|
forget
bush and kyoto rejection - watch the states and the corporations
“Eighteen US states require that some of their electricity be generated
from renewable-energy sources. Furthermore, Republican governors from New
York and Massachusetts are leading the creation of a regional emissions-cap
system.”
—
“ Some see the regulatory writing on the wall. Chemical giant DuPont,
which in the 1990s withdrew its support for an advocacy group that opposed
fighting global warming, says it slashed its emissions worldwide by 70 percent
by 2003 from 1990 levels. That far outstrips the Kyoto target of a 5 percent
reduction by the year 2012.”
—
“ US companies are beginning to see business opportunities in emissions
controls and don't want to lose out to Europe on what promises to be a booming
market.”
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#us_energy_policy271204 |
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer
advertising
disclaimer |
bit
by bit, the awful truth seeps under the door
“To avoid another gigaton of carbon emissions by 2050 would require
building 700 1 gigawatt nuclear power plants rather than the equivalent
conventional coal facilities. That means that the rate of growth in nuclear
power generation needs to be 4 percent per year rather than the current
2.5 percent. One more gigaton of emissions could be cut if the world's projected
2 billion vehicles in 2050 got 60 miles rather than 30 miles to the gallon.
Another could be curtailed by 300,000 5 megawatt wind turbines. Of course,
the wind turbines would need to be deployed in an area the size of Portugal
and 5 megawatt wind turbines are only prototypes now. Biofuels derived from
250 million hectares of high yield crops could avoid another gigaton of
carbon emitted per year in 2050. This would mean that a sixth of the world's
current cropland would be devoted to producing fuel. That can't be good
for biodiversity. And building 700 coal-fired 1 gigawatt power stations
using carbon dioxide capture and storage would cut 1 gigaton of carbon.
Akhurst pointed out that no low-cost carbon dioxide separation technology
currently exists and that carbon capture and storage facilities would be
nearly the same size as the power plant. The remaining 2 gigatons can be
avoided by a combination of increased energy efficiency in appliances and
buildings, more mass transit, and some societal changes.”
—
“Doing the math, in order to double the world's energy supplies over
the next 50 years, the world will need to build, among other things, the
equivalent of 2750 new 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power stations, 1000
new coal-fired 1 gigawatt power plants with carbon capture, 1.5 million
windmills deployed over a bit less than 300,000 square miles, 2150 new nuclear
plants, 1500 new 1 gigawatt hydropower stations, not to mention new solar
and biofuel technologies.”
and a lot more notional figures!
related material
replacing
fossil fuels - the scale of the problem
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#scale_of_the_problem171204 |
important
new government energy report from the usa
This report from the Energy
Commission is a 148-page PDF, with appropriate
links, and is laid out to unusually high standards.
Read with care, caution and some scepticism.
From
the press release:
“Political and regional polarization has produced an energy stalemate,
preventing America from adopting sensible approaches to some of our biggest
energy problems," said John W. Rowe, Commission co-chair and Chairman
and CEO of Exelon Corp. "Our Commission reached consensus on effective
policies because of a willingness to take on cherished myths from both right
and left" [...].”
—
“ "It's essential to take some prudent steps now to avoid intolerable
costs and impacts later," said John Holdren, Heinz Professor of Environmental
Policy at Harvard University and Commission co-chair [...].”
—
“The Commission estimates its recommendations could reduce U.S. oil
consumption in 2025 by 10-15 percent or 3-5 million barrels per day.”
I suppose they’ve never heard of Jevon's paradox
and, perhaps, are semi-detached from the real world.
For more go to
Energy economics
and fossil fuels—how long do we have?
Replacing fossil
fuels—the scale of the problem
It doesn’t look impressive on the face of it,
but it does show a slowly growing awareness in this profligate and escapist
country.
From the full report:
“This report is a product of a bipartisan Commission of 16 members
of diverse expertise and affiliations, addressing many complex and contentious
topics. It is inevitable that arriving at a consensus document in these
circumstances entailed innumerable compromises. Accordingly, it should not
be assumed that every member is entirely satisfied with every formulation
in the report, or even that all of us would agree with any given recommendation
if it were taken in isolation. Rather, we have reached consensus on the
report and its recommendations as a package, which taken as a whole offers
a balanced and comprehensive approach to the economic, national security,
and environmental challenges that the energy issue presents to our nation.”
—
“ This report presents key findings from an intensive, three-year
effort to develop consensus.”
