There is a new technology that can save consumers thousands of dollars while also reducing the need for new power plants.

But Big Brother, in the form of the California Energy Commission, tried to usurp the technology and, by its bungling, has cast a cloud over the technology. (It should be noted however, that this is the type of control proponents of Cap & Trade could deem necessary.)

The technology in question are meters installed in homes, offices and factories that record electricity usage by the hour, where rates also vary by the hour.

If electricity is used during peak hours the user will pay a higher price than if it is used during off-peak hours.

Even if the total amount of electricity consumed remains unchanged, the electricity generated during off-peak hour’s uses generators that might otherwise be left idle (or running below capacity.)

If electricity is consumed during peak hours, it could require the addition of new power plants. This would definitely be true if the demand is new, such as if Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) charged their batteries during daytime.

Big Brother attempted to insist that these new meters be controllable by the utility. For example, if Big Brother wanted to keep consumers from running their air conditioning units the utility could reset the consumer’s thermostat to a higher temperature. Let’s say the consumer set the thermostat at 70 degrees, Big Brother could change the setting to 80 degrees. The motivation behind Big Brother’s blunder was a desire to control CO2 emissions because of Big Brother’s view of global warming. “Big Brother knows best.”

Fortunately consumers became aware of Big Brother’s efforts and told Big Brother to change the proposed regulations for “programmable communicating thermostats.” But Big Brother never gives up, so consumers in other States will need to stay alert for attempts in their State to install meters that can intrude into their homes and offices.

The idea of using meters to allow consumers to choose when they want to buy electricity is excellent. It allows consumers to lower their energy bills while allowing utilities to defer investment in new power plants. But a meter allowing Big Brother to put its hand on the consumer’s thermostat is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s merely an early indicator of how far Big Brother will intrude into people’s lives to control CO2 emissions.

TSAugust

June 8, 2008

The Warner-Lieberman Bill, S2191 Climate Security Act of 2007, is going to be debated and possibly voted on this week (June 2^nd). (The bill was debated and defeated, probably for this year.)

The following information should be critical to understanding the appropriateness of this legislation.

S2191 will require that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 70% from 1990 levels by 2050, to 1,560 Million Metric Tons (MMT).

Current U.S. emissions are around 6,000 MMT.

The last time the United States emitted 1,560 MMT of CO2 was 1922 when the U.S. population was 110 million.

Looking ahead to 2050, the population of the U.S. is forecast to be approximately 440 million.

To understand the significance of these numbers it’s important to look at the per capita emissions of CO2.

U.S. per capita CO2 emissions:

1922 = 14.2 Tons

2004 = 20.3 Tons

2050 = 3.5 Tons

It is extremely difficult to see how per capita emissions can be reduced to 3.5 tons without crippling the U.S. economy and virtually destroying America.

As Carbon Folly demonstrates, only a combination of a huge expansion in nuclear power (400 new nuclear power plants by 2050) combined with a huge increase in electric vehicles (75% of all vehicles by 2050) can achieve CO2 emissions of  3.5 tons per person.

Naming this legislation the “Climate Security Act” is farcical in the face of our economic and technical knowledge.

June 1, 2008

TSAugust 

Coal Must be Good, May 4 2008

Europe is pushing Cap & Trade and Carbon Taxes in an effort to get the world to follow its example in setting targets for cutting CO2 emissions. But, it appears that Europe is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

While demanding that other countries adopt Cap & Trade regulations, Europe is scheduled to build around 50 new coal fired power plants over the next five years. Italy is converting an oil fired power plant to coal.

Meanwhile, here in the United States various States are attempting to prohibit the construction of new coal fired power plants. An unelected regulator in Kansas denied permits for a badly needed coal fired power plant and the Governor supported his move.

The Sierra Club and other so called environmental groups are picketing communities and legislatures to deny permits for new coal fired power plants. Sixty proposed coal fired power plants in the U.S. have been dropped. A few dozen more are stuck in the courts.

Meanwhile, China is building two new coal fired power plants every week. India is also building coal fired power plants.

Why is ‘Coal still King’ in Europe, China and India?

• It’s cheap.

• Europe has a 200 year supply of coal. China and the U.S. have a 400 year supply.

• There is no OPEC for coal: Coal is exported by many countries so market forces can keep the price relatively low.

Why should Europe build coal fired power plants while excoriating the U.S. for not cutting CO2 emissions?

May 4, 2008

TSAugust

There is more oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than in Saudi Arabia. The obstacle to its extraction is that it’s encased in rock, known as shale.

Shell oil has undertaken a new process for extracting oil from shale and is conducting experiments in Colorado using its new “freezewall” technology.

