![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About Us |
Contact Us |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global Warming and CO2 Articles |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICE
Transmission Line Losses
Capacity Factor
Demand Response
Threat to America’s Security,
Electricity Shortage by 2050 Climate Scientists Cooked the Books, December 5, 2009 IPCC Head Works for China Is Solar Power a Failure? Germany’s Renewable Experience CO2 Emissions from Coal CO2 Litigation CO2 Revisited WAXMAN MARKEY ARTICLES BETWEEN BARS CO2 Based Energy Policy
Indecipherable Language
Smoot Hawley déjà
vu Waxman-Markey Dictates Codes Net Metering Climate Change, Urinals & Deficit Spending Waxman Markey snippet, August 23, 2009
Great Lakes Water Levels High Income Earners, July 12, 2009 Letter to Congress from Leading Scientists, July 5, 2009 China’s Big Squeeze
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bogus CHP Efficiencies
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) takes steam from the
turbine driving a generator and uses it to heat buildings or for use in
manufacturing processes. CHP used to be called Co-Generation. Some organizations, especially environmental organizations, claim that CHP is much more efficient than coal fired power plants. They cite CHP efficiencies as high as 90%. They then compare this high efficiency with the
average thermal efficiency of this nation’s coal fired power plants
which is 32%. The pseudo-thermal CHP efficiency is bogus because
it combines the value of high energy density electricity with the low
value energy of steam: It combines apples with oranges. For example: An automobile’s engine using gasoline has
considerable horse power and also heats water in the engine’s cooling
system. The hot water is then used to heat the car during the winter.
While this takes advantage of the heat in the water, the water doesn’t
have the power to drive the automobile. Gasoline has high energy density
while hot water has a low energy density. It makes economic sense to use the exhaust steam,
that would otherwise pass through a condenser and be returned to the
boiler feed water system, to heat buildings. This assumes that the cost
of the insulated steam piping and condensate return piping isn’t greater
than the value of the heat provided by the steam. CHP systems lend themselves to situations where the
power plant is located in close proximity to the buildings being heated.
These conditions are more prevalent in Europe. Consolidated Edison in New York City uses steam to
heat buildings, and has been doing so for nearly one hundred years. If the steam is extracted before it passes through
the last few stages of the steam turbine it can actually reduce the
thermal efficiency of the power plant. Extracting steam in this manner
prevents the steam from doing useful work. CHP has its place, but shouldn’t be seen as a
panacea for improving energy utilization. Note: A more detailed description of thermal
efficiencies is in the February 11, 2010 issue of Power Magazine. TSAugust February 21, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Snow Job
"Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming
fraud is without equal in modern science.
The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine
the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse
to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found
not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a
large number of purported facts.
…..
Man-made global warming theory isn’t backed up by science; it’s a hoax.
The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of
dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the
data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning
that something was seriously wrong.
The public and world leaders have
been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It’s
time to admit it’s all baloney and move on.”
Highlighting by TSAugust
TSAugust
February 14, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Clean Coal?
"Clean Coal” elicits multiple responses. Extreme environmentalists respond reflexively by
saying “clean coal” is an oxymoron. Some people point to using variations of the
Fischer-Tropsch method to make liquid fuels from coal or for using coal
in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle power plants. Another view is that new super critical and ultra super critical coal fired power plants are a clean use of coal. These modern coal fired power
plants are a vast improvement over those built in the past. The
following is a quote from Energy
for America.” “The efficiency of the fleet of existing coal plants
is 32%, while the efficiency of super critical and ultra super critical
pulverized coal power plants is 38.5% and 43.4% respectively. These represent a 20% and 35% improvement in
efficiency, respectively. In so far as ultra supercritical pulverized coal
plants are concerned, the 35% improvement could mean they would use 35%
less coal; and, interestingly, produce 35% less CO2. Emissions of NOx,
SO2, particulates (PM) and mercury are also substantially reduced. One
analysis shows that NOx is reduced by 86%, SO2 by 98%, particulate
matter by 99.8%, and mercury by 90%.” Using super critical and ultra super critical coal fired power plants can produce electricity inexpensively with a low level of pollutants such as NOx, SO2 PM’s and mercury. Note:
Energy for America will be
published in pdf format in March 2010. TSAugust February 7, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ICE
A proposal is circulating around Washington to ban the use of
refrigerators, and to replace refrigerators with ice-boxes.
An insider, speaking off the record, said, “Using ice-boxes is a
brilliant idea for creating jobs and cutting CO2 emissions.”
When pressed for details he said, “Ice will be made during off peak
hours when wind energy is most plentiful, and then the ice will be
delivered to homes twice each week.”
An analyst described the process in greater detail.
He pointed out that Ice boxes were used throughout America before GE
introduced the Monitor Top refrigerator in 1927. The iceman delivered
ice twice each week, and ice-boxes kept food cold and safe.
Banning the use of refrigerators will create jobs as manufacturers build
enough ice-boxes to replace all the refrigerators in America. Before
1927, ice picks were ubiquitous throughout America. A new supply will
have to be built, which will also create more new jobs. The steel
industry will also benefit from the need for thousands of new ice tongs.
Ice will be delivered to homes in specially designed, environmentally
friendly electric trucks, insulated to protect the ice from summer heat.
Building these trucks will create clean jobs.
Delivering ice to every home in America, twice each week, will require
thousands of deliverymen and women. These will be new, clean jobs for
the new economy.
A Senator on the Environment and Public Works Committee noted that
refrigerators are the largest user of electricity, after heating,
ventilation and cooling. Refrigerators consumed 156 billion kWh of
electricity in 2001.
Replacing refrigerators with ice-boxes will
create thousands of new, clean jobs for the 21st century
economy, while reducing CO2 emissions by using wind energy to produce
the ice and eliminating refrigerators that use “dirty” electricity.
Slogans in the next election are bound to include “I Like Ice” and “Make
Ice Not CO2”. Satire By Donn Dears for TSAugust
TSAugust
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transmission Line Losses Losses from HVAC transmission lines are from
resistance, capacitance and inductance. Losses from HVDC lines are only from resistance. In addition, it requires three lines (i.e., cables)
for AC transmission and only two for HVDC transmission. For like voltages, cable sizes and distances, HVDC has fewer transmission line losses than HVAC. The cost of converting AC to DC and then
reconverting it from DC to AC is very high. Because of the conversion costs there is a crossover
point, in terms of the length of the transmission line, before HVDC is
less costly than HVAC. A quick number might be 300 miles, but that will
vary with a number of factors such as the cost of the right-of-way. HVDC could be used over environmentally sensitive
areas or underwater, such as crossing Long Island Sound. It is also
being proposed for tying together the three U.S. grids. The three grids, one covering the Eastern U.S., one
covering the Western U.S. and one for Texas all operate at different
frequencies. The DC transmission lines would isolate the three grids
from each other, but allow electricity to pass between the grids. Notes: AC has three phases and one cable is required for each phase. DC only requires two cables. Each grid operates at differing frequencies at any
moment in time. Trying to connect grids while their frequencies are
different will create large forces that will seriously damage the
system. TSAugust January 24, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Capacity factor is an important measurement for
evaluating different power generation methods. Essentially, capacity factor measures the amount of
electricity actually generated over a year compared with the amount of
electricity that could theoretically be produced over a year based on
the nameplate rating. Capacity factors for various power generation
methods are shown here:
For example: It requires
2,000 wind turbines rated 1.5 MW1 to generate as much
electricity as a single 1,000 MW nuclear power plant. It’s important to be alert to
differing capacity factors when reading newspaper and magazine articles.
Most reporters do not understand capacity factor, and as a result make
erroneous claims. For
example on January 9th, 2010 an article in the NY Times said
that 2,000 MW of concentrating solar “is
equivalent to the output of a couple of nuclear power plants”.
Obviously 2,000 MW of concentrating solar will produce only about 25% of
the electricity than would a couple of nuclear power plants.
Capacity factor is not the only criteria for
evaluating different methods of producing electricity. Some power generation methods are intermittent and
thus unreliable and therefore require costly back-up with gas turbines. 1: Average size of wind turbines installed over the
past three years. TSAugust January 17, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Demand Response
Demand response is touted as an important feature of
the smart grid. It allows the utility, the consumer or a “third
party” to control the use of electricity in people’s homes (See below). So long as the homeowner has control of his or her
thermostat, or of the refrigerator and other important appliances, the
idea has some merit. This requires the utility to contact the homeowner prior to cutting the electricity. Obviously, when there is a brief overload the utility doesn’t have the time to make the contact. There are two ways the timing issue can be resolved.
It is the second approach that is advocated by
certain government officials and those who want to control the use of
electricity. Note the term “third party” in the above definition.
This unnamed group would have control over every person’s use of
electricity if this aspect of the smart grid is implemented. They could control how warm or cool people could
keep their homes. They could limit the total amount of electricity home
owners could use or control the type of appliances approved for use. California regulators in 2009 attempted to require
utilities to have the ability to control people’s thermostats. People
opposed this effort, so it has temporarily been set aside. Note:
The following was taken from a white paper
issued by the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. “A key feature of the Smart
Grid is Demand Response, where the consumer, utility or designated third
party can reduce the consumer’s energy consumption during critical usage
periods.”
