberman approach that only contains the energy positive parts that will create jobs. And leave the rest for later.
And, what may make sense for liberals to do is to focus on:
being sure that bill does a superb, large scale job of seeing to it that far more renewable energy is installed and that the electricity transmission and management system needed to get much of that to the end users is built;
being sure that funds are directed to developing and expanding successful new technology to do this better and at lower cost;
being sure that a large program is included that will increase energy efficiency in every way likely to have a large scale effect;
& seeing to it that new domestic oil drilling and transport is done with minimum environmental impact and that the new nuclear plants get adequate funding to reliably protect themselves from terrorists.
Every single part of that approach is likely to create jobs and add to the energy going into our economy.
And, it may be doable by just doing that part for now.
To try to do both and winding up doing nothing would be a disaster.
Why throw out the baby with the bath water if the two part version will fail to be passed and we can get part one that builds far more desirable energy sources in place and passed?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Energy entrepreneurs doing better than politicians....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-11-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
While there ARE some pieces of good news in posts I did two, three, & four weeks ago that show that some political leaders are beginning to take some decent first steps towards building the energy policy we ideally should have had 40 years ago, it’s mostly too little too late.
However, given the tiny bit of help from those political leaders, there are multiple examples of energy entrepreneurs who have already begun to create our new energy economy.
Those efforts are beginning to look more and more promising.
For example, since electricity can be generated by virtually all the renewable energy sources and by nuclear reactors and by burning the more clean burning than coal natural gas, NONE of which use petroleum, it clearly would help to run our transport systems more and more on electricity rather than by burning petroleum products such as diesel fuel and gasoline.
Not only that, even if you generate electricity by burning natural gas or coal, apparently electric vehicles, that incorporate regenerative electricity generation instead of using brakes to slow down and are more efficient in other ways, actually cause less CO2 to be released than comparable vehicles that burn gasoline or diesel fuel for the same mileage driven.
So while the politicians both in the United States are mostly playing roadblock instead of making workable compromises that move in the right direction and saying we’ll only do the harder stuff if everyone else does it first and few do very much, the progress towards well done all electric cars is breathtaking and the progress on plug in hybrids that use far less petroleum is getting there.
For example, as of today, you can go to: http://www.teslamotors.com/blogs.php & see the story of a man who bought one of the Tesla Motors Roadsters.
Of course, they are priced for multi-millionaires & for the people almost that fortunate market now, a bit over $100,000.
But Tesla Motors will soon sell their model S sedan that will sell for about half that, comparable to what other more affordable and existing high end cars sell for.
And, the comments by Eric Brechner who tells about his experience with the Tesla Roadster he bought while he and his wife waited to get their model S are very promising.
In software, even from well thought of major companies, it’s not uncommon for the first version of a new release to need multiple fixes before it really becomes a decent product.
So, since the Tesla Roadster was Tesla Motors initial product, he had expected comparable glitches. Instead he found it more user-friendly and reliable and easy to maintain than the best gasoline powered car he could have found to buy.
Further, due to the simplicity of the design, that advantage in maintenance will last the life of the car when compared to the complexity of a gasoline powered car.
(He also notes that their Roadster is so much fun to drive, when the model S is available, his wife will get one and they’ll use it when they need the added passenger seats as a family car; but he will keep the Roadster to keep driving himself instead of his original plan to sell it to buy himself a second model S.)
As more and more communities have electricity provided by solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear sources and more and more people drive all electric cars and trucks and mostly electric plug-in hybrids, we will begin to use far less petroleum even without the policies to revoke the multiple incentives the oil companies now have or the added taxes and regulations on CO2 release that the politicians may not be able to pass.
So, while the progress on energy by the politicians is still too little too late, the energy entrepreneurs are beginning to solve the problem.
So, although I still hope to influence the politicians to do the right things, as in my post last week, I’m placing my hopes and expectations for success mostly with the energy entrepreneurs.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-11-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
While there ARE some pieces of good news in posts I did two, three, & four weeks ago that show that some political leaders are beginning to take some decent first steps towards building the energy policy we ideally should have had 40 years ago, it’s mostly too little too late.
However, given the tiny bit of help from those political leaders, there are multiple examples of energy entrepreneurs who have already begun to create our new energy economy.
Those efforts are beginning to look more and more promising.
For example, since electricity can be generated by virtually all the renewable energy sources and by nuclear reactors and by burning the more clean burning than coal natural gas, NONE of which use petroleum, it clearly would help to run our transport systems more and more on electricity rather than by burning petroleum products such as diesel fuel and gasoline.
Not only that, even if you generate electricity by burning natural gas or coal, apparently electric vehicles, that incorporate regenerative electricity generation instead of using brakes to slow down and are more efficient in other ways, actually cause less CO2 to be released than comparable vehicles that burn gasoline or diesel fuel for the same mileage driven.
So while the politicians both in the United States are mostly playing roadblock instead of making workable compromises that move in the right direction and saying we’ll only do the harder stuff if everyone else does it first and few do very much, the progress towards well done all electric cars is breathtaking and the progress on plug in hybrids that use far less petroleum is getting there.