That is, we strove to make it politically acceptable
and not to make big waves.
Looking through the report, I smell fear. The report touches many of the bases,
but is careful to understate problems and choose ‘helpful’ examples.
Read with caution.
“Equally important, Commissioners found common ground in rejecting
certain persistent myths - on the left and on the right - that have often
served to polarize and paralyze the national energy debate. These include,
for example, the notion that energy independence can be readily achieved
through conservation measures and renewable energy sources alone, or that
limiting greenhouse gas emissions is either costless or so costly as to
wreck the economy if it were tried at all. Most of all, Commissioners rejected
the proposition that uncertainty justifies inaction in the face of significant
risks.
“Given current trends, the consequences of inaction are all too clear.
Under business-as-usual assumptions, the United States will consume 43 percent
more oil and emit 42 percent more greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.1 At
the global level, oil consumption and emissions will grow 57 and 55 percent
respectively over the same timeframe and the Earth will be heading rapidly
- perhaps inexorably - past a doubling and toward a tripling of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations. In the Commission’s view, this is not
a scenario that should inspire complacency, nor is it consistent with the
goal of reducing the nation’s exposure to potentially serious economic,
environmental, and security risks.”
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#us_report131204 |
one of the most important jobs in the world goes to unknown
The big question will be, “is he independent minded
or a placeman?”
“After 14 years at Cabot, Bodman joined the U.S. Commerce Department
in 2001. He moved to the No. 2 post at Treasury in February. He began his
career as a chemical engineering professor at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and then joined FMR Corp., parent of Fidelity Investments, rising
to president in 1983.” [Quoted
from bloomberg.com]
“Bodman's selection was greeted with approval across the energy
and business sectors. Representatives from the electricity, nuclear and
natural gas industries cited his technical, management and financial background.
“Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee,
lauded Bodman's experience in industry and government, his "management
skills, and boundless intellectual curiosity." ”[Quoted
from abcnews]
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#bodman |
photovoltaic
installations growing from a low base under subsidies in usa
“The subsidy for renewable energy doesn’t come close to matching
the billions in government support for fossil fuels, which includes everything
from the oil-depletion allowance to the endless federal largesse for "clean
coal" research. Still, the government help, almost all of it from states
instead of the federal government, is crucial. "Absent that, I couldn’t
have done it," says Grieco, who took advantage of New York’s
law to cut his costs in half. "I didn’t have $31,000, but I did
have $15,000." At that rate, he’ll have a 20-year payback on
his investment, and the panels should last another 20 years after that.”
This subsidising behaviour is in a current environment
of cheap oil, therefore manufacture may still be negative EROEI.
To understand this last comment see:
EROEI section
in Energy economics and
fossil fuels—how long do we have?
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#photovoltaics |
| time
to make up a law about it—energy ratings
In order to facilitate planning for the vast changes in energy
usage bearing down upon us,
- all energy related items, whether that generate energy
or that convert energy, should be rated on a cradle-to-grave basis, complete
with separately itemised manufacturing inputs and running costs.
- A lifetime energy rating should be clearly listed
on all manufactured items.
- This rating information must include EROEI
ratings.
For background see
Energy economics
and fossil fuels—how long do we have?
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#energy_ratings |
a
million windmills?
- Linked item is headed
- “US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.”
- This is immediately followed by
- “Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power
would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind
turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.”
[Equivalent figures for the United Kingdom are approximately one-tenth.]
As usual, the article is sloppy to the point of innumeracy. For instance,
it does no say how big are the nuclear power stations or the windmills.
My best guess is that they mean what I call ‘big
power stations’, that is power stations with a one-gigawatt capacity,
and probably one-megawatt windmills.
As windmills can only be expected to produce power during one-third of the
time, if you are lucky and you have a good site, with one-megawatt mills you
would really need 3 million windmills.
Further, present assessments suggest there are nothing like that many available
suitable locations in the USA, and the locations that do exist are often far
from the desired point of energy delivery. Present assessments run to the
equivalent of approximately 100 ‘big power station’ wind potential
being available for the whole USA (warning: this figure not yet checked in
detail) [source: Pimentel,
2002]
(And the EROEI
for wind is also nothing like as good as
that for oil.)
Still the size of the problem does at last seem to be starting to percolate.
related material
Replacing
fossil fuels—the scale of the problem
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#windmills |
kite
flying as the realities steadily impinge — 45 reactors for the uk
“The Department of Trade and Industry will also study the process.
