Uncategorized
All Stories
-
James Hansen apologizes to U.K. environmentalists
This is a guest post by noted NASA climate scientist James Hansen.
-----
I have relearned a basic lesson re interviews -- which will have to be fewer and more guarded. I recall giving only one interview to U.K. media this year, but perhaps it was two. One resulting story was that I said the climate problem must be solved in four years -- of course, what I meant to say was that we needed to start moving in a fundamentally different direction during President Obama's first term. CO2 in the air will continue to increase in those four years -- we are not going to take the vehicles off the roads or shut down commerce.
I must have said something dumber in response to a question about air travel. Special apologies to people working in opposition to expansion of Heathrow Airport -- I had no intention of damaging their case. All I intended to say was that aviation fuel is not a killer for the climate problem -- at worst case we can use carbon-neutral biofuels (not current biofuels -- there are ways to do biofuels right, for the fuel volume needed for global air traffic -- ground transport will need a different energy source). When asked about the proposed added runway at Heathrow, I apparently said, in effect, that coal is the (climate) problem, not an added runway -- in any case, what was reported angered a huge number of people, as indicated by my full e-mail inbox. I should have deferred questions on Heathrow to local experts -- I am sure there are many good environmental reasons to oppose airport expansion. I am very sorry that I was not more guarded. You can be sure that in the future I will be more careful to avoid making comments that can be used against good causes. Telling President Obama About Coal River Mountain and the Heathrow Airport runway reminds me how important it is to keep our eye on the ball.
Coal River Mountain is the site of an absurdity. I learned about Coal River Mountain from students at Virginia Tech last fall. They were concerned about Coal River Mountain, but at that time most of them were working to support Barack Obama. They assumed Barack Obama would not allow such outrages to continue.
The issue at Coal River Mountain is whether the top of the mountain will be blown up, so that coal can be dredged out of it, or whether the mountain will be allowed to stand. It has been shown that more energy can be obtained from a proposed wind farm, if Coal River Mountain continues to stand. More jobs would be created. More tax revenue would flow, locally and to the state, and the revenue flow would continue indefinitely. Clean water and the environment would be preserved. But if planned mountaintop removal proceeds, the mountain loses its potential to be a useful wind source.
There are two major requirements for solving the global warming problem:
-
How the U.S. can stay the global wind leader
The Global Wind Energy Council reported Monday:
The United States passed Germany to become world #1 in wind power installations, and China's total capacity doubled for the fourth year in a row. Total worldwide installations in 2008 were more than 27,000 MW ... 36% more than in 2007 ...
Global wind energy capacity grew by 28.8% last year, even higher than the average over the past decade, to reach total global installations of more than 120.8 GW at the end of 2008.It just goes to show what this country can do with intelligent and (somewhat) consistent government policies -- state-based renewable electricity standards and a federal tax credit (see "U.S. wind energy grows by record 8,300 MW").
But the race is on for global leadership, and China is poised to be our major contender, as it "once again doubled its installed capacity by adding about 6.3 GW, reaching a total of 12.2 GW":
-
Nuclear meltdown in Finland
This is the radioactivity-free kind of meltdown, as Helsingin Sanomat reported:
The Finnish nuclear power company Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) is seeking damages of EUR 2,400 million from the consortium of Areva and Siemens for delays in the construction of Finland's fifth nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto.
Makes one look forward to what might happen if a truly litigous country had a major nuclear Renaissance fueled by, say, taxpayer money (see The nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan).
The Finnish newspaper has a great photo of "The Olkiluoto III nuclear reactor construction site in December 2008."
Here are more details on the meltdown between the partners in this debacle:
-
Dirty water and clean transit in the Mountain State
Sometimes the news is random, and sometimes it aligns itself into tidy patterns and themes. Today is West Virginia day!
To wit:
• A group of residents in Boone County, W. Va., has sued coal giant Massey Energy and several subsidiaries for polluting their groundwater. The suit asks for replacement water supplies and compensation for personal and property damages. Meanwhile, a sympathetic group has raised enough funds to begin delivering clean water to the residents. (See their lurid toilet tank photos.)
-
Does anyone think battery swap-out is useful or even needed for electric vehicles?
The Washington Post ran a very good article on electric vehicles Saturday. I recommend it to anyone who wants an overview of the important issue of where American companies will source their batteries. The article notes:
GM plans on a battery pack big enough to last 40 miles, at which point a small gasoline engine will take over. Some rival companies are considering a smaller battery pack that might go only 20 miles, still enough to serve the needs of many local commuters without adding as much weight and cost.
That was my point in the post, "Has GM overdesigned the Volt: Is a 40-mile all electric range too much?"