TSAugust January 10, 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Threat to America’s Security
Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) will harm America. There has been an effort in Washington to insert
LCFS in the Senate’s cap & trade legislation. LCFS have been established in California as an
attempt to lower the amount of carbon contained in any source of oil,
which would reduce CO2 emissions from gasoline. What LCFS would really do is prevent the United
States from importing oil from Canada where Canadian oil is derived from
Tar Sands. The U.S. imports 2.5 million barrels per day of oil
from Canada. If LCFS is established it would require the U.S. to forego
this oil and instead require the U.S. to import more oil from Saudi
Arabia and other less secure areas of the world. LCFS would threaten America’s security by denying
the U.S. a source of poil from a country that is friendly toward the
U.S. Canada in fear of LCFS is turning to China for the
sale of its oil. The U.S. will, in effect, help China with its
sourcing of oil while leaving the U.S. more vulnerable. TSAugust January, 3 2010 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EV Push
There is a huge effort underway to promote EV’s. EV’s are all electric
vehicles that run on batteries where the vehicle will have a range of 80
to 100 miles before the battery charge is depleted and the vehicle
stops.
The push is on to spend billions of dollars on charging stations. These
chargers are not ordinary 120 volt charging stations, such as the outlet
found in a homeowners garage, but fast chargers that take only minutes
to recharge a battery.
These Level III stations are very expensive. There is no known business
model that will allow entrepreneurs or governments to charge enough for
recharging batteries to recover their investment. The entire effort will
have to be paid for by taxpayers.
There is no need for Level III charging.
The Plug-in electric vehicle that retains a gasoline engine on board the
vehicle can go 40 miles using the battery and then shift to gasoline
mode to continue driving when the battery is depleted.
There is no fear of running out of power, so long as there is a gasoline
station nearby.
This effort by environmentalists is terribly misplaced, because people
won’t distinguish between EV’s and PHEV’s and the entire concept of
electrification of the transportation system will be given a black eye
at a moment in time critical to its development.
TSAugust
December 26, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Electricity Shortage by 2050
Cap & trade legislation will result in a 24%
shortfall in electricity by 2050 which, on a per capita basis is nearly
twice as great. This analysis was sent to every member of Congress as a memorandum. It was printed in letter format, front and back, on poster stock so that it could be displayed on bulletin boards and easily filed for quick reference. The memorandum was prepared by Donn Dears, an energy
expert and retired GE Company executive. Key factors demonstrated in the memorandum are:
TSAugust December 13, 2009 Note: Single copies of the memorandum are available for
individuals. Send a request for a single copy to
ddears@tsaugust.org. Include the return USPS mail address in the
request. Please recognize that there is a limited supply of these memoranda and that the total cost to the author is nearly $2 to mail single copies to individuals. Tax deductable contributions can be made to
TSAugust. Checks should be made out to TSAugust. They should be mailed to: TSAugust
1856 Old Reston Avenue, Suite 205 Note: Contributions are not accepted from corporations. TSAugust relies on individual contributions, and contributions of any size are gratefully received. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Climate Scientists Cooked the Books
If the CEO of a major corporation was found to have emailed
his associates to manipulate data, hide data and refuse Freedom of
Information Requests (FOI) he would be called before Congress and
summarily dismissed by his board of directors.
Congress and the public would demand an investigation by an
independent auditor, and not accept an internal review by the
corporation.
T
Now the UN is saying they will investigate. But this situation demands
an independent audit; otherwise everyone will know the internal
investigation was a cover-up. While many in the media have accepted at face value the information provided by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which based much of its report on CRU data that is now suspect, another group of scientists have produced a report “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” that rebuts, item by item, the IPCC report. The entire contents of Climate Change Reconsidered are available online at www.nipccreport.org .
Here is information on some of the key players in
Climate Gate. (Extracted from a December 4, 2009 article by Times
Examiner
Columnist, Barbara Hollingsworth.)
Geoff Jenkins,
chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining
climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed
fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the
United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted
temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames
River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than
1995.
Phil Jones,
director of the CRU, controlled two key databases that are the primary
sources underlying claims by the United Nations and others of a global
scientific “consensus” that catastrophic consequences will result from
man-made global warming unless trillions of dollars are spent now to
prevent it.
Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to
“hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic
journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.”
James Hansen,
head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were
also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible
man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the
same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were
lowered and recent ones “adjusted” to convey the false impression that
the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block
McIntyre’s IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that
1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history.
TSAugust December 5, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IPCC Head Works for China The UN's IPCC's Chairman Pachauri is now an advisor to the Chinese government. As head of the IPCC, he has been leading the UN’s effort to get a new treaty, i.e., Kyoto II, established in Copenhagen this December. Where do his allegiances lie? Certainly not to the United States if he is working for the Chinese government. He has said, “China and India should ‘shame’ developed economies into ‘wealth transfer’”. What he wants is for the United States to transfer U.S. citizens’ tax dollars to India and China. This is a blatant effort to work against the interests of the United States while also heading the IPCC. It’s akin to the President of the United States accepting a job offer from China. Might not that be considered a conflict of interest? Why doesn’t the government of the United States demand Pachauri’s resignation as head of the UN’s IPCC? Certainly, this demonstrates that the IPCC is a political rather than a scientific body. TSAugust November 29, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is Solar Power a Failure?
In
1978, the Wall Street Journal carried this headline: “Solar Power Seen
Meeting 20 percent of Needs by 2000; Carter May Seek Outlay Boost.”
In November 2006, the Wall Street Journal said “Renewable fuels may
provide 25% of U.S. energy by 2025.”
Billions of dollars have been poured into the solar industry with little
effect after 30 years.
Today, solar accounts for less than 1% of America’s electricity.
Solar was invented in 1839 by French physicist Alexandre Edmond
Becquerel. After 170 years of scientific exploration and development,
solar remains the most costly source of electricity. In Germany the cost
of PV solar is estimated at 59 cents per kWh while some in the U.S.
estimate it at between 14 to 28 cents per kWh.
PV solar is the most expensive form of solar generated electricity, but
concentrating solar is also far more expensive than electricity
generated from coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, or geothermal.
This is not surprising because PV solar has a capacity factor of only
16%. This compares with 22% for concentrating solar, 30% for wind and
92% for nuclear.
Germany’s experience with solar has been very negative while the U.S.
experience has been mediocre, at best.
Sources: Speech by
Congressman Tom McClitock October 22, 2009
Book, The
Solar Fraud, by Hayden.
TSAugust
November 22, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Germany’s Renewable Experience The real cost and the
absolute failure of Germany’s renewable energy policy has been
demonstrated in a report by the
Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), an
independent German economic policy think tank founded in 1926.
The German law passed in 2000 requires utilities to accept delivery of
power from independent producers until 2020 at costs that far exceed the
utilities’ cost of generating electricity.
Utilities must pay 59 cents per kWh for solar generated electricity and
up to three times the cost of conventionally generated electricity for
electricity from wind power.
With these high feed in tariffs solar only produced 0.6% of Germany’s
electricity in 2008 and wind only produced 6.3%.
The combined cost of these subsidies between 2000 and 2010 is estimated
to be $101.3 billion.
Subsidization costs for PV solar are equivalent to $240,000 per employee
for estimated solar jobs. The report states that “whatever jobs are
created from these subsidies would vanish as soon as the subsidies are
discontinued.”
The report concludes, “government policy has failed to harness the
market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective
introduction of renewable energies into Germany’s energy portfolio. To
the contrary, Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable
technologies through feed-in tariffs imposes high costs without any of
the alleged positive impacts on emissions reductions, employment, energy
security, or technological innovation.”
The full report is available in English from the RWI web site.
TSAugust
November 8, and 15, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO2 Emissions from Coal
Coal fired electricity produces 50% of America’s electricity and 82% of
the CO2 emissions that come from generating electricity.
Eliminating the use of coal without a viable substitute for coal or a
means for capturing and sequestering CO2, will deprive America of the
electricity it needs to run its factories and light its homes.
Successfully capturing CO2 from coal fired power plants has yet to be
proven on a large scale. If it ever works on a large scale it will
require building one new power plant for every three that are
retrofitted with carbon capture equipment.
The reason it will be necessary to build a new power plant for every
three plants retrofitted with carbon capture equipment is that the
carbon capture equipment consumes electricity and energy produced by the
power plant. This parasitic load reduces by 30 to 40% the amount of
electricity the plant can send to the grid.
Since coal provides 50% of America’s electricity it will be necessary to
build enough new generating capacity to equal17% of our current
production of electricity. This would equate to around 88 additional new
nuclear power plants or another 175,000 wind turbines rated 1.5 MW.
The United States is in the process of obtaining licenses for around 20
new nuclear plants, which is far short of the 88 needed for the sole
purpose of supplying the electricity lost from carbon capture. The
United States, on average between 2007 through 2009, built around 3,900
new wind turbines each year, far short of the 175,000 needed to replace
the electricity lost from carbon capture.
Clearly, carbon capture is not a viable alternative for eliminating CO2
from coal fired power plants.
TSAugust
November 1, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO2 Litigation
Litigation of CO2 could seriously damage the United States as well as
the world economy.
This became apparent at the UN Bangkok meeting this month.
Litigation could follow three tracks.
Litigation against corporations is already proceeding in The United
States. The suit by Connecticut v. American Electric Power has received
the most media attention.