For example, as of today, you can go to: http://www.teslamotors.com/blogs.php & see the story of a man who bought one of the Tesla Motors Roadsters.
Of course, they are priced for multi-millionaires & for the people almost that fortunate market now, a bit over $100,000.
But Tesla Motors will soon sell their model S sedan that will sell for about half that, comparable to what other more affordable and existing high end cars sell for.
And, the comments by Eric Brechner who tells about his experience with the Tesla Roadster he bought while he and his wife waited to get their model S are very promising.
In software, even from well thought of major companies, it’s not uncommon for the first version of a new release to need multiple fixes before it really becomes a decent product.
So, since the Tesla Roadster was Tesla Motors initial product, he had expected comparable glitches. Instead he found it more user-friendly and reliable and easy to maintain than the best gasoline powered car he could have found to buy.
Further, due to the simplicity of the design, that advantage in maintenance will last the life of the car when compared to the complexity of a gasoline powered car.
(He also notes that their Roadster is so much fun to drive, when the model S is available, his wife will get one and they’ll use it when they need the added passenger seats as a family car; but he will keep the Roadster to keep driving himself instead of his original plan to sell it to buy himself a second model S.)
As more and more communities have electricity provided by solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear sources and more and more people drive all electric cars and trucks and mostly electric plug-in hybrids, we will begin to use far less petroleum even without the policies to revoke the multiple incentives the oil companies now have or the added taxes and regulations on CO2 release that the politicians may not be able to pass.
So, while the progress on energy by the politicians is still too little too late, the energy entrepreneurs are beginning to solve the problem.
So, although I still hope to influence the politicians to do the right things, as in my post last week, I’m placing my hopes and expectations for success mostly with the energy entrepreneurs.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Energy information for Republicans....
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-4-2009
As you can see from the paragraphs below, I think taking steps to stop the growth of fossil fuel use and making huge progress on alternative sources of energy and electricity generation are crucial.
I completely understand that we need to be careful not to create rapid increases in energy costs in the middle of a recession.
Similarly, in any state or district that contains large businesses that are part of the fossil fuel economy, as their representative, you have a responsibility and strong incentives to see to it that their views are represented well and that they are treated fairly and if they must be downsized or their growth slowed, it be done in such a way they can still thrive in some way and not throw large numbers of their employees out of work in the middle of the recession.
However, nearly all Republicans in the United States congress seem not to understand what is happening in the modern world in the field of energy or to realize we need quick action to avoid truly frightening consequences – or they are willing to act as if they don’t.
Instead of seeing to it that reasonable short term protections are given the fossil fuel businesses in the areas they represent and adding to the energy bill things they favor that would increase energy efficiency or our national security they are mostly working to block any bill at all.
1. We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
(We have global warming. The evidence is in. Most scientists say the huge increases in world wide CO2 levels are the prime cause. And, the increases in CO2 levels are also documented to be real. The effects on emergency services that will be needed and on agriculture and on coastal cities if this warming trend continues are also quite clear.
Could it be that the CO2 is not the prime cause of the global warming? It doesn’t look at all likely. But, given these other facts, it will pay us to try to stop further increases in CO2 levels to help slow the warming even if there is another cause or two that is causing most of the warming.
In addition, virtually all the leaders of the developed countries in Europe believe that the global warming is real and believe that the people in the United States who are failing to act to contain it are under-informed and irresponsible. Worse, leaders in many other countries are even less happy with the United States for these reasons.
Given these considerations, we clearly must do far more than we have. And we must do it soon. Delay is not a good option. Great harm will befall the United States and all the people in the area that you represent will be harmed if we delay.)
2. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
(Nuclear energy has enough risks from either the real cost of fail safe nuclear waste storage or fail safe protection from terrorists or both that it is a far less desirable and likely far less cost effective solution than renewable energy if we pay up to do the nuclear additions safely.
But, the need is so great and the ability of nuclear to generate electricity when and where there is no wind and little sunshine -- or none at night -- means that adding more nuclear power plants as a priority likely does make sense.
Large increases in renewable energy AND increases in nuclear clearly gives us & our economy better protection from running out of oil than renewables only.)
Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to the economy of the United States and the people in the area you represent if oil were to suddenly run out world wide BEFORE we have alternatives in place?
It would make the so called “Great Depression” look like a small hill by comparison!
3. Today we send staggering sums of money paid by people from the areas you represent and everyone else in the country to oil producers outside the United States. So do the people in Japan, China, India, and virtually all of Europe. Worse, many of the countries that the oil comes from – and who get the money – are either politically unstable or run by governments that don’t like the United States at all.
If we learn to use far less oil soon and become more energy efficient and add huge amounts of renewables and some more nuclear soon, we can put a screeching halt to this.
Even if you believe global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels, it seems reasonable to act to protect our national security and get this done soon.
4. Finally, as California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it well, “You are losing at the Box Office.”
