Climate Climate & Energy

Kudzu as the next biofuel source?

Some biofuel experts seem to think that the next big biofuel source should be kudzu in the U.S.

I hope biodiversity experts and readers from the South will comment on this idea. Take the poll beneath the fold:

Lovins and Sheikh defend definition and record of micropower

This is a guest essay from Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh of the Rocky Mountain Institute. It is part two of a series; see part one here.

-----

Part two of David Bradish's critical look at "The Nuclear Illusion" (PDF) raises two additional issues to which we respond here. As in his first critique, it appears that, unable to rebut and hence unwilling to address our paper's data and logic, Mr. Bradish must content himself with trying to manufacture an illusion of confusion.

Does RMI's data fit their definition [of micropower]?

Yes, precisely; it just doesn't fit various other definitions that Mr. Bradish has invented on his own. We clearly defines micropower (an Economist magazine term) thus at pp. 11-12:

1. onsite generation of electricity (at the customer, not at a remote utility plant) -- usually cogeneration of electricity plus recovered waste heat (outside the U.S. this is usually called CHP -- combined-heat-and-power): this is about half gas-fired, and saves at least half the carbon and much of the cost of the separate power plants and boilers it displaces; [and] 2. distributed renewables -- all renewable power sources except big hydro plants, which are defined here as dams larger than 10 megawatts (MW).

Mr. Bradish arbitrarily and wrongly assumes "that the size of 'micropower' plants is 10 MW or less," then claims this is our definition and contradicts our data. It's not and it doesn't. Our 10 MW limit applies only to small hydro, distinguishing it from big hydro using the most conservative criterion. Any power source except small hydro can be larger than 10 MW but still meet our micropower definition: WADE's onsite-fueled-generator definition, which we've adopted, includes onsite units up to somewhat over 180 MWe for gas turbines (though few actual units are over 120 MWe) and up to 60 MWe for engines, as well as onsite (nearly always cogenerating) steam turbines of any size if they're in China and India; however, WADE's database excludes steam turbines elsewhere, and all units below 1 MWe.

Gallons per mile: A better way to express fuel efficiency

Let's say a pollster walks up to you and asks you the following question:

"A town maintains a fleet of vehicles for town employee use. It has two types of vehicles. Type A gets 15 miles per gallon. Type B gets 34 miles per gallon. The town has 100 Type A vehicles and 100 Type B vehicles. Each car in the fleet is driven 10,000 miles per year." The town wants to replace these vehicles with corresponding hybrid models in order to to reduce gas consumption of the fleet and thereby reduce harmful environmental consequences.

Should they (1) replace the 100 vehicles that get 15 mpg with vehicles that get 19 mpg , or (2) replace the 100 vehicles that get 34 mpg with vehicles that get 44 mpg?

If you are like the people who were actually surveyed by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University, you chose option two. After all, an increase of 10 mpg clearly sounds better than a measly 4 mpg. And yet, some simple number crunching reveals that the town fuel efficiency is improved more in option one (by 14,035 gallons) than in option two (by 6,684 gallons).

U.S. federal report details climate change’s impact on weather extremes

North America will continue to experience more heat waves, intense rains, increased drought, and stronger hurricanes due to the worsening effects of climate change, says a new report from the U.S. federal government. The report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is being billed as the first comprehensive federal review of climate change’s effects […]

You know things are getting bad …

… when even China is raising fuel prices.

Midwest woes a boon to fertilizer companies

The recent Midwestern floods have caused all manner of misery: Burst levies, lost homes, ruined crops, higher food prices, a gusher of agrichemicals and god know what else flowing into streams. One way to soothe the sting is to own shares in giant fertilizer companies like Potash Corp. of Saskatewan and Mosaic. These companies have […]

Hunters’ group sues Interior Dept for drilling’s impacts on wildlife

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a coalition of hunting, fishing, and conservation groups, is suing the U.S. Interior Department over the impacts of gas drilling on wildlife in southwestern Wyoming. Some 1,000 natural-gas wells puncture the landscape of the state’s Pinedale Anticline gas fields, with over 4,000 more wells likely to be drilled in the […]

Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in ‘The Nuclear Illusion’

This is a guest essay from Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

-----

David Bradish, in a post on the blog of the Nuclear Energy Institute, criticizes our methodology used to derive micropower's output in "The Nuclear Illusion" (PDF). As Mr. Bradish notes in hypertext, our methodology is online here (PDF), and our micropower database is posted and documented here. Here's our point-by-point response to his critique:

"With the exception of nuclear, the data for the chart aren't actual generation numbers. RMI collected the capacity and capacity factor data for the other sources to calculate the generation."

For many generation types, only capacity and capacity factor data are available. That's partly because the data often come from surveys of production or installation, typically based on unit-by-unit data from vendors or their trade associations. Data on measured output are rarer because they're normally collected by national energy authorities that often don't count small and non-utility units or don't consistently record the type of unit. Then those output data are added up, with many gaps, to estimate global totals.

We used all the reliable capacity data we could find using bottom-up industry data covering most main countries, though with notable gaps we described. Then we calculated output using capacity factors that Mr. Bradish agrees are reasonable (other than cogen -- see below). Finally, where possible, we compared calculated output to estimated output from other sources to verify that our calculations were realistic. If more generation data were available, we'd be glad to learn about them so we can apply them to our analysis. But so far, measured global generation data are available only for nuclear, though some specific jurisdictions do track other sources too.

"The problem with the 83 percent [Non-Biomass Decentralized Co-Generation] capacity factor is it is twice as high as what it should be."

Oceans warming faster than thought, says research

The world’s oceans have warmed 50 percent faster over the last four decades than what was previously thought, according to a new study published in Nature. The new research helps to explain recent sea-level rise that climate models weren’t accounting for; melting ice gets all the press, but since heat expands, hotter water also contributes […]

Short-term high gas prices (hopefully) mitigate long-term environmental disasters

I have been reading Sean Casten's post on the economics of carbon pricing with interest. After some thought, here's my take. A carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system will, without question, raise the price of energy, at least in the short term. In the long-term, it may well be that technological developments lead us to new energy sources that turn out to be cheaper than anything we have today. But that's pure speculation.

But in the short term, the costs of a carbon tax or the costs of permits in a cap-and-trade system will follow the energy through the system and eventually raise prices at the consumer level. So prices will increase.

But that fact is a distraction. The real issues are, first, how much will prices rise, and second, what will happen if we do nothing?