The insurance company Swiss Re has compared climate change litigation to
asbestos claim suits that were initially dismissed but eventually won
huge financial settlements in court.
The EPA has issued an endangerment finding and has said it will impose
mandates on emitters of CO2 in 2010. Organizations have already
indicated they will sue to strike down the endangerment finding and the
proposed mandates. At the UNFCCC October meeting in Bangkok,
representatives from developing countries were pointing the finger at
the United States and other developed countries. Antonio Oposa, a Philippine lawyer, said “it was
‘only a matter of time’ until properly constituted international
tribunals began hearing class actions seeking reparation from
‘over-consuming countries’ for damage caused by climate change in
developing nations. Recent history has shown that organizations pursue
legal remedies when they don’t get what they want. The threat of legal action is already causing
corporations to think twice about making sound economic investments. The
situation could become far worse over the next decade. It could affect
job growth and America’s standard of living. Source of quotation: CCNET, The Irish Times October
8, 2009 TSAugust October 25, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO2 Revisited
There are several good reasons to say that CO2 emissions are not the
cause of global warming.
An excellent video by a respected weatherman is well worth watching.
(There is an advertisement preceding the video that we could not
bypass.)
Click on this link for the video by Weatherman Joe Bastardi.
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=37129475001
In addition to the facts presented by Bastardi, here are some additional
facts.
Empirical Evidence Suggests Cyclical Climate History, not Induced by
CO2.
As Bastardi said, the global warming finger print over the equator is
missing. Satellite temperature readings show no increase in temperature
where there should be according to the IPCC computer models.
TSAugust
October 18, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO2 Based Energy Policy
Will the United States be the leading world economy
in 2050? Or will the U.S. sink into the second tier behind China, India,
Brazil and possibly Russia? America’s future will depend on its energy policy. If the U.S. continues to base its energy policy on
the threat of CO2 induced Global Warming, it will almost assuredly
become a second rate economic power. The Waxman – Markey cap & trade bill and the more
recent Senate version will result in less energy, fewer jobs and
hardships for Americans. Cap & trade achieves one thing, it cuts the use of
energy. Worse it cuts the use of viable energy sources when
there are no proven substitutes. Extreme environmentalists tout wind, solar,
cellulosic ethanol, algae, carbon capture and sequestration, etc. while
members of Congress, who have little scientific or engineering training,
slavishly follow their lead. The brutal fact is that these so called alternatives
cannot replace coal, natural gas or the use of gasoline.
Many environmental organizations say the U.S. must
use less energy, not more. Conservation cannot cut emissions by the 83%
required by cap & trade legislation. Improving efficiency and productivity is good for
America, but with cap & trade the goal is to cut the use of energy. TSAugust October 10, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Indecipherable Language
Waxman-Markey HR 2454 was written in such haste by inexperienced staff
members that many sections are incomprehensible. As written, HR 2454
will result in litigation for years to come. The threat of litigation
will retard economic development. An example is Section 610 (a) (13) (B) iii concerning whether electric generation equipment can be installed on an existing dam.
The relevant text reads:
“the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the
water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have
occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained, …”
A strict reading of this sentence would say that electricity could never
be produced at such an installation. When water flow increases, such as
when it rains, water levels will rise – but if the hydro generators are
operated the water levels can’t rise as much as they otherwise would.
Even if the difference can’t be measured, which is possible on a large
river, the theoretical result is obvious … water levels would have risen
by some additional fraction of an inch if the generators hadn’t been
run.
This is the type of situation that keeps lawyers employed.
It would be clearer to say that water levels would never go below a
minimum level, measured from a fixed reference point; perhaps from the
top of the dam.
In the same section there is language concerning fuel cells. The text
reads:
“greater efficiency with which the fuel cell transforms fuel into
electricity as compared with sources of electricity delivered through
the grid, …” The sources of electricity delivered through the grid could be hydro, nuclear, coal, wind or a combination of multiple sources. How will it be possible to establish whether the fuel cell is more efficient than electricity available from the grid? Will the assumption be that electricity from the
grid is from a mix of sources even though the mix varies between regions
and over time? Or if the intent is to
compare how efficiently fuel cells transform fuels compared with a
single source such as wind or hydro, fuel cells might never be approved.
Who knows?
Here are two badly drafted sentences from a single section of HR 2454.
How many more are there in a bill that is 1428 pages long, drafted in
haste by staff members who do not have the necessary background to know
what they are doing? TSAugust October 4, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Smoot Hawley déjà
vu Smoot Hawley is credited with having worsened, if
not caused, the great depression. Now Waxman-Markey HR2454 is bent on repeating this
colossal error. It does it in an underhanded way by requiring
importers to have international reserve allowances. The imports of
certain countries are excluded, but these are small undeveloped
countries that play a very small role in international trade. China, India, Brazil and other major exporters will
have to have these reserve allowances. This approach is being used to circumvent the
requirements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO’s policies and agreements, to which the U.S.
subscribes, are intended to promote free trade and eliminate the type of
beggar thy neighbor policies that worsened the great depression. Sub Part 2, Sections 766 and
767 describe this program. In it the President is required to report to
Congress on the effectiveness of “mitigating
carbon leakage in industrial sectors.”
“Carbon leakage” is the euphemism for industries moving offshore as the
result of cap & trade regulations.
HR2454 threatens China and India by requiring the Administrator to
report to Congress if these countries have not enacted targets as strong
as those contained in HR2454. Here is the exact language:
“The Administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and the
United States Trade Representative, shall annually prepare and certify a
report to the Congress regarding whether China and India have adopted
greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as strict as those standards
required under this Act. If the Administrator determines that China and
India have not adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as
stringent as those set forth in this Act, the Administrator shall notify
each Member of Congress of his determination, and shall release his
determination to the media.”
TSAugust
September 20, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Waxman-Markey Dictates Codes
It has long been the practice in the United States to allow local and
state governments to establish building codes that best suit the needs
of their local communities.
Waxman-Markey will take this prerogative away from local and state
governments and place control in the hands of the federal bureaucracy.
This is another example of how Waxman-Markey is grabbing control from
local and state governments.
The Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, requires that
new and substantially renovated
commercial and residential buildings achieve a total reduction in energy
use of 70% by 2030. (Substantially renovated can mean anything the
federal government dictates.)
State
governments must certify to the federal government that at least 80%
of its urban population is covered by the national code. If states do
not so certify, Waxman-Markey gives the federal government the right to
impose the national standards without local agreement.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has already developed a
methodology for measuring energy use reductions, incorporating regional
climate and other factors. PNNL has developed separate computer models
for commercial buildings, schools, hospitals and residential buildings
so that the Department of Energy can determine whether the nation is
meeting the reductions mandated by Waxman-Markey.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has
developed a building energy optimization tool called BEopt. This tool is
designed to focus on “zero net energy” use.
Zero net energy use is another
major target of the Waxman-Markey bill.
Zero net energy use envisions that local buildings will generate their
own power etc. using net metering and conservation to achieve zero net
energy use.
This will strong arm building owners and developers to add such items as
renewable energy (i.e., primarily PV Solar) and combined heat and power.
This imposes high cost inefficiencies on building owners and users,
costs that will have to be borne by the public in the form of higher
prices.
One example of the BEopt model shows a $65 thousand investment in PV
solar out of $76 thousand spent to achieve zero net energy use. PV solar
is two to three times as expensive as electricity bought from the grid.
High cost inefficient energy systems may save energy used by a
centralized power plant, but increases costs for the overall economy.
For example doctors who lease space using high cost energy systems will
have to charge more for their services or further reduce their ability
to provide services to everyone. Retail stores that have to use
inefficient systems will have to charge higher prices. Everyone is
affected negatively by the national code being imposed by Waxman-Markey.
TSAugust September 13, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Net Metering
Net metering requires an electric utility to pay
twice as much, or more, for electricity than if it generated the
electricity at its power plant. When only a very small number of customers take
advantage of net metering the extra cost to the utility is extremely
small and the effect on other customers is negligible.
If a large number of customers used net metering, the extra cost to the utility would
have to be covered by other customers. In other words, people are
subsidizing their neighbors cost of electricity when the neighbor uses
net metering. The purported purpose of net metering is to
encourage people to install distributed generation capabilities,
primarily PV solar. The cost of a PV solar rooftop installation is
extremely high, especially when measured by cost per kWh. The cost per
kWh of electricity from a central natural gas, coal or nuclear power
station is much lower. Net metering works by allowing the electric meter
installed on a home to run backwards. When the home owner uses
electricity from the grid, the meter advances and registers a sale for
the utility. When the home owner generates more electricity than
he can use, the meter runs backwards as the electricity flows to the
grid. The meter deducts the amount of electricity flowing to the grid
thereby reducing the home owner’s bill. The homeowner is, in effect,
selling electricity to the utility at the same price he would pay the
utility when buying electricity from the utility. Advocates of net metering claim that net metering encourages the use of renewables and reduces capital expenditures by the utility. Net metering, however, is different from
conservation because it requires a large capital investment by the home
owner. The homeowner’s investment is less efficient, as shown above,
than an investment made by the utility. In effect, inefficient use of capital is being
encouraged by net metering. Section 152 of the Waxman-Markey bill specifically
requires federal buildings to use net metering. This will reduce the cost of electricity to the
government, but will increase the utility’s costs that will eventually
have to be borne by the ordinary rate payer. Net metering by the federal
government becomes a hidden tax on consumers. TSAugust September 6, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Climate Change, Urinals & Deficit Spending The link between climate change and toilets can be
found in the Waxman-Markey cap & trade bill, HR 2454.