You lost the Presidency in the last election in large part because many people saw that the Republican leadership was under-informed or irresponsible on these issues.
And they saw that instead of adding to the solutions to these problems or working to make the solutions safer to implement economically, Republicans were the party advocating nothing be done at all about them.
Unfortunately, that has as yet changed little. Republicans have become and remained the party of “Just say no.” That’s simply not going to work.
To be fully functional and successful as a political party instead of being a dwindling minority that grows ever smaller, Republicans must do better at implementing and moving forward on actually helping to take action to solve these problems.
Today's post: Wednesday, 11-4-2009
As you can see from the paragraphs below, I think taking steps to stop the growth of fossil fuel use and making huge progress on alternative sources of energy and electricity generation are crucial.
I completely understand that we need to be careful not to create rapid increases in energy costs in the middle of a recession.
Similarly, in any state or district that contains large businesses that are part of the fossil fuel economy, as their representative, you have a responsibility and strong incentives to see to it that their views are represented well and that they are treated fairly and if they must be downsized or their growth slowed, it be done in such a way they can still thrive in some way and not throw large numbers of their employees out of work in the middle of the recession.
However, nearly all Republicans in the United States congress seem not to understand what is happening in the modern world in the field of energy or to realize we need quick action to avoid truly frightening consequences – or they are willing to act as if they don’t.
Instead of seeing to it that reasonable short term protections are given the fossil fuel businesses in the areas they represent and adding to the energy bill things they favor that would increase energy efficiency or our national security they are mostly working to block any bill at all.
1. We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
(We have global warming. The evidence is in. Most scientists say the huge increases in world wide CO2 levels are the prime cause. And, the increases in CO2 levels are also documented to be real. The effects on emergency services that will be needed and on agriculture and on coastal cities if this warming trend continues are also quite clear.
Could it be that the CO2 is not the prime cause of the global warming? It doesn’t look at all likely. But, given these other facts, it will pay us to try to stop further increases in CO2 levels to help slow the warming even if there is another cause or two that is causing most of the warming.
In addition, virtually all the leaders of the developed countries in Europe believe that the global warming is real and believe that the people in the United States who are failing to act to contain it are under-informed and irresponsible. Worse, leaders in many other countries are even less happy with the United States for these reasons.
Given these considerations, we clearly must do far more than we have. And we must do it soon. Delay is not a good option. Great harm will befall the United States and all the people in the area that you represent will be harmed if we delay.)
2. At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more
CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
(Nuclear energy has enough risks from either the real cost of fail safe nuclear waste storage or fail safe protection from terrorists or both that it is a far less desirable and likely far less cost effective solution than renewable energy if we pay up to do the nuclear additions safely.
But, the need is so great and the ability of nuclear to generate electricity when and where there is no wind and little sunshine -- or none at night -- means that adding more nuclear power plants as a priority likely does make sense.
Large increases in renewable energy AND increases in nuclear clearly gives us & our economy better protection from running out of oil than renewables only.)
Have you ever asked yourself what would happen to the economy of the United States and the people in the area you represent if oil were to suddenly run out world wide BEFORE we have alternatives in place?
It would make the so called “Great Depression” look like a small hill by comparison!
3. Today we send staggering sums of money paid by people from the areas you represent and everyone else in the country to oil producers outside the United States. So do the people in Japan, China, India, and virtually all of Europe. Worse, many of the countries that the oil comes from – and who get the money – are either politically unstable or run by governments that don’t like the United States at all.
If we learn to use far less oil soon and become more energy efficient and add huge amounts of renewables and some more nuclear soon, we can put a screeching halt to this.
Even if you believe global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels, it seems reasonable to act to protect our national security and get this done soon.
4. Finally, as California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it well, “You are losing at the Box Office.”
You lost the Presidency in the last election in large part because many people saw that the Republican leadership was under-informed or irresponsible on these issues.
And they saw that instead of adding to the solutions to these problems or working to make the solutions safer to implement economically, Republicans were the party advocating nothing be done at all about them.
Unfortunately, that has as yet changed little. Republicans have become and remained the party of “Just say no.” That’s simply not going to work.
To be fully functional and successful as a political party instead of being a dwindling minority that grows ever smaller, Republicans must do better at implementing and moving forward on actually helping to take action to solve these problems.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
3 pieces of good economic AND renewable energy news....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-28-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
There are 3 pieces of extremely good news in the last week showing that money is being spent & will be spent to build more and more useful renewable energy and which will create jobs in the next few months to three years and more!
1. For example, if you are a homeowner, you may well have a home that would do well to have solar photovoltaic panels on your roof and perhaps other parts of your property. Or, you may own a shopping center where you could install solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and on canopies over all or most of your parking lot.
But with what money?
For many reasons, over time the price for grid electricity will rise, so in addition to the environmental benefits you might actually save money on your costs for electricity over a 20 year time period.
But with the possibility that you might sell your property or be foreclosed on and many banks not having the resources to lend on anything but a sure thing these days, if you don’t have the entire construction cost in savings or in your checking account that has no other demands on it, how on earth will you finance installing the solar you’d like to install and may even save money on?
