Articles by Joseph Romm

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:

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:

What do you expect from a party that wants to be more like Sarah Palin?

You can indeed fool some of the people all the time -- if those people are conservatives.

Rasmussen Reports made headlines last month reporting that 41 percent of Americans blame global warming on human activity, down from 46 percent, two years ago. The conservative pollster gleefully noted:

Al Gore's side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

It is, however, the details of the poll that are the most telling. In January 2009:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats.

This compares to December 2006 result:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats say human activity is the cause while 51% of Republicans identify long-term planetary trends as the culprit.

That's right. Slightly more Democrats now understand that humans are the primary cause of global warming, whereas substantially more GOP voters -- a full one-sixth -- have been duped into thinking long-term planetary trends are the cause.

Why the growing divergence?