This bill establishes rules for a plethora of products
including light bulbs, search lights, light fixtures, water dispensers,
portable electric spas, warm air furnaces, faucets, toilets, clothes
washers, shower heads and urinals, among others. It also goes into great detail as to how these items
are to be tested. It then establishes how the government is to pay
dealers and manufacturers for selling best-in-class products and for
retiring old products. Not satisfied with establishing Best-in-Class
products, the bill establishes Superefficient-Best-in-Class products. Perhaps the next step will be to establish
SuperDuper-Superefficient-Best in Class products.
Here is the language for payments to manufacturers
for the years indicated.
“For years 2011 through 2013, the Secretary shall make bonus payments to
manufacturers of the products designated in paragraph (4)(A) for each
product produced in the following amounts:
(i)
$75 for each dishwasher.
(ii) $250 for each clothes washer.
(iii) $200 for each refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer
(vi) $300 for each water heater”
This will result in huge payments to manufacturers, in the order of
billions of dollars, when the government is already broke.
The bill States:
“There are authorized to be appropriated $600,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to the Secretary of Energy for purposes
of this section, and such sums as may be necessary for subsequent fiscal
years.”
It goes on to provide for payment of bounties:
“(2) BOUNTIES.—Bounties shall be payable—
(A) to a retailer upon documentation that the sale of a Best-in-Class
Product was accompanied by the replacement, retirement, and recycling
of—“
HR 2454 is over 1500 pages long, so the subject addressed here is only a
small snippet of what is contained in the bill.
TSAugust
August 30, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Waxman Markey snippet Here is a tiny snippet from the 1428 page HR2454.
‘‘(4) CUSTOMER
FACILITY SAVINGS.— The term ‘customer facility savings’ means a
reduction in end use electricity consumption (including recycled energy
savings) at a facility of an end-use consumer of electricity served by a
retail electric supplier, as compared to— ‘‘(A) in the case of a new facility, consumption at
a reference facility of average efficiency; ‘‘(B) in the case of an existing facility,
consumption at such facility during a base period, except as provided in
subparagraphs (C) and (D); ‘‘(C) in the case of new equipment that replaces
existing equipment with remaining useful life, the projected consumption
of the existing equipment for the remaining useful life of such
equipment, and thereafter, consumption of new equipment of average
efficiency of the same equipment type; and ‘‘(D) in
the case of new equipment that replaces existing equipment at the end of
the useful life of the existing equipment, consumption
by new equipment of average efficiency of the same equipment type.” Few staffers and even fewer Congressmen or women
could possibly know what this means. Imagine how many bureaucrats and customer reports
will be required to interpret and administer this lonely paragraph. Then think about how many bureaucrats it will take to administer and interpret the remaining 1428 pages of HR2454
TSAugust August 23, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fear of CCS I
While there are many uncertainties as to whether it is technically
possible to capture CO2 and then transport it and permanently sequester
it in geologic formations, few thought that the public would fear
sequestration.
The headline in the Financial Times captures the issue: “Public wary of
carbon capture”.
Apparently many Dutch citizens need to be convinced that CCS is safe.
Shell Oil Company had planned to transport CO2 from one of its
refineries and sequester it in a spent Netherlands natural gas field
when there suddenly arose fierce opposition … opposition based on fear.
Public fear of CCS is forcing Shell to hold special “educational”
meetings with the townspeople living above the site where CO2 is to be
sequestered. There is no certainty that public fear won’t become public
outrage.
A similar event has occurred in northern Germany. The Vattenfall
Schwarze Pumpe project in Spremberg, was to be a demonstration site for
CCS. Launched last September with great fanfare, it was assumed the
project would help demonstrate the viability of CCS.
Instead it has demonstrated that people are afraid of CCS. The project was to begin pumping CO2 into a natural
gas field last March. Instead, Vattenfall hasn’t been able to obtain a
permit because people in the area are fearful of CCS. Staffan Gortz, Vattenfall’s representative, said it
would be next year before a permit would be issued: "People are very,
very skeptical."
There is now the specter that public opinion could doom CCS.
Sources: Financial Times 7/30/09
CCNET
August 16, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great Lakes Water Levels
Environmentalists consistently claim that global
warming is causing water levels in the Great Lakes to fall. The National
Geographic magazine has made this claim at least twice. The simplest way to counter these claims is to go to the records maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at:
NOAA @
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html The
water level of each of the Currently Erie and Ontario
Lakes are
at or above their long term average levels.
St Clair is within inches of its long term average. Only Lakes Superior
and Michigan-Huron are below their long term average levels. Lake
Superior reached a low level in 2007 but has risen substantially since
then, and never reached its long term lowest average level for any year.
A look at the record shows
that there have been wide swings in Each time the water levels
fell, they rose again to above average levels. What we are seeing in Historically here is when the lakes reached their
lowest levels Lakes Michigan-Huron: 1964 Lake St. Clair: 1936 Lake Erie: 1936 Lake Ontario: 1934 Note: The above dates were read from graphs and
could be off by a year. TSAugust July 26, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
High Income Earners
A recent Princeton University study recommends that the cost of CO2
emissions should be borne by high income earners around the world.
Their theory is based on the assumption that high income earners have
larger carbon foot prints than the lower classes.
Their proposal would set national targets for reducing CO2 emissions
based on the number of high income earners in each country.
Obviously, their proposal would place the heaviest burden on the United
States.
It
should not be a surprise that the United States is the richest country
in the world, with its citizens having worked hard to achieve
technological breakthroughs that have benefitted all of mankind.
But, according to the Princeton researchers, Americans should now bear
the brunt of cutting CO2 emissions.
Apparently they believe Americans have been too successful. "It's fairer than some other
ideas out there in the sense that we
attribute responsibility for
emission reductions based only on the number of high-emitting people
in the country -- if the country has large number of people who are
high-emitters then it has more work to do," said Shoibal Chakravarty, a
research scholar at Princeton Environmental Institute.
Their proposal essentially parrots the stand taken by China that the
rich countries should bear the burden of cutting CO2 emissions. Su Wei, Chinese delegation chief to the UN climate
change talks in Bonn; said “during the past two centuries, developed
countries have made unbridled emissions of greenhouse gas, a major cause
of global climate change, and
developing countries are major victims of climate change.”
TSAugust
July 12, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Letter to Congress from Leading
Scientists
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT
GLOBAL WARMING You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of
the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is
far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us
predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by
the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem
to arrive on time.
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years,
without help.
The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models,
and has come as an embarrassment to them.
We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate
is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of
Sciences
William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow
APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS,
AAAS, AGU
Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation
(retired)
Fellow APS
Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of
APS
Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and
AMS Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Published as a public service by TSAugust
July 5, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PDO & Alaska The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has been shown
to have a strong correlation with Alaskan temperatures.
Professor Keen learned that there was a strong correlation between the PDO and temperatures in Alaska. He further showed that there was a correlation between the sun and temperatures in Alaska. The preceding chart shows PDO regimes in blue plotted against temperatures. The periods between 1923 to 1946 and 1977 to the present, were periods of higher Alaskan temperatures when there was a strong Aleutian low.. Similar charts, dating back to 1600 using tree ring data, showed the same correlation. The PDO is an area of Low Pressure in the northern Pacific Ocean. When the Aleutian Low is strong, temperatures in Alaska are high; when weak, temperatures in Alaska are lower. This is another example of scientific study that disproves the theory that CO2 emissions are causing climate change. TSAugust June 21, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
China’s Big Squeeze China, as leader of the G-77 group of developing
countries, is demanding that the United States cut its CO2 emissions 40%
by 2020 and pay developing countries 1 – 2% of its GDP so that
developing countries can invest in technologies that reduce CO2
emissions. Simultaneously, China refuses to agree to targets
for itself to reduce CO2 emissions. China is using global warming and CO2 emissions to
foster its growth and promote its political ambitions.
At this month’s UN meeting in Bonn, Mexico proposed
that developed nations should pay developing countries an amount based
on the size of the developed countries (e.g., the United States)
economy. The US administration’s representative to the Bonn
talks, Todd Stern, agreed that the proposal was “highly constructive”. Meanwhile representatives of the United States are
negotiating with China to achieve a “breakthrough” where China will
agree to targets for its CO2 emissions so that the United States can
subject itself to the treaty that emerges from Copenhagen requiring the
United States to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. The administration is citing the Waxman-Markey Bill,
requiring the United States to cut its CO2 emissions 83% (from 2005
levels) as proof of its goodwill towards China. The G-77 is a group of developing countries,
including India, that claim developed countries owe reparations to them,
because developed countries “polluted the atmosphere with CO2” while
industrializing. China has become the titular leader of the G-77 and is
pushing their case for reparations. With respect to China, the United States will
cripple itself and lack the strength to interfere with any move China
might make in Southeast Asia, or elsewhere, while U.S. taxpayers pay
reparations to China and developing countries. TSAugust June 14, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The outcome of this December’s UN meeting in Copenhagen could depend on
the difference between these two words – Curb or Cut.