The reality is that most people won’t have access to the financing or the upfront cash & won’t install the solar.
Magic wand time has arrived!
8 days ago on Tuesday, 10-20-2009 the San Francisco Chronicle has a story that a local & famous community has found a solution. Even better, the current federal administration is taking steps to see that communities all over the United States begin to adopt this plan.
Here’s a few excerpts from that story.:
“Biden to model solar finance plan on Berkeley's
The solar financing plan that originated in Berkeley in 2007 will become a national model, Vice President Joe Biden said Monday.
San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones@sfchronicle.com.
Biden's program, known as Recovery Through Retrofit, creates a framework for cities, counties and states to set up tax districts that allow residential and business property owners to install solar panels and make other energy improvements, repaying the investment over a 20-year property tax assessment.”
“Since Berkeley adopted its financing plan, cities across the nation have adopted similar models, and California, New York, Texas and 11 other states have passed legislation making it easier for municipalities to create their own financing plans.
Berkeley's plan intends to eliminate the up-front cost of solar installation, which could total about $20,000 for an average bungalow, and the financial commitment that could follow property owners after they move from the home.
Under the plan, the assessment stays with the property, not the person. Property owners pay no money up front but pay about $180 a month on their property tax bill….”
“The federal plan and those adopted in most other cities allow property owners to make other energy-efficiency upgrades, too, such as installing new windows, insulation and weather stripping.
Solar financing plans have been a boon for installers. A Berkeley firm, Sungevity….seen its business increase dramatically in California, including in Sonoma County and Palm Desert, which have adopted versions of the financing plan. "Where it's available, it's a clear market driver," said Danny Kennedy, Sungevity president. "There's no question there's a demand out there, and this goes a long way to removing the barriers."
(Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/BAKT1A7R72.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0VGMDGa7Z /)”
This one innovation in financing alone could multiply solar and energy efficiency upgrades in every community that adopts this plan.
Now it looks as if nearly every community will have it soon.
This could make our entire country 25% more energy efficient in its energy use in housing & multiply our total solar installations by five over the next 10 or 15 years.
Even better, as most of this will be done where the electricity will be used on the exact site where it’s generated, no new transmission lines need to be built to enable it.
2. Yesterday, Tuesday, 10-27-2009, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Energy Secretary, Steven Chu announced the first $151 million in grants for potentially high reward experiments in energy related projects.
“U. S. looking for clean-tech ‘home runs’ “
Some of these will fail or not do very much. But those that succeed will quite literally generate billions in venture capital to expand them and tens of thousands of new jobs.
There will be another $249 million in such grants as the total was reported to eventually be $400 million.
These included:
a way intended to make desalinization of water enough more energy efficient to enable us to stop over-drawing our rivers and underground water supplies AND supply growing populations and farmers.
an experiment designed to potentially double the amount of electricity held by lithium ion batteries used in electric cars, plug-in hybrids, electronic devices and possibly storage for solar generated electricity in homes and commercial facilities.
a way to make wind turbines at lower cost.
a membrane that may be able to capture carbon dioxide thus enabling cost effective storage or redirection to algae to make biofuels in coal or natural gas burning installations.
work on systems to enable individuals and institutions to easily monitor energy use and reduce and optimize the amount of energy used and its cost.
And those were just the grants in the area served by the San Jose Mercury News!
3. For large scale solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity generation to be useful and cost effective, we must have a transmission system that can quickly be attached to such plants and deliver the electricity to the people and industries that need it and are not nearby. (Many new wind generation areas and some locations for new nuclear plants have the exact same problem.)
In addition, we need to make that transmission system safer and more reliable and waste less electricity than the one we have now.
Upgrading our current transmission system for electricity enough to accomplish these things will create thousands of new jobs and improve our economy as much or more than the Interstate Highway system did when it was built.
That will take billions of dollars.
As of last Tuesday, we have an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on that system!
On Tuesday, 10-27-2009, President Obama announced a $3.4 billion dollar government supported fund for electricity grid modernization projects. With the matching $4.7 billion in private investments, that’s an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on making an upgrade to our electric transmission grid comparable to building the Interstate Highway System.
That will create so many jobs and boost the economy so much even the US Chamber of Commerce praised this clean-energy initiative.
These three developments each individually will enable the building and use of far more renewable energy than we have now and create jobs and improve our economy.
The effects of all three together over the next one to 3 years and beyond is the first thing I’ve seen that gives me real confidence our recession has something that will cause it to end -- and that it will end and put people back to work.
So they will each increase our energy efficiency and amount of renewable energy AND improve our economy.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-28-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
There are 3 pieces of extremely good news in the last week showing that money is being spent & will be spent to build more and more useful renewable energy and which will create jobs in the next few months to three years and more!
1. For example, if you are a homeowner, you may well have a home that would do well to have solar photovoltaic panels on your roof and perhaps other parts of your property. Or, you may own a shopping center where you could install solar photovoltaic panels on the roof and on canopies over all or most of your parking lot.