They have already demonstrated they can extract the oil “in-situ” by heating the rock underground and then pumping out the oil that has been freed from the shale.

They are currently testing the “freezewall” to ensure that it isolates the area for heating and prevents the entry of water into the recovery zone. They will then test the integrity of the “freezewall” using warm water or steam to fracture the ice wall and then see how best to repair any break in the wall.

These tests will demonstrate the process is environmentally safe.

Unfortunately, Shell doesn’t currently plan to begin commercialization until the middle of the next decade.

A recent book, Gusher of Lies, only mentions shale oil once, and says shale oil is too constrained by price and capital to be an alternative oil resource for the United States. Shell is demonstrating that Gusher of Lies is wrong and that Shell is proving that shale oil is economically viable.

Gusher of Lies statements are doubly unfortunate because shale oil is a resource that could contribute to the United States becoming independent from foreign oil. (Independence from foreign oil will not affect the price of gas at the pump, as the price of oil is set by worldwide market forces. It does, however, allow for strategic independence and for improving America’s balance of payments.)

Shell has not said so, but the global warming activist’s desire to impose Cap & Trade regulations to deter the use of fossil fuels cannot but help slow down the development of this valuable resource.

April 27, 2008

TSAugust

A major concern of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been that ice on Antarctica would melt and cause oceans levels to rise: The IPCC has said human activity is causing global warming which could cause glaciers to melt. But there are other possibilities, including the latest -- volcanic activity.

Geophysicists Robin Bell and Michael Studinger from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently presented a paper showing how subglacial lakes could contribute to ice sheets sliding into the ocean and causing a catastrophic rise in sea level.

Most theories have focused on glaciers melting at the surface with the melt water draining into the ocean, but this ”subglacial”  theory has water accumulating under the glaciers which could cause them to slide rapidly into the ocean. This would be more dramatic and catastrophic than surface ice melt from global warming. Fast flowing ice streams in Antarctica have caused rapid movements of glaciers from the interior of Antarctica to the ocean.

A new theory, however, indicates that it isn’t global warming that’s causing ice to melt in Antarctica, it’s a string of volcanoes under the ice.

A chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks may have been the cause of the Larson Ice Shelf breakup and may be causing glaciers to slide toward the ocean.

The accompanying NASA picture shows temperature trends from 1982 to 2004 for the Antarctic Continent. As can be seen, the Western edge of Antarctica has had rising temperatures while the bulk of Antarctica has had declining temperatures. The vast bulk of Antarctica has seen an increase in glacier thickness while the peninsula that juts far to the north has seen the loss of the Larson Ice Shelf and, most recently, the breaking away of the Wilkins Ice Shelf.

 (Both of these ice shelf’s are floating on water so do not contribute to sea rise when they melt.)

A recent discovery of an ancient volcano has brought the possibility of volcanic activity to the fore. Others have noted that Pacific Ocean currents could contribute to the warming along the Western edge of Antarctica.

If volcanic activity is behind the threat there is nothing mankind can do, at this juncture, to affect the amount of subglacial ice melt that might occur from the heat from the volcanoes. This is different than any threat from CO2 in the atmosphere that may be causing global warming.

Antarctica Temperature Changes, 1982 - 2004

Sources:

Science Daily

World Climate Report

NASA

 April 20, 2008

TSAugust

There are 1,600 people attending the latest United Nations soiree in Bangkok, trying to develop a strategy for a new Kyoto style agreement by the end of 2009. This followed the Bali meeting last December where a similar number of delegates from the UN and 190 countries, plus representatives from NGO’s, hammered out the “Bali Declaration.”

The Bangkok meeting has been eventful for three reasons.

1. Developing countries, led by the Group of 77 countries plus China (the G-77), have emphatically stated they will not accept binding targets for reducing CO2 emissions.

2. Japan has suggested the reference date be changed from 1990 to 2005. Japan believes, rightfully, that the 1990 date in the Kyoto protocol was set in a manner that favored European countries. (The collapse of the Soviet Union led to the collapse of Eastern European economies with resulting lower CO2 emissions in 1990. Additionally, the UK shifted from coal to North Sea natural gas for political rather than environmental reasons, and this also resulted in reduced CO2 emissions in 1990.)

3. China said developed countries should pay 0.5% of their GDP to developing countries for mitigating and adaptive strategies and technologies. This would be $66 billion that U.S. tax payers would pay China annually.

As a reference, $66 billion would have paid for all the oil we imported for three months during 2007.

When the conference concluded, a schedule was set for future meetings with contentious issues set aside for these future meetings.