The UN is demanding that the U.S. and other developed countries cut
their CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
China, India and other developing countries have said they will not
agree to establishing targets for cutting their CO2 emissions – however,
recently, China and India have indicated they might accept curbs.
These comments emerged after the UN conference in
Bonn and the recent Climate1 talks in Washington D.C.
“Curbs” could be the breakthrough environmentalists have sought, which
could allow the U.S. Senate to ratify a new treaty. In the past, the
Senate has said it would not ratify a treaty that omits China’s
participation. But by China agreeing to curbs, environmental groups
could sway the Senate into ratifying the new Copenhagen treaty – also
referred to as Kyoto II.
But what is meant by curbs?
Cutting CO2 emissions 80%, means reducing them by 80% from 1990 levels.
Curbs on the other hand, merely indicate that China and India might
agree to curbing the rate at which their CO2 emissions are increasing.
Curbs to the growth of emissions do not mean absolute cuts in emissions.
An argument could be made that, if China, India and other developing
countries agree to curb their CO2 emissions, the United State should
agree to cut its CO2 emissions. 1:
Major Economies Forum on Energy
Security and Climate Change, involving 17 of the world’s largest
emitters of CO2.
May 10, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Short Course in Climate Science
Dr. Ian Plimer, Geology Professor at the University of Adelaide,
recently spoke on climate change at the Sydney Mining Club in Australia.
The video of his talk was put on You Tube as a five part series.
The five part You Tube links are shown below.
These videos should be of interest to anyone wanting to know more about
the science of climate change. Each video takes about eight minutes. Human Induced Climate Change - Ian Plimer (part 1 of
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk&feature=related (part 2 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6Hx8&NR=1
(part 3 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA&feature=related
(part 4 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZAJM
(part 5 of 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi3I0&feature=related
TSAugust
April 26, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Giscard d'Estaing and CO2 President Giscard d'Estaing, in writing a preface
for Christian Gerondeau’s new book “CO2: un mythe planétaire” joins the
rank of skeptics. The former French president writes; “he shows, like other scientists, no definite
relationship has been established between the atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide and possible changes in the climate. The latter are
due to far more complex evolutions which doubtless find their origin
well beyond the atmosphere.”
Equally interesting is that the outspoken skeptical French scientist
Claude Allegre, may be appointed as the next French Environment Minister
by President Sarkosy. Dr. Benny Peiser, an anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, said:
“The very fact that he [Claude Allgre] is a serious contender for the
post of environment minister in itself is a clear signal that climate
politics in Europe are changing rapidly. It also mirrors similar changes
in Poland, Italy and Germany where political opposition to
self-destructive climate policies is rising sharply,”
If Europe is becoming more skeptical, perhaps President Obama will
follow suit. Source: CCNET
TSAugust
April 19, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Administration's Strategy for Increasing Foreign Oil Imports The administration’s proposed budget would render
U.S. oil and gas production uneconomic at current prices and thereby
encourage less oil and gas production in the United States; this in turn
would result in the United States having to import more oil. The proposed budget, for example, repeals the law
that allows producers to expense intangible drilling costs. These costs are for such items as drilling mud, fuel
and chemicals used in drilling new wells. These costs can account for
80% of the cost of drilling a well. This change will discourage drilling
in the United States. The proposed budget will also
repeal the manufacturers' tax deduction for oil and gas companies. This
will discourage such things as refinery capacity expansions.
The proposed budget will also repeal the percentage depletion allowance,
which is important to small independent producers.
These and other proposed changes in the budget will hurt America’s
ability to produce oil and gas in the United States.
In effect, the proposed budget will encourage the oil industry to go to
foreign countries.
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, said
they were not economic development but "a sure-fire way to send
America's businesses either to bankruptcy or overseas."
The administration favors these changes as bringing fairness to the
industry so the tax payer gets the benefit of the new tax revenues
resulting from the proposed changes.
Of course, if the oil industry goes overseas for its new oil development
the tax payer will get nothing; plus the taxpayer will have to pay for
more foreign oil.
The proposed changes go against the idea of achieving independence from
foreign oil. Independence from foreign oil is something TSAugust has
been encouraging for several years.
TSAugust
April 12, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hydrokinetics
Hydrokinetics uses the flow of water to generate
electricity. This has also been called marine, river and tidal to
describe generating electricity using the flow of water. In every case, the process is still experimental. A few wave motion and tidal units have been installed, mostly in Europe.
Two units
rated 100 kW, are being installed on the Mississippi River at
Hastings, Minnesota. These units are about 12 feet in diameter. At this point, no one knows how much
electricity these 100 kW units will actually produce under varying water
flows. Similar to wind turbines, output will vary with the speed of the
water as well as other conditions such as turbulence.
Other factors in deciding the extent that units can be installed in
rivers include how they might interfere with river barge traffic, how
they will affect fish and other river life, and whether they will have
other impacts on the environment.
In spite of these unknowns, some environmental groups are declaring that
these units can generate large amounts of renewable electricity without
CO2 emissions.
Each 12 foot diameter unit produces a very small
amount of electricity, even if it produced it at the nameplate rating.
More likely the capacity factor will probably be around 30%, similar to
wind turbines. If so, it will take nearly one hundred thousand
units installed in America’s rivers to produce the same amount of
electricity as a single 1,000 MW nuclear power plant. Similar to wind turbines, they will need to be
connected to the grid using local transmission lines. Maintenance
problems are bound to be greater with units installed underwater. There
is also the issue of corrosion and the issue of mud, tree branches and
other debris blocking the flow of water. The trial installation at Hastings, Minnesota may
help answer some of these questions.
TSAugust April 5, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another
UN Meeting on Kyoto II From March 29 to April 8, there will be a meeting in
Bonn, Germany to plan for the Copenhagen meeting this coming December. The Bonn meeting followed last month’s meeting in
Poland, which followed nearly monthly meetings going back to the Bali
meeting in 2008. The purpose of these meetings?
To develop a new treaty, commonly referred to as Kyoto II, which will
require the United Sates to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. Some have asked whether the United States should
send billions of dollars to developing countries when the administration
has already tripled America’s future debt. In addition, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has
suggested that import duties be levied against products coming from
countries that do not have targets for cutting their CO2 emissions. The
Chinese immediately pointed out that tariffs, such as Mr Chu proposed,
would violate the WTO agreements. It was this type of protectionism in
the Smoot Hartley act that thrust the world into a sustained great
depression in the 1930’s. The Director of Fox News obtained a copy of a 16
page memo to be distributed at next week’s Bonn meeting. The memo called for energy policy reform that could
affect ‘large scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail
and airports”. It noted that cap and trade “may induce some industrial
relocation” to” less regulated countries”. In other words More Americans would lose their jobs. The memo also referred to new tariffs that it
referred to as “border carbon adjustments.” The memo ignores hard projections on the cost of
Kyoto II, except for making vague comments such as a "climate change
levy on aviation" could have "negative impacts on exporters of goods
that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable
produce, as well as "tourism." There has been very little published in American
media about the Bonn meeting, or the previous meeting in Poland, even
though a new Kyoto treaty would have devastating consequences on every
American. President Obama has said America will take a
leadership role in developing Kyoto II, so the media should be closely
following these events. Now President Obama is launching a "Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate" to help facilitate a U.N. agreement on global warming. Leaders from 16 major economies have been invited to a "preparatory session" on April 27-28 in Washington to "help generate the political leadership necessary" to achieve Kyoto II in Copenhagen in December 2009. TSAugust
March 29, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Retreating
Glaciers
The rhetoric has been that global warming caused by CO2 has been the
reason glaciers have retreated. Many glaciers, however, started to retreat long
before there were substantial CO2 emissions Pictures document when these glaciers started to
retreat.
In
a similar vein, there have been claims that the glacier on Mount
Kilamanjaro declined because of global warming, yet temperatures at the
glacier have not been above freezing. It is now generally believed that the glacier
retreated because deforestation on the mountain slopes deprived the
glacier of the moisture it needed to remain as it was. TSAugust March 22, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Disgraceful Data
Surface temperature data, used by NASA for determining whether there has
been an unprecedented rise in temperatures, is disgracefully inaccurate.
A few years ago, Anthony Watts began to examine the network of 1,221
climate-monitoring stations around the United States. He began when he
looked at three stations near to where he lived and found serious
problems with how they were sited.
He then enlisted around 650 volunteers to
investigate
stations throughout the United States.
Altogether they have investigated 865 stations, or more than 70% of the
1,221 U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations.
The most serious problem they found was siting monitoring instruments
next to radiative heat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt. Other
problems were where the instruments were placed next to heat sources,
such as transformers, or in the path of air conditioning or automotive
exhausts.
All told, the network of 1,221 instruments is reporting higher
temperatures than are actually occurring and have instilled an
unmistakable upward bias in the temperature history of the United
States.
In addition, Watts has determined that there is a bias in adjustments
made by NOAA and NASA that further exacerbate the problem.
The data used by NASA and others to claim that there is global warming
is dramatically and disgracefully inaccurate.
Quoting from the source document:
How do we know global warming is
a problem if we can’t trust the U. S. temperature record?