But with what money?
For many reasons, over time the price for grid electricity will rise, so in addition to the environmental benefits you might actually save money on your costs for electricity over a 20 year time period.
But with the possibility that you might sell your property or be foreclosed on and many banks not having the resources to lend on anything but a sure thing these days, if you don’t have the entire construction cost in savings or in your checking account that has no other demands on it, how on earth will you finance installing the solar you’d like to install and may even save money on?
The reality is that most people won’t have access to the financing or the upfront cash & won’t install the solar.
Magic wand time has arrived!
8 days ago on Tuesday, 10-20-2009 the San Francisco Chronicle has a story that a local & famous community has found a solution. Even better, the current federal administration is taking steps to see that communities all over the United States begin to adopt this plan.
Here’s a few excerpts from that story.:
“Biden to model solar finance plan on Berkeley's
The solar financing plan that originated in Berkeley in 2007 will become a national model, Vice President Joe Biden said Monday.
San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 E-mail Carolyn Jones at carolynjones@sfchronicle.com.
Biden's program, known as Recovery Through Retrofit, creates a framework for cities, counties and states to set up tax districts that allow residential and business property owners to install solar panels and make other energy improvements, repaying the investment over a 20-year property tax assessment.”
“Since Berkeley adopted its financing plan, cities across the nation have adopted similar models, and California, New York, Texas and 11 other states have passed legislation making it easier for municipalities to create their own financing plans.
Berkeley's plan intends to eliminate the up-front cost of solar installation, which could total about $20,000 for an average bungalow, and the financial commitment that could follow property owners after they move from the home.
Under the plan, the assessment stays with the property, not the person. Property owners pay no money up front but pay about $180 a month on their property tax bill….”
“The federal plan and those adopted in most other cities allow property owners to make other energy-efficiency upgrades, too, such as installing new windows, insulation and weather stripping.
Solar financing plans have been a boon for installers. A Berkeley firm, Sungevity….seen its business increase dramatically in California, including in Sonoma County and Palm Desert, which have adopted versions of the financing plan. "Where it's available, it's a clear market driver," said Danny Kennedy, Sungevity president. "There's no question there's a demand out there, and this goes a long way to removing the barriers."
(Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/BAKT1A7R72.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0VGMDGa7Z /)”
This one innovation in financing alone could multiply solar and energy efficiency upgrades in every community that adopts this plan.
Now it looks as if nearly every community will have it soon.
This could make our entire country 25% more energy efficient in its energy use in housing & multiply our total solar installations by five over the next 10 or 15 years.
Even better, as most of this will be done where the electricity will be used on the exact site where it’s generated, no new transmission lines need to be built to enable it.
2. Yesterday, Tuesday, 10-27-2009, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Energy Secretary, Steven Chu announced the first $151 million in grants for potentially high reward experiments in energy related projects.
“U. S. looking for clean-tech ‘home runs’ “
Some of these will fail or not do very much. But those that succeed will quite literally generate billions in venture capital to expand them and tens of thousands of new jobs.
There will be another $249 million in such grants as the total was reported to eventually be $400 million.
These included:
a way intended to make desalinization of water enough more energy efficient to enable us to stop over-drawing our rivers and underground water supplies AND supply growing populations and farmers.
an experiment designed to potentially double the amount of electricity held by lithium ion batteries used in electric cars, plug-in hybrids, electronic devices and possibly storage for solar generated electricity in homes and commercial facilities.
a way to make wind turbines at lower cost.
a membrane that may be able to capture carbon dioxide thus enabling cost effective storage or redirection to algae to make biofuels in coal or natural gas burning installations.
work on systems to enable individuals and institutions to easily monitor energy use and reduce and optimize the amount of energy used and its cost.
And those were just the grants in the area served by the San Jose Mercury News!
3. For large scale solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electricity generation to be useful and cost effective, we must have a transmission system that can quickly be attached to such plants and deliver the electricity to the people and industries that need it and are not nearby. (Many new wind generation areas and some locations for new nuclear plants have the exact same problem.)
In addition, we need to make that transmission system safer and more reliable and waste less electricity than the one we have now.
Upgrading our current transmission system for electricity enough to accomplish these things will create thousands of new jobs and improve our economy as much or more than the Interstate Highway system did when it was built.
That will take billions of dollars.
As of last Tuesday, we have an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on that system!
On Tuesday, 10-27-2009, President Obama announced a $3.4 billion dollar government supported fund for electricity grid modernization projects. With the matching $4.7 billion in private investments, that’s an $8.1 billion dollar downpayment on making an upgrade to our electric transmission grid comparable to building the Interstate Highway System.
That will create so many jobs and boost the economy so much even the US Chamber of Commerce praised this clean-energy initiative.
These three developments each individually will enable the building and use of far more renewable energy than we have now and create jobs and improve our economy.
The effects of all three together over the next one to 3 years and beyond is the first thing I’ve seen that gives me real confidence our recession has something that will cause it to end -- and that it will end and put people back to work.