Earlier this month an official said that a huge expansion of the nuclear
power industry - including the construction of 45 new reactors - was essential
if the Government were to meet its Kyoto target of cutting "greenhouse
gases". Many environmentalists, including James Lovelock, have embraced
nuclear power because it does not generate greenhouse gases.
related material
replacing fossil
fuels
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#45_reactors |
bliar
talks sense on energy – mostly
From a recent
speech by Tony Bliar. If he means it, we start to get some degree of rational
approach to energy in the UK.
“We have been warned. On most issues we ask children to listen to
their parents. On climate change, it is parents who should listen to their
children.”
—
“Our position on nuclear energy has not changed. And as we made clear
in our Energy White Paper last year, the government does "not
rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build
might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets."
“In short, we need to develop the new green industrial revolution
that develops the new technologies that can confront and overcome the challenge
of climate change; and that above all can show us not that we can avoid
changing our behaviour but we can change it in a way that is environmentally
sustainable.
“Just as British know-how brought the railways and mass production
to the world, so British scientists, innovators and business people can
lead the world in ways to grow and develop sustainably.
“I am confident business will seize this opportunity. Cutting waste
and saving energy could save billions of pounds each year. With about 90%
of production materials never part of the final product and 80% of products
discarded after single use, the opportunities are clear.”
Local, practical sustainability: new schools, new housing and re-invigorating
'Agenda 21'
“But Government can give a lead in its own procurement policy.
New sustainable schools
“There is a huge school building programme underway. All new schools
and City Academies should be models for sustainable development: showing
every child in the classroom and the playground how smart building and energy
use can help tackle global warming.
“The government is now developing a school specific method of environmental
assessment that will apply to all new school buildings. Sustainable development
will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and
mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power.
“Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they
will see and work within it: a living, learning, place in which to explore
what a sustainable lifestyle means.
Housing
“The economic and social case for new housing is compelling. But
we must also ensure that our approach is environmentally sustainable. This
means action at both the national and local level. Heating, lighting and
cooling buildings produces about half of total UK carbon emissions.
“In 2002 we raised the minimum standard for the energy performance
of new buildings by 25%. And next year we'll raise it by another 25%. The
challenge now is to work with the building industry to encourage sustainability
to be part of all new housing through a new flexible Code for Sustainable
Buildings.
“The new developments proposed in specific parts of the south east
including the Thames Gateway represent a huge opportunity for us to show
what can be achieved in terms of modern, smart, 21st century, sustainable
living: not just in terms of reduced energy use, but also through better
waste management, sustainable transport and availability of quality local
parks and amenities.”
Where he proposes to obtain the oil for the following he
does not say:
I am advised that by 2030, emissions from aircraft could represent a quarter
of the UK's total contribution to global warning. A big step in the right
direction would be to see aviation brought into the EU emissions trading
scheme in the next phase of its development. During our EU Presidency we
will argue strongly for this.”
Hasn’t anyone told him yet?
related material
step by slow step, the awful
truth must penetrate the heads of dumb pseudo-greens
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#blair_and_energy |
| at
last uk labour government starts to talk sense over the environment and nuclear
power
“Britain may need to build new nuclear power stations if it is to
meet its targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, although the plants
are not currently economic, Energy Minister Stephen Timms has said.
“ "We may well need new nuclear power stations in the UK,"
Timms told a wind energy conference yesterday. "(But) I haven't met
anyone who wants to invest in nuclear power in the UK," he said.”
The market will not 'invest' while cheap filthy fossil
fuel alternatives are available, but the costs appear over-rated in view of
recent studies.
“Poor economics and problems dealing with nuclear waste made the
sector unattractive, he said.
The ‘problems’ are exaggerated.
“Timms' comments came after Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday
said he would not close the door to another generation of nuclear power
stations in the UK.
“ "It's not sensible for us to say...we are just shutting the
door," Blair said. "You can't remove it from the agenda if you
are serious about climate change."
Just so.
Related material
nuclear power
- investigation of the perceived problems
the web address for this article is
https://www.abelard.org/news/energy0407.php#britain
|
energy
archives 1 2
3 | III-4:
04 |
V-2004: 3 17
| VI-2004: 07
| VII-2004: 11
| IX-2004: 25
28
| X-2004: 11
| XI-2004: 06
21
| XII-2004: 13
17 27 