Prodipto Ghosh, an Indian delegate, called the Japanese proposal for industry goals and a revised reference date a “huge protection scam,” while the G-77 refused to allow it to be included in the work plan. An August meeting in Ghana would address the Japanese proposals.

A June meeting in Bonn would discuss the transfer of clean technologies to developing countries from developed countries. Since the U.S. is in the vanguard of developing new technologies these transfers would largely be borne by the U.S.

There was much hope that a new administration in Washington would result in the U.S. acceding to the demands of the UN., specifically that the U.S. would agree to specific cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing developing countries, such as China and India, to avoid having to make firm commitments.

April 13, 2008

TSAugust

The Kyoto protocol has a provision where developed countries, such as in Europe, can buy Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or 'carbon credits' for every ton of CO2 reduced by projects in developing countries.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are classified as developing countries.

The UAE has just  established a formal process for creating CER’s under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Now Europe can pay the UAE for its oil and also pay the UAE for CER’s.

The CER’s will be issued for such things as eliminating the flaring of gas and recovering and utilizing CO2 from the manufacture of fertilizer.

“Projects include energy efficiency, industrial process improvement, flare gas recovery and power plant upgrades.”

Now the UAE can get paid for making its operations more efficient: Something the UAE would have (or should have) done anyway.

A similar situation is emerging in Russia where European countries can buy emission credits from Russia when Russian oil and gas companies fix leaks in their pipelines.

The fact that Europe isn’t reducing its CO2 emissions and that the CER’s are based on actions that should have (or would have) been done anyway, allows the EU to try to meet its Kyoto targets without reducing its emissions.

March 2, 2008

TSAugust

The great depression of the 1930’s was started by “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill is often mentioned as the catalyst that worsened the Great Depression. It provoked retaliatory measures by foreign countries.

Could Global Warming actually trigger a new depression? It certainly could if countries establish tariffs on so-called high CO2 content products such as steel, aluminum and concrete.

Europe is threatening to enact tariffs against high energy imports.

The Social Democrats in Germany are calling for sanctions on these types of goods.

"We have tried in the past and we will try again to introduce some kind of import duties for products from the U.S. and other countries that do not subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol," said the energy expert Claude Turmes, a European Parliament legislator and vice chairman of the European Greens.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said Europe should "examine the option of taxing products imported from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.”

Though European Greens were singling out the United States, restrictive tariffs would also affect China and India who are major exporters of steel and other energy intensive products.

C. Boyden Gray, US ambassador to the European Union, said retaliatory steps could be taken against China and India if they refused to agree to limitations on CO2 emissions.

With threats emanating from all sides, the likelihood of restrictive tariffs increases.

Though it was the agriculture industry that triggered the “beggar thy neighbor” tariffs in the 1930’s, it could be high energy intensive industries that trigger the next great depression.

February 17, 2008

TSAugust

The UN hailed the announcement made by David McCormick, Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs, that the U.S. would establish a Clean Development Fund.

Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, called the news “a Marshall Plan for climate change.”

McCormick said the U.S. had already met with potential donors. The U.S. would be a lead donor.

Many developing countries such as China and India are currently using old technologies for generating electricity and for producing products, such as aluminum and steel.

The Clean Development Fund would provide money so that developing countries could install newer, more expensive technology.

McCormick said that by 2030 the difference in cost for newer technologies could be $30 billion. The fund the U.S. is proposing would pay for this difference.

De Boer said, "I see a number of economic and security issues emerging as a result of climate change which make it all the more imperative to come to grips with this issue in time."

The fund would come from major developed countries so that rich nations would help pay the cost of controlling CO2 emissions. Developing countries have consistently said that it was up to developed countries, such as the U.S., to pay for controlling emissions since it was they who pumped the CO2 into the atmosphere over the past century.

Not addressed by McCormick is whether improving the technology of companies in China and India will make it harder for U.S. companies to compete, and possibly cost Americans their jobs.

There is a pattern developing in Washington D.C. where climate change regulations and funding could become a burden on American tax payers.

February 10, 2008

TSAugust

It has not been widely reported, but it appears as though global warming has halted, or at least taken a vacation.

The global temperature has remained the same from 2001 through 2007, a period of seven years without increasing global temperatures.

In addition, British weather experts are predicting that global temperatures in 2008 will go down.

With global temperatures remaining constant or possibly declining, will it affect the theory that green house gasses are causing global warming?

There is little dispute that the earth has warmed about 1.3 degrees F over the past century, but there is considerable disagreement that green house gasses are causing warming.

As widely reported in the media, CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing every year, including from 2001 through 2007. If CO2 is the underlying cause of global warming, why haven’t global temperatures also increased while the levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased?