So they will each increase our energy efficiency and amount of renewable energy AND improve our economy.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bipartisan progress in the Senate....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-21-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Supporting federal legislation would help. That’s why the news I got last week that begins to make that much more likely was such welcome news.:
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) published a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday (10-10), calling for bipartisan support for passing climate legislation soon.
They stressed that clean energy is an economic & national security issue, and argued that the United States could lead the world in the increasingly competitive global clean economy. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20graham&st=cse.
(From the Clean Economy Network
CEN Weekly Intelligence Update October 13, 2009.
You can sign up for this free weekly email at http://www.cleaneconomy.net .)
Here’s a key quote from their Op Ed piece.:
“Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.”
Their solution is to work a compromise that does its best to combine the best and most safely doable from each party’s wish list.
Their key idea is to build an energy bill to both reduce our impact on global warming AND increase our energy independence while installing safeguards to prevent near term increases in energy costs at a rate that would cause economic harm.
With only one exception, their Op Ed piece lists a good compromise and combined wish list.
A. For global warming,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Such plants use no fossil fuels and release no CO2; and a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity PLUS more nuclear generated electricity produces a much more stable and predictable energy supply than only a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity. Paradoxically, because that makes a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity more practical, it may well make it more doable and faster to arrive.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
We already have a lot of it & burn huge amounts of it to make electricity now which releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration looks more than a bit iffy to me because it’s hard to do in volume and looks iffy to do securely plus adding a massive extra cost. But turning much of the coal into natural gas which generates much of its heat by burning the hydrogen and with far less air pollution, turning some of it into gasoline as the Germans once did during World War II, and whenever any coal or natural gas is burned in plants to generate electricity, feeding all or most of the CO2 generated to algae to make biofuels allows us to use the Carbon twice and to substitute for oil supplies that would otherwise run out sooner.
3. Increase energy efficiency.
This reduces CO2 release since you can burn the same or less amount of fossil fuels and still have economic growth. It means you no longer have to keep building more coal fired plants for example.
4. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce CO2. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce CO2 release even more over time. Further, they begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources.
5. The only aspect their Op Ed piece fails to address directly is a strong emphasis on legislation ensuring massive increases in renewable energy installations.
They do however suggest that ensuring that we are competitive with the best clean technology companies in the world and developing and supporting such companies here in the United States would help ensure a strong economy. And, if that set of goals is met, it will help ensure much more building of renewable energy installations.
Clearly, however it is fostered, building of renewable energy installations in large quantities will help slow global warming.
B. For breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil and doing so in ways that avoid over-taxing or slowing our economy,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Since these plants generate electricity at night when so many more people are asleep, added nuclear power is a superb way to provide electricity at a time of day when it can recharge the batteries in all electric vehicles and plug-hybrids. That has the potential of cutting our entire use of petroleum in half or more. And that in turn makes importing far less oil from outside sources much more doable.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
Since two of the more doable ways, making methane gas and gasoline from coal; and making gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, and/or jet fuel from algae that eats the CO2 released when coal or methane made from it is burned -- both generate fuels cars and trucks can burn with no outside oil, or ANY oil at all for that matter, needed.
3. More but highly environmentally responsible offshore oil drilling.
The level of environmental safety needed &/or direct political resistance from West Coast states suggest that this is either undoable or in far smaller volume than proponents might like in those locations.
But, the prospects both politically and from the potential amount of accessible oil are vastly better for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, if the track record of the environmental controls is good enough there & once oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling off our West Coast might become more likely.
Also, both off Baja California and in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, a deal with Mexico might add yet another way to add more offshore drilling.
Lastly, as oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling into oil deposits offshore from our West Coast may be become economically affordable by drilling into them from rigs actually located ONSHORE.
4. Increase energy efficiency.
Every time we use new more energy efficient devices in them or retrofit more energy efficient devices and systems into our vehicles and buildings we need less oil and less natural gas or oil or coal generated electricity. That enables us to use far less oil and can substantially contribute to reducing our dependence on outside sources of oil.
5. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce the amount of oil we use. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce the amount of oil we use even more over time. In addition, they will begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources and that will also reduce the amount of oil we use and sharply reduce the amount of oil we need to import.
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
By the way, it’s my opinion that the countries that supply the oil now that we will no longer need will do fine if these things come to pass.
1. The process will take many years and they will have very slow drop offs in the amount of oil they send our way at first.
2. Since the rest of the world is developing economically, they will have other customers for most of the oil we stop getting from them.
3. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have as much solar thermal reserves as they do oil. As the world turns to more renewable energy and the solar thermal industry develops more cost effective technology and economies of scale, these countries will add very large revenues from that source at about the same time they get less from oil either because they have fewer buyers eventually or when they begin to run out.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-21-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
Supporting federal legislation would help. That’s why the news I got last week that begins to make that much more likely was such welcome news.:
Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) published a joint op-ed piece in the New York Times on Saturday (10-10), calling for bipartisan support for passing climate legislation soon.