Source:
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
By Anthony Watts.
www.surfacestations.org
Copies of the report may be obtained from the
Heartland Institute,
www.heartland.org
TSAugust
March 15, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cap & Trade Tax
Impact There will be a permanent tax increase on every
American household, rich or poor, as the result of the proposed Cap &
Trade legislation according to a recent study. The study says the tax increase will amount to
$1,100 now, and will rise to $2,000 by 2030. But this tax is hidden and won’t show up on the
taxpayer’s 1040. For this reason it is insidious.
This tax increase sounds small, but
actually
has a huge impact on America’s families.
It “becomes quite significant when one considers the average American
household spends about $2500 on food annually.”
Or think of it in terms of buying a new automobile.
“A new 2009 Honda Civic LX can be bought for around $189 a month. A
decrease in consumption by $1100 equals to almost six monthly payments
on this car every twelve months...”
This assumes of course you have a job.
The study also shows how Cap & Trade will result in a huge loss of jobs.
Summarizing results from other studies, job losses in 2015 will range
from 500,000 to 3,750,000.
Source:
The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households,
by
Bryan Buckley and Sergey Mityakov, Clemson University. Published by The
George C. Marshall Institute, 2009.
TSAugust March 8, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cap & Trade the New
Tax
While promising to cut the deficit in half the
president said; "So I
ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap
on carbon pollution…” A Cap and Trade system that auctions credits will result in a huge revenue windfall for the government. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the windfall will be $300 billion every year. The cost of these credits will be passed from
corporations to customers in the form of higher prices. These credits are a hidden tax on rich and poor
alike.
By
calling for Cap & Trade to be established in the budget there will be no
opportunity to filibuster or debate the Cap & Trade legislation. Cap & Trade will be
rammed down America’s throat. “By assuming the
revenue from cap and trade in the budget, the enabling legislation
becomes a revenue producer and is put in a “Reconciliation” bill.
Under the Senate’s arcane rules, Reconciliation has a 51 vote rule and
cannot be filibustered.” The credits purchased under Cap & Trade allow
companies to emit CO2, up to a predetermined amount. This amount gets
reduced periodically, possibly each year, so that CO2 emissions are
reduced. Reducing emissions without technologies that can
generate electricity or replace gasoline will result in a further loss
of jobs and lowers America’s standard of living. The book Carbon Folly establishes in detail why
these technologies do not exist, which
is contrary to the propaganda published in the media and by government
spokesmen. Building hundreds of nuclear power plants is, in
fact, the only way to cut CO2 emissions by the 80% demanded by the
president, yet America’s “greens” will not hear of this.
President Obama It
would appear as though the president is banking on the revenues from
carbon credits to bankroll his administration while cutting the deficit
in half. TSAugust March 1, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2009 Climate Change Conference The second International Conference on Climate
Change will be held in New York City March 8 – March 10. Key note speakers include:
The event is being sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute, a 24-year-old national nonpartisan think-tank based in
Chicago, said all of the event’s expenses will be covered by admission
fees and individual and foundation donors to Heartland. No corporate
dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or
accepted.
For more information on this conference, including a copy of the
program, click here.
TSAugust
February 8, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whitehouse Science Adviser
President Obama has made it clear he wants the
United States to cut its CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. With this in mind,
it’s important to know who is advising him on this issue. President Obama has nominated John Holdren to be the
Whitehouse Science Advisor.
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist,
has suggested that Holdren should be asked the following questions
during his confirmation hearings.
John P. Holdren
Questions posed by
Jeff Jacoby
[Click for link to his column] Boston Globe Columnist,
TSAugust
February 1, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Deciding America’s Future
These thousands of attendees represented the 190 countries that have
ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). The United States ratified the treaty in 1992. Many of these countries such, as Iran and Venezuela,
hate America. Most others want money from the United States. The non
government organizations (NGO’s) that attend these UN meetings oppose
the United States on nearly every issue and despise America’s refusal to
join the Kyoto treaty. The United States has one vote among the 190 voting
attendees, so is always out voted or coerced into going along with the
consensus, as it did in Bali, December 2007. These are the people who will try to bludgeon the
United States into joining the new treaty that is to supersede the Kyoto
treaty and force the United States into cutting its CO2 emissions.
President elect Obama has already said he will lead the United States in
adopting stringent controls over CO2 emissions. In his remarks to the
Governor’s conference in California, November 2008, he said; “We will establish strong annual targets that set us
on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce
them an additional 80% by 2050.” At Poznan the UNFCCC agreed to meet in April and May
2009 to draft the agreement that will be voted on at the December 2009
meeting in Copenhagen. If the Obama administration agrees to the new
treaty, America can only avoid the treaty if the Senate refuses to
ratify it. TSAugust January 11, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Observations Re Science
The following observations by Dr. Frank Tippler are
very relevant as we enter the New Year. They are repeated here courtesy
of www.urgentagenda.com. Highlighting is by TSAugust.
Quote from Dr. Tipler:
“A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:
(1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that "the debate is over,"
because this was exactly the claim originally made against the
Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus' opponents said the
idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by
Aristarchus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100
A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn't: the Earth IS the third
planet.
(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global
warming is not science at all, because
a scientific theory makes
non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that
the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our
own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this.
The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and
this has been refuted by experience.
NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period.
In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever
happens --- the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect
example of a pseudo-science like astrology.
(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease
of the Earth's average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot
number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were
predicted before they occurred. This is good science.
(4) I emphasized in point (2) that
the average person has to be able
to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer
trust "scientists" to report observations correctly. I think the data is
adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We've seen many recent
cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, [Jim]
Hansen and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on
record. [Anthony] Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hansen
and company had used September's temperatures for Russia rather than
October's. I'm not surprised to learn that September is hotter than
October in the Northern hemisphere.
(5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating
a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William
Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early
1800's that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel
noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots
meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a
disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the
existence of the Maunder Minimum.
(6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the
power of the state is used to silence one's scientific opponents. The
case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of
mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, "The Skeptical
Environmentalist," was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg
was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being
critical of the "consensus" view on AGW and other environmental
questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been
fired. Stillman Drake, the world's leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates
in his book "Galileo: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University
Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow
physicists (then called "natural philosophers"), who manipulated the
Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The
"out-of-the-mainstream" Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus
view, the Aristotelian theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that
anyone could do.
Galileo's fellow scientists first tried to refute
him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these "scientists"
tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the
average person, who could see
with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo's fellow
"scientists" called in the Inquisition to silence him.
I find it very disturbing that part of the
Danish Inquisition's case against
Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama's new science advisor.
Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are "dangerous."
I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are
willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.
(7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by
government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get
a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a
professor at Tulane, with a PhD in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical
as I am about AGW, but he'd never be considered for tenure at Tulane
because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.
(8) This is why I am astounded that people who
should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government
funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid
advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was
no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered
relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk.
Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a
university job --- Einstein's idea that time duration depended on the
observer was very much opposed to the "consensus" view of the time.
Einstein's idea that light was composed of particles (now called
"photons") was also considered crazy by all physicists when he first
published the idea. At least then he could publish the idea.
Now a refereed journal would
never even consider a paper written by a patent clerk, and all 1905
physics referees would agree that relativity and quantum mechanics were
nonsense, definitely against the overwhelming consensus view. So
journals would reject Einstein's papers if he were to write them today.
Science is an economic good like everything else,
and it is very bad for production of high-quality goods for the
government to control the means of production. Why can't Newt Gingrich
understand this?
Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government
funding for science.”
Note:
Dr.
Frank Tipler,
is the distinguished mathematical physicist at Tulane University.
TSAugust January 4, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another
NASA GW Error
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
announced that October was the warmest on record, but they were wrong. This follows a series of errors made by Dr James
Hansen’s organization. The reason for this latest error was that the data
from Siberia showed that large portions of Russia had been up to 10
degrees warmer than normal, but it turned out the Russians had
accidently used September’s data for October
Meanwhile much of the Northern latitudes were experiencing
unusually cold weather and considerable snowfall. Then GISS committed another error by announcing it
had found a hot spot in the Arctic, while satellite pictures were
showing that Arctic sea ice was 30% greater than at this time last year. Then a GISS spokesman said they didn’t have
sufficient resources to exercise proper quality control over its data. This is a shocking admission. The GISS data was used
by the IPCC in arriving at its pronouncements about global warming. GISS
is only one of four data sets tracking global warming, and consistently
reports higher temperatures than do the other three organizations
keeping temperature data. How can the public trust the information about
global warming that is published by GISS?
As a result of these blunders, Dr Hansen's
methodology is again being called in question. “In 2007 he was forced by
Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface
temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was
not the 1990s, as he had claimed,
but the 1930s.”
Source: Article by Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, November 17, 2008
TSAugust November 23, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hurricane History
Every year the media hypes the hurricane season, attributing larger
storms and greater losses to global warming.
This year’s current hurricane season is ending, so it’s worth looking at
the history.
With the advent of a new Hurricane season, the media has been trumpeting
how global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes.
The following table shows there have been periods of greater hurricane
activity before the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition, Dr. Chris Landsea, National Hurricane Center, has noted that many hurricanes went
undetected before the advent of satellites.
“Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there
were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75
during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the
U.S. each decade during the first half and only 6 during the second half
of the century.”
The insurance industry is clamoring for action to be taken to stop
global warming because they have suffered large losses in recent years.