Like pretty much all recent articles on EVs, this one highlighted the uber-marketers of the EV world:
Shai Agassi, the chief executive of Better Place, which is building electric car infrastructure in Israel, Hawaii, Northern California and several other places, thinks electric cars should have batteries only. He proposes setting up swap stations where motorists on long trips could exchange a depleted battery for one fully charged.
"We just don't think that the answer to how to extend the battery is to put a power plant in our trunks," he said.You can see a computer simulation of the Project Better Place battery exchange station here.
I recently asked my EV wonk friends what they thought of the battery swap-out model, and I will reprint some of their answers below. I have never actually found anyone who thought it was a viable idea. Where, for instance, would it be done? Sunday's New York Times asserts:
-
The World Bank offers to loan developing countries the funds to pay for climate change adaptation
What would you say if someone drove a truck into your house, then jumped out and offered you a loan to help rebuild?
After you stopped screaming at them, which might take a while, you'd demand that they pay for damages that they caused, of course. Over time though, if no one forced the truck driver to pay for the damages, you might be tempted to take the loan. Sure, its a rip-off, but at least you get the money you need to rebuild.
This is exactly what's happening today with much needed funding for adaptation to climate change impacts in the developing world. The World Bank, backed by Northern taxpayers, is "offering" to loan the developing world the money needed to adapt to climate change impacts.
Ethically, this is abhorrent.
-
Two projects uniting veterans and green jobs
Two grassroots projects recently came to my attention aimed at finding green employment for vets, too many of whom return to no jobs, many bills, and much debt, creating an awful lot of strain on them and their families. Veterans Green Jobs was conceived to create "solutions for three of the most urgent issues of our time: the rebuilding of a sustainable green economy, reversing deteriorating environmental conditions and climate change threats, and the need to reintegrate over a million military service veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who are in need of healing and meaningful new careers."
And in San Diego, Archi's Acres Veterans Sustainable Agriculture Training program's three-month, 40 hour-per-week course offers returning vets both hands-on training and textbook learning in organic production, from seeds to sales. Started by ex-Marine Colin Archipley, a three-tour veteran of the Iraq war, it's making a big difference for its participants. Check this great story from a local TV network on its impact both in terms of new skills learned and the therapeutic effect of growing food:
Hats off to you, Colin.
-
A very cool 'only in California' development … bike valets
Slate V posted a short video about the bicycle valet service provided at the farmers market in Santa Monica, Calif.
Brilliant! But do the valets help repair flat tires?
-
-
Against the so-called 'need' for new long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines
The following is a guest post from Carol A. Overland, a utility regulatory attorney and electrical consultant based in Minnesota and Delaware, representing clients in energy dockets including transmission projects, wind, gas and coal gasification generation, and nuclear waste.
-----
Transition ... transmission ... transition ... transmission ...That old Bowie hook is on my mind as I represent individuals, community organizations, and local governments opposing high-voltage transmission lines. Today we're at a crossroads in energy, a transition point where the decisions we make, like electricity itself, are binary. What we choose will determine how we use electricity in the future. The first step is to carefully define "need."
Transmission doesn't produce electricity. It is passive infrastructure that just sits there, conducting energy from one place to another. At its worst, though, it's an enabler of dysfunctional energy planning and profit-driven projects that are against the public interest. Claims that we "need" transmission are end-stage conclusions of a many-step planning process that we as a society have not yet consciously begun.
"Need" is a term of art, and the crucial task for energy planners is to define the need. We need energy when we flick the switch, and when we do, that's a utility's need for service of local electrical load. We also need renewable generation, and we have an equally compelling need to reduce the CO2 emissions, pollutants, and toxic waste of electrical generation (a need not readily recognized in energy planning). Energy planners plan for peak "flick of the switch" need, those few very hot summer days or very cold winter nights. How much "flick of the switch" energy do we need? It depends.
Prior to assessing local load-serving need and making demand projections -- before "need" is considered -- the first and unarguably least-cost step is conservation. We can easily make up for an annual projected increase in demand of 1.5 percent through conservation, and can probably cut today's "need" by 10 percent or more, though compound conservation gets more difficult as we cherry pick the easy stuff. The next step before analyzing need is to enact energy efficiency, demand-side management, and load-shifting to cut the peaks and level out the dips. This is also a comparatively least-cost means of meeting demand.
When that's done, and not before, it's time to assess our need for electricity -- the supply side. Utilities, which are in the business of selling electricity and building their infrastructure -- for which we pay, routinely promote sales and exaggerate growth in demand. Because of their overstatements of need in similarly recessionary times, we overbuilt in the 1970s, to the extent that many proposed plants were ultimately canceled. Still so much was built that we haven't needed much utility infrastructure since. We've been through this before, and should be mindful in making investments.