This should open the door for looking at alternative causes for global warming. The level of sunspots over the next few years should be of interest as there is speculation that the sun is the real cause of global warming.

A Russian Scientist, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, predicts that global cooling rivaling the Little Ice Age of the 1600’s will reach its coldest between 2055 and 2060.

The most important immediate issue is whether CO2 is actually causing global warming. If not, there is an immense danger of overreacting and imposing severe restrictions on CO2 emissions that could cause serious economic disruptions.

February 3, 2008

TSAugust

The only way the United States can achieve an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 is using nuclear power on a massive scale.

Currently, generating electricity results in 39% of all U.S. emissions of CO2.

By building 300 nuclear power plants it would be possible to dismantle all coal fired generating plants and thereby cut CO2 emissions by 80% when generating electricity.

Gasoline currently accounts for 20% of all U.S. CO2 emissions.

If 80% of all cars on the road by 2050 were Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s) they would require an additional 50 to 100 nuclear power plants to preclude using coal fired power generation for the electricity needed to recharge batteries. This assumes that the remaining 20% continue to use gasoline while the PHEV’s all run on ethanol when their batteries are not in use.

For documentation explaining why nuclear is the only technology that can cut U.S. CO2 emissions by any significant amount, see Carbon Folly.

January 20, 2008

TSAugust

Note: Carbon Folly ISBN 978-0-9815119-0-0 is scheduled for publication in April 2008

There can be little doubt that the next two years will be crucial for Americans.

“The UN will now prepare for a summit in Copenhagen in 2009, where it hopes the world will sign up to a global system [on] emissions,” said the London Sunday times.

There will be a bitter worldwide debate about mandating cuts in green house gasses (GHG), principally CO2.

The Bali Action Plan calls for deep cuts in GHG. The United States agreed to the

document after ensuring there was no mention of any target. Targets of any kind would have preordained targets in any future agreement. Japan, Canada and Australia strongly supported the United States in this position.

China and India have both said they will not accept targets in any future agreement.

The UN has said the world must cut CO2 emissions by 50 to 60% by 2050 and has repeatedly said the United States should cut its emissions by 80%.

The European Union was insisting the Bali Action Plan include a target of between 20 and 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020. The U.S. refused to agree to this proposal and was castigated by nearly everyone at the Bali conference including former Vice President Al Gore.

One line of reasoning has it that, if the United States adopts CO2 legislation, the amount of reduction required by the legislation would become the de facto target of any future UN agreement. If this line of reasoning is correct, the legislation adopted by Congress will become critical and should require a vigorous debate in the U.S.

At present, environmentalists are counting on Americans leaving the issue up to Congress. Reuters reported, “The debate is largely over for the American public, according to Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. Americans view climate change as the world's top environmental problem, although few followed the Bali debate.”

If Americans become involved, Congress will be less likely to enact legislation that would force substantial reductions in CO2 emissions.

The white paper Carbon Folly explains why it is virtually impossible to significantly cut CO2 emissions unless a massive nuclear building program was undertaken.

January 6, 2008

TSAugust 

Santa Claus is finding it more difficult to make his rounds this year.

The European Commissioner for the environment has said that Santa has not complied with GHG emission targets and that Santa also refuses to participate in the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism.

The trouble apparently started when the Commission was examining CO2 emissions from airplanes and noticed that flatulent emissions from reindeer are several times more damaging than CO2.

Reportedly, the Commission immediately notified Santa that he would have to take actions to either prevent the flatulent emissions or buy offsets using the Clean Development Mechanism. Methane, they said, had 25 times more heat trapping qualities than CO2.

Since Santa had nine reindeer it would be impossible to cut back on the number of reindeer to meet any required reduction.

Santa tried to reach an agreement with certain South American countries to not cut down trees for use as Christmas trees and, in that way create, credits under the Clean Development Mechanism.

Unfortunately the European Watchdog group that rules on whether credits are legitimate couldn’t schedule a hearing until mid next year.

Rumor has it that Santa will attempt to attach devices to the reindeer that will capture the methane gas and then burn it in an exhaust attached to the rear of the sleigh. This converts the methane into CO2 and could possibly meet the requirements of the EU.

The Elves are working furiously to arrive at ways to eliminate the methane, possibly through changes to the reindeer’s diet.

Whether Santa will make his trip to Europe is still uncertain, but he will be able to visit children in the United States because the U.S. still does not have mandated cuts for green house gasses. Next year may be a problem if the Senate passes Cap & Trade legislation.

Rumor has it that Santa plans to put coal in the stockings of the EU commissioners.

December 23, 2007

TSAugust