However, it was the increase in coastal populations that caused the
higher insurance losses. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Lomborg
pointed out that “the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and
Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in
1930 in all 109 counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”
TSAugust November 16, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
China Insists on
Money
As blackmail goes, this is mind-boggling.
As a stipulation for China to agree to any action to cut CO2 emissions,
China is demanding that developed countries pay 1% of their GDP to
developing countries, including China.
For the Group of Seven developed countries it would amount to over $300
billion.
For the United States, it would amount to more than $130 billion of
taxpayer money. Gao Guangsheng, head of the climate change office at
the National Reform and Development Commission, China’s main planning
body, said that this "might not be enough.”
The money would be used to buy technology and equipment for cutting CO2
emissions.
So, not only will U.S. taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of billions
of hidden taxes if Cap & Trade legislation is enacted, they must also
fork over billions more to China and the other developing countries.
If we don’t, China won’t agree to any program for cutting CO2 emissions. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in October,
joined in when he said “western nations haven’t lived up to their
commitment for technology transfer and additional financing since the
Rio Conference.” This commitment might come as
a surprise to most Americans.
Source: Financial Times, October 29, 2008.
TSAugust
November 9, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ice Status
Media reports have the ice
melting all around the world. But here are some
interesting facts. In the arctic, the National
Snow and Ice Data Center forecast the possibility of an ice free arctic
in 2008. As the accompanying chart shows, Arctic sea ice extent at its
minimum in 2008 was greater than in 2007, and is already greater than in
2005.
See
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
for a larger
image.
Copyright protected by the Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency
Another chart shows the Arctic sea ice area and the standard deviation
for readings taken since 1979.
Towards
the end of October 2008 the actual area is approaching the limits of the
standard deviation. More information and a
larger chart can be seen at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/22/sea-ice-approaching-the-edge-of-normal-standard-deviation/
In
Antarctica, the ice coverage has been increasing. Temperatures have been
declining for the past 50 years and the ice coverage has grown to record
levels since satellite monitoring began in 1979.
While the Larson ice shelf and the Wilkins ice shelf in Western
Antarctica have collapsed, their collapse is best categorized by former
Weather Channel
Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo. “The shattered
part of the Wilkins ice sheet was 160 square miles in area, which is
just 0.01% of the total current Antarctic ice cover, like an icicle
falling from a snow and ice covered roof …We are very likely going to
exceed last year’s record [for Southern Hemisphere ice extent]. Yet the
world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also
starting to disappear” Sources: IARC-JAXA Information
System Watts Up With That TSAugust November 2, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stable Global Temperatures The October 21st
PBS pseudo documentary claimed that CO2 was causing global warming and
that it was imperative to cut worldwide CO2 emissions 60 to 80%by 2050. Not mentioned in the program was that temperatures
have not been rising in recent years. The premise behind anthropogenic global warming is that
CO2 emissions, since the mid 1800’s, have caused an increase
in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that this increase is
responsible for global warming. There is no question that atmospheric CO2 has
climbed steadily since the mid 1800’s, but some scientists have
questioned whether CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. Interestingly, worldwide temperatures have remained
steady for at least the past eight to ten years while atmospheric CO2
has continued to increase. The following graph from NASA depicts worldwide
temperatures since 1995. It would appear as though temperatures in 2008
are at the same level as in 1995. (The peak in 1998 has been attributed
to el Nino.)
TSAugust October 26, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fingerprints Is there a fingerprint for global warming? The U.S. Science Change Program (CCSP) put forward a zonal temperature graph in 2006, derived from computer simulations, that purports to show how atmospheric temperatures should react with anthropogenic global warming. See Figure 1. This is the fingerprint of anthropogenic global
warming.
Actual temperatures taken by balloons and satellite
do not match the temperatures developed by the computer models. See
Figure 2.
From this it can be concluded that anthropogenic
greenhouse gasses are not a significant cause of current global warming. Notes:
Source: S. Fred Singer et al,
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules
the Climate, Science and Environmental Policy Project. TSAugust October 19, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fear of Russia While visiting the Baltic countries this summer I
heard former prime ministers and presidents say the Nazi’s were
terrible, but the Russians were worse. These countries sought protection in NATO, but one
wonders whether these countries aren’t having second thoughts about
their relationship with the EU. The EU has proposed that these countries buy carbon credits at auction beginning in
2013 which will have severe consequences for countries that use coal for
generating electricity. Poland derives 95% of its
electricity from coal and has attempted to have other Eastern European
countries assist them in opposing the auctioning of carbon credits.
Poland believes its cost for electricity will increase by 70% if it must
buy credits. Eastern Europe’s only alternative will be to use
natural gas for generating electricity which will make Poland and other
Eastern European countries more dependent on Russia. After Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the EU has
dropped its support of Georgia’s and Ukraine’s admission into NATO like
a hot potato. With its push to cut the use of coal for generating
electricity the EU seems to be throwing Eastern Europe to the mercies of
Russia. The EU did little to help Estonia when Russia
launched a cyber attack against Estonia’s financial system and
government in 2007. Would the EU come to Eastern Europe’s rescue if
Russia became more aggressive? TSAugust October 12, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gulf Stream Safe Over the past several years there have been repeated
reports that the Gulf Stream could shut down and throw Europe into ice
age conditions. Researchers from the Danish Meteorological Institute
(DMI), in combination with others, have reaffirmed that the Gulf Stream
is safe. "It hasn't only been possible to show that the
currents instead have maintained a surprisingly constant strength during
the last 50 years, but we can also point out where earlier signs of
weakness were misleading," said Steffen M Olsen of Danish Meteorological Institute. This was refuted in 2006 by Christopher Meinen and
two associates at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory in Miami, that measured the Southward flow of water (millions
of cubic meters per second) in the MOC [Meridional Overturning
Circulation] between September 2004 and September 2005 and found no
indication of a significant reduction in the strength of thermohaline
circulation. A second study by German scientist Friedrich Schott
et al, measured the current over the Grand Banks and concluded,
"Although the water mass characteristics show inter annual to decadal
variations at those locations," "there is no sign of any MOC 'slowdown'
trend over the past decade.” With the DMI report, researchers have once again
found the Gulf Stream to be safe and not in danger of collapse. TSAugust October 5, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EPA To Issue CO2 Emission Rules The EPA is on the verge of issuing rules and
regulations, including Cap & Trade, which will have disastrous
consequences for America. The Supreme Court decision of April 2007 required the
EPA to treat CO2 emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Since then, environmental extremists have been demanding action from the
EPA. California and other states are suing the EPA to get the EPA to establish CO2 emission
rules and regulations. The EPA has now
issued its draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). The plan
is 200 pages long with an appendix of more than 800 items. It calls for
reordering the U.S. economy. The ANPR
establishes a 120 day period for public comments. Cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses,
motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment,
RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts, and just about every other piece of
equipment that's got a motor in it will be regulated. Lawnmowers, for example, will be measured based on
the number of grass cuttings or their equivalent weight. The EPA intends to regulate stationary sources, such
as power plants, with a Cap & Trade system. The book
Carbon Folly assumes greater importance as the EPA attempts this
huge grab of regulatory authority that will adversely affect everyone in
the United States. The permitting process will debilitate business
across the country as businesses try to conform to the new rules. The
EPA itself will grind to a standstill as it processes the millions of
applications. All of this is about to happen without Congressional
approval. TSAugust August 10, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bush Wins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amazing as it seems, President Bush has persuaded the
other members of the G8 to follow his prescription for dealing with the
possible threat of global warming. Six years ago, president Bush was ridiculed for
proposing that technology should be the way to approach global warming
and that any new agreement replacing the Kyoto protocol would have to
include the developing countries.
At its meeting this month, the G-8 conditioned a promise to reduce greenhouse gas
pollution at least 50 percent by 2050 on China, India and other emerging
economies taking part in a "global response." Benny Peiser noted, “The G8 has strengthened unity
within itself, and shifted climate change pressure on to its competitors
[the developing countries]. And from the Wall Street Journal, “In other words,
the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002.” The developing countries have reacted bitterly to
this approach. "Responsibility shouldn't fall on developing
countries for what is an unavoidable responsibility of developed
nations," said Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa's environment
minister, called the G-8's road map "an empty slogan without substance." Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said economic
growth must take priority over climate change mitigation by developing
countries. "The first and overriding priority of all developing
countries is poverty eradication," he said in a statement. "Sustained
and accelerated economic growth is, therefore, critical for all
developing countries and we cannot for the present even consider
quantitative restrictions on our emissions." "They (developed countries) should get off the backs
of India and China," Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in New Delhi. [This is an abbreviated article while the President of TSAugust is on vacation. Regular news articles or commentary will resume on August 3, 2008.] TSAugust July 27, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Big Brother and Your Thermostat 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warner-Lieberman The Warner-Lieberman Bill, S2191 Climate Security Act
of 2007, is going to be debated and possibly voted on this week (June 2nd). 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Various organizations have called for CO2 emission
targets to be reached by 2050, while the Warner-Lieberman (1) Bill has
stated its target differently. These differences are creating confusion and have
left some to believe that the Warner-Lieberman Bill is less onerous than
the Boxer-Sanders Bill, or the demands of the United Nations. Here are the targets emanating from the UN and
Europe.