They stressed that clean energy is an economic & national security issue, and argued that the United States could lead the world in the increasingly competitive global clean economy. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20graham&st=cse.
(From the Clean Economy Network
CEN Weekly Intelligence Update October 13, 2009.
You can sign up for this free weekly email at http://www.cleaneconomy.net .)
Here’s a key quote from their Op Ed piece.:
“Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.”
Their solution is to work a compromise that does its best to combine the best and most safely doable from each party’s wish list.
Their key idea is to build an energy bill to both reduce our impact on global warming AND increase our energy independence while installing safeguards to prevent near term increases in energy costs at a rate that would cause economic harm.
With only one exception, their Op Ed piece lists a good compromise and combined wish list.
A. For global warming,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Such plants use no fossil fuels and release no CO2; and a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity PLUS more nuclear generated electricity produces a much more stable and predictable energy supply than only a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity. Paradoxically, because that makes a massive increase in renewable energy generated electricity more practical, it may well make it more doable and faster to arrive.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
We already have a lot of it & burn huge amounts of it to make electricity now which releases a lot of carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration looks more than a bit iffy to me because it’s hard to do in volume and looks iffy to do securely plus adding a massive extra cost. But turning much of the coal into natural gas which generates much of its heat by burning the hydrogen and with far less air pollution, turning some of it into gasoline as the Germans once did during World War II, and whenever any coal or natural gas is burned in plants to generate electricity, feeding all or most of the CO2 generated to algae to make biofuels allows us to use the Carbon twice and to substitute for oil supplies that would otherwise run out sooner.
3. Increase energy efficiency.
This reduces CO2 release since you can burn the same or less amount of fossil fuels and still have economic growth. It means you no longer have to keep building more coal fired plants for example.
4. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce CO2. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce CO2 release even more over time. Further, they begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources.
5. The only aspect their Op Ed piece fails to address directly is a strong emphasis on legislation ensuring massive increases in renewable energy installations.
They do however suggest that ensuring that we are competitive with the best clean technology companies in the world and developing and supporting such companies here in the United States would help ensure a strong economy. And, if that set of goals is met, it will help ensure much more building of renewable energy installations.
Clearly, however it is fostered, building of renewable energy installations in large quantities will help slow global warming.
B. For breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil and doing so in ways that avoid over-taxing or slowing our economy,
1. Take practical steps to build more nuclear electric generation plants.
Since these plants generate electricity at night when so many more people are asleep, added nuclear power is a superb way to provide electricity at a time of day when it can recharge the batteries in all electric vehicles and plug-hybrids. That has the potential of cutting our entire use of petroleum in half or more. And that in turn makes importing far less oil from outside sources much more doable.
2. Find and insist on clean or cleaner ways to burn coal.
Since two of the more doable ways, making methane gas and gasoline from coal; and making gasoline, alcohol, diesel fuel, and/or jet fuel from algae that eats the CO2 released when coal or methane made from it is burned -- both generate fuels cars and trucks can burn with no outside oil, or ANY oil at all for that matter, needed.
3. More but highly environmentally responsible offshore oil drilling.
The level of environmental safety needed &/or direct political resistance from West Coast states suggest that this is either undoable or in far smaller volume than proponents might like in those locations.
But, the prospects both politically and from the potential amount of accessible oil are vastly better for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Second, if the track record of the environmental controls is good enough there & once oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling off our West Coast might become more likely.
Also, both off Baja California and in the Southern Gulf of Mexico, a deal with Mexico might add yet another way to add more offshore drilling.
Lastly, as oil prices begin again to rise world wide, drilling into oil deposits offshore from our West Coast may be become economically affordable by drilling into them from rigs actually located ONSHORE.
4. Increase energy efficiency.
Every time we use new more energy efficient devices in them or retrofit more energy efficient devices and systems into our vehicles and buildings we need less oil and less natural gas or oil or coal generated electricity. That enables us to use far less oil and can substantially contribute to reducing our dependence on outside sources of oil.
5. Economically safe start up of cap & trade markets.
By making them gentler and slower starting at first and more safe for the economy, you make them enactable and even in their early stages they will reduce the amount of oil we use. And, by enacting them, they will eventually reduce the amount of oil we use even more over time. In addition, they will begin to provide extra financial incentives to increase energy efficiency and to use and install renewable energy sources and that will also reduce the amount of oil we use and sharply reduce the amount of oil we need to import.
X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* X*
By the way, it’s my opinion that the countries that supply the oil now that we will no longer need will do fine if these things come to pass.
1. The process will take many years and they will have very slow drop offs in the amount of oil they send our way at first.
2. Since the rest of the world is developing economically, they will have other customers for most of the oil we stop getting from them.
3. These countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have as much solar thermal reserves as they do oil. As the world turns to more renewable energy and the solar thermal industry develops more cost effective technology and economies of scale, these countries will add very large revenues from that source at about the same time they get less from oil either because they have fewer buyers eventually or when they begin to run out.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Very good news in California for renewable energy....
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-14-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
There are two ways that have been proven to help do this.
One is to pay the going rate for renewable energy fed into the grid even from small generators.
The other is to use the same kind of Feed-in tariff that guarantees builders of larger renewable energy generation projects that Germany used so successfully that makes it profitable AND FINANCABLE up front for builders to build the renewable energy generation production projects they will build. The contracts that give them a modest profit and guaranteed income over the life of the contracts are the key to this.
The state of California just took two key steps in the right direction.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two key bills Sunday, 10-11, 2009 that will boost solar power. Since I live in California & also know that what we do here is often copied elsewhere, I’m extremely pleased and encouraged.
Here are the two key bills he signed.:
1. AB920, requires the utilities to pay a homeowner whose solar array or small wind generator produces more electricity during the year than the customer uses. Until now, if a homeowner's panels produced more energy than the home used in an entire year, the utilities got the excess for free.
For people with larger homes with room for a lot of solar cells this may make installing solar cells much more affordable since they will get some income in return in some cases. It will also make installing a large enough system to come close to powering the home by itself even in less sunny weather, since they will get paid for the excess they generate in sunny weather.
It may even cause the building of micro-projects to generate renewable energy by guaranteeing the electricity they generate is marketable.
(I’ve not yet read the bill to see if such installations or a similar deal for businesses is included as well as the one reported for homeowners. One report I saw suggests it might but I do not yet know.)
If we need more renewable energy, & we very much do need it and soon, this policy has made such good sense, I’ve wanted this done for quite some time. So it’s great news that it has been made California law – or will be the day it takes effect it will be.
2. SB32, will expand California's feed-in tariff for renewable power. Used widely in Europe, feed-in tariffs establish a price the utilities pay to buy electricity from businesses with solar arrays.
California already has a feed-in tariff, but it only covers renewable power projects capable of generating 1.5 megawatts or less. Under SB32, the limit is increased to 3 megawatts.
This is much smaller progress since the existing program is quite a bit less than the German model that is proven to work so well.
But, since it is on a much bigger scale than paying those homeowners who manage to produce more electricity from renewables than they consume—and because even if partial it’s a step in the right direction and now can boost projects twice as large, it is still modest but important progress.
When ALL projects from tiny to much larger than 3 megawatts can get a feed-in tariff contract as good as the Germans used, I’ll be happier and we will get a lot more renewable energy built.
That said, in California, we now are headed there more than we were before.
And, it’s news of progress that will begin to help.
Today's post: Wednesday, 10-14-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.
And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.
There are two ways that have been proven to help do this.
One is to pay the going rate for renewable energy fed into the grid even from small generators.
The other is to use the same kind of Feed-in tariff that guarantees builders of larger renewable energy generation projects that Germany used so successfully that makes it profitable AND FINANCABLE up front for builders to build the renewable energy generation production projects they will build. The contracts that give them a modest profit and guaranteed income over the life of the contracts are the key to this.
The state of California just took two key steps in the right direction.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two key bills Sunday, 10-11, 2009 that will boost solar power. Since I live in California & also know that what we do here is often copied elsewhere, I’m extremely pleased and encouraged.
Here are the two key bills he signed.:
1. AB920, requires the utilities to pay a homeowner whose solar array or small wind generator produces more electricity during the year than the customer uses. Until now, if a homeowner's panels produced more energy than the home used in an entire year, the utilities got the excess for free.
For people with larger homes with room for a lot of solar cells this may make installing solar cells much more affordable since they will get some income in return in some cases. It will also make installing a large enough system to come close to powering the home by itself even in less sunny weather, since they will get paid for the excess they generate in sunny weather.
It may even cause the building of micro-projects to generate renewable energy by guaranteeing the electricity they generate is marketable.
(I’ve not yet read the bill to see if such installations or a similar deal for businesses is included as well as the one reported for homeowners. One report I saw suggests it might but I do not yet know.)
If we need more renewable energy, & we very much do need it and soon, this policy has made such good sense, I’ve wanted this done for quite some time. So it’s great news that it has been made California law – or will be the day it takes effect it will be.
2. SB32, will expand California's feed-in tariff for renewable power. Used widely in Europe, feed-in tariffs establish a price the utilities pay to buy electricity from businesses with solar arrays.
California already has a feed-in tariff, but it only covers renewable power projects capable of generating 1.5 megawatts or less. Under SB32, the limit is increased to 3 megawatts.
This is much smaller progress since the existing program is quite a bit less than the German model that is proven to work so well.
But, since it is on a much bigger scale than paying those homeowners who manage to produce more electricity from renewables than they consume—and because even if partial it’s a step in the right direction and now can boost projects twice as large, it is still modest but important progress.
When ALL projects from tiny to much larger than 3 megawatts can get a feed-in tariff contract as good as the Germans used, I’ll be happier and we will get a lot more renewable energy built.
That said, in California, we now are headed there more than we were before.
And, it’s news of progress that will begin to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)