The Warner-Lieberman Bill uses 2005 as the base year
for reductions rather than 1990. Here is how the Warner Lieberman and Boxer-Sanders
Bill s compare with the demand of the United Nations
As can be seen, the Warner-Lieberman legislation
requires slightly fewer cuts than the Boxer-Sanders Bill, but still
requires a huge reduction in CO2 emissions while the population of the
United States increases by around 139 million. The slight difference between the Warner-Lieberman
and Boxer-Sanders Bill is probably why Senator Boxer is allowing the
Warner-Lieberman Bill to be voted on. To put this into perspective, the year in which the
United States last saw the 2050 targeted levels of CO2 emissions:
In other words, the United States will have to cut
its emissions to the levels of 1915 or 1922 when the population was 100
-110 million. It will have to do so, as the population of the United
States increases to around 440 million by 2050. And this is to be
accomplished without lowering America’s standard of living.
TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For years we have been told that global warming is unalterably linked to
CO2 emissions. Suddenly we are told this may not be true; but hang
on, global warming will resume later. Earth’s temperature has remained essentially constant since 1998, with a slight downward move last year. This didn’t correlate with the temperatures forecast by computer models. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have steadily increased
while temperatures have remained steady for ten years.
So now scientists have adjusted the computer models to incorporate some natural
variability not previously accounted for. This is interesting on a number of levels.
As published in Nature, a new computer model by
Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany,
predicts there will be stable or declining temperatures over the next
ten years, but that global warming will then reassert itself. The new computer model now includes the natural
variability of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that
bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe. Now, it appears as though there has also been an
important shift of ocean currents in the Pacific that were not included
in the Leibniz model. This additional shift will affect temperatures
negatively and should result in even lower temperatures. The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect
moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so. Here are some reasonable conclusions:
TSAugust May 18, 2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Big
Advance in PHEV’s, May 11 2008 A123Systems announced that it would begin selling and
installing conversion kits, through its subsidiary Hymotion, to modify
Prius Hybrids into Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV’s). They will sell and install battery packs, making the
necessary modifications so that a standard Prius will become a PHEV
capable of 100+ mpg of gasoline. The Hymotion web site says conversions will cost
$9,995 + $400 delivery for a 5 kWhr battery pack.
They have not yet announced the locations where these conversions will be made,
but it has been reported conversions will be made at centers in
Minneapolis, Seattle, Boston, Washington, DC, San Francisco and Los
Angeles. While the cost of these conversions will probably
limit sales to first time adopters and aficionados, it does show that
Lithium-ion batteries made by A123Sytems will probably be available for
mass produced PHEV’s. The installed battery packs will have a 3 year
warranty. The system has been crash tested and received federal NHTSA
and FMVSS safety approvals and California conditional certification. They are accepting $1,000
deposits for installations during 2008. Consumer deliveries are expected
to begin during July. Whether Hymotion will be able to meet everyone’s
request for installation during 2008 is not yet known. Hymotion can be
contacted at
http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion. May 11, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
Why should Europe build coal fired power plants
while excoriating the U.S. for not cutting CO2 emissions? May 4, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shale Oil
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Antarctic Volcano Activity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Sources: Science Daily World Climate Report NASA TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
China
Asks U.S. For Money 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.
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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Senate Ignores Key CO2 Bills
The Senate continues to put the cart before the
horse. It debates Cap & Trade legislation while ignoring
earlier Senate Bills that might determine whether CO2 sequestration is
even possible. S-2144
“[requires]
the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of feasibility relating to
the construction and operation of pipelines and carbon dioxide
sequestration facilities, and for other purposes.”
This Bill has been ignored.
S-731 Requires the Secretary of the Interior, “To develop a methodology for, and complete, a national
assessment of geological storage capacity for carbon dioxide, and for
other purposes.”
This Bill has also been ignored.
Knowing whether it is possible to build thousands of miles of pipelines
to safely carry millions of metric tons annually of liquid CO2 and to
know with certainty that there are geologic formations in which to
safely store huge volumes of CO2 underground for hundreds of years, is
critical before enacting legislation that requires the United States to
cut CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. The generation of electricity accounts for 39% of
all U.S. CO2 emissions. If the transportation and sequestration of CO2
is not feasible it would be imprudent, to say the least, to enact Cap &
Trade legislation. Not covered in any exploratory legislation is an
effort to determine whether it is possible to capture CO2 from existing
coal fired power plants, what the costs might be and how many new power
plants would have to be built because of down-rating existing plants
modified for carbon capture. Enacting Cap & Trade legislation, in ignorance of
its feasibility, would be irresponsible. (See Carbon
Folly for additional information on the difficulties associated with
cutting CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.) April 6, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S. is Fully Committed to Addressing Climate Change Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky* said “Among the achievements
of the Gleneagles process is a broadened appreciation and understanding
that climate change, energy security, and sustainable development are
among the greatest challenges that we face. The United States remains fully committed to
addressing these challenges by achieving an agreed outcome under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change. President Bush has made it clear that the United
States will do its part to cut greenhouse gas emissions at home.
In fact, earlier this month at the Washington International Renewable Energy
Conference, the President said ‘We're going to change the way we
drive our cars; and we'll change the way we power our businesses and
homes.’ We recognize that international cooperation is
critical. Moreover, in order for an international climate and energy
agreement to be truly effective, it must include concrete commitments by
every major economy. The character of the commitment among major
economies must be common, while the content of that commitment will
differ depending on each country's circumstances and capabilities. We
recognize the importance of the important principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities. The UN Climate Conference in Bali opened an
important new chapter in climate diplomacy. The United States shares the
enthusiasm of our international partners over the Bali Plan of Action. The Bali plan highlights the importance of
"measurable, reportable, and verifiable" nationally appropriate
contributions from all countries.” (These comments were made at the Fourth Ministerial
Meeting of the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, in Chiba, Japan
March 16, 2008.) This would suggest that the U.S. is poised to enact
Cap & Trade legislation to cut CO2 emissions even though there are few
technologies available for doing so. The Book
Carbon Folly
describes why it may be impossible to
dramatically cut CO2 emissions without causing severe damage to America.
This would be especially true if China and India do not agree to cut
their emissions. Carbon Folly asks the question, “Where will
the world be with a powerful China and a weak United States?” March 23, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDP and CO2 Emissions Intuitively one would expect CO2 emissions to be linked
with GDP, or economic growth. The President of the Czech Republic, the Honorable
Vaclav Klaus (an economist by training) recited evidence from the
European Union to demonstrate the linkage between CO2 emissions and GDP. He examined Europe’s emission data from 1990 to 2005 and compared this data with the economic growth of three groups of European Countries; those that are less developed, those that were former communist countries and those from “old” Europe. He found that CO2 emissions
The European Parliament is now trying to force a
European wide reduction in CO2 emissions of 30% compared to 1990 levels. Referring to the political debate of the 1930’s
where communists proclaimed the need for State planning, President Klaus
(who lived nearly his entire life under Communist rule) said; “The
innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow travelers in
politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind
human society belongs to the same ‘fatal conceit’ [that existed in the
1930’s].” One could say that the same conceit exists among
those who are championing Cap & Trade regulations in the United States. Source: President Klaus’ talk at the 2008
International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 16, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pay for Oil and for CO2 emissions
also!! 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global Warming Conference in New York The International Conference on Climate Change will be held in New York on March 2nd - 4th. This conference will bring international scientists,
economists and other professionals together to discuss the realities of
climate change and the mounting evidence that green house gasses are not
the primary cause of global warming. It is expected that around 500 people will
participate in this conference. There are many unanswered questions about global
warming. The objective of this conference is to explore these questions. For example:
The conference is being sponsored by the Heartland
Institute whose “mission is to discover,
develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic
problems.” The program and list of speakers are available at
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm
TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New
Depression Threat 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S. Tax
Dollars for China & India 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Global Temperatures
Unchanged 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EU Threatens U.S EU’s president has threatened to impose import
tariffs on the United States unless the U.S. agrees to implementing
global climate change legislation. President Jose Manuel Barroso made this threat when
speaking to business leaders at Lehman Brothers Bank in Canary Wharf,
London last week. The idea that Europe should impose climate trade
sanctions against the U.S. and China has been aggressively promoted by President Sarkozy of France. Susan Schwab, America’s trade representative to Europe, said
climate change should not be an excuse for protectionism. She said,
Washington had "been dismayed at a variety of suggestions where we see
climate or the environment being used as an excuse to close markets." Here reference to environmental issues was
specifically directed at France’s refusal to allow the sale of MON810; a
form of genetically modified corn developed by biotechnology firm
Monsanto. G-77 nations, a group of 128 developing countries
including China and India, have voiced concern about climate protection
laws, such as proposed by Mr. Barroso, hurting poor people in developing
countries. Munir Akram, Pakistan ambassador and spokesman for
the group, said, “There are fears in the developing countries that the
environment issue could be used as a new conditionality, as a new tool,
for protectionism in the industrial world, which is losing its
competitive edge in a number of areas.” Mr. Barroso’s comments came as Europe is trying to
force the world to adopt its view of climate change and CO2 reductions
after losing out to others at the UN meeting in Bali, Indonesia. January 27, 2008 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Achieving 80% Cut in CO2 Emissions 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| To Top of Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2009 TSAugust |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||