Climate Climate & Energy

The threat from climate deniers

People forget that Margaret Mead's overused quote about small groups being able to change the world doesn't necessarily imply "in a good way."

Here's an interesting interview to think about when you next read something from folks like the National Assn. of Manufacturers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Bjorn Lomborg:

Water limits on power plants

From Greenwire today (sub req'd): water availability may limit new power plants. This is widely appreciated in the power sector, but doesn't get as much attention elsewhere. It's especially acute as our population growth moves south and west where we are especially water-limited.

What's under-appreciated is that this is a story about efficiency. When two thirds of the fuel we burn in power plants is wasted as heat, and that heat is rejected in cooling towers (at least in coal and nuke facilities), any gain in energy efficiency is a reduction in water use. Given the huge gains available in efficiency, it ought to be central to this discussion. Also bear in mind that Clean Air Act compliance and carbon sequestration drive down the efficiency of coal plants, thereby increasing water use per MWh.

Excerpts of the full article below the fold:

For every problem there’s a solution that’s simple, attractive, and wrong

Like the noise standard one jurisdiction in Michigan has adopted for wind turbines:

"Based on their studies, noise was identified as a key problem. After lengthy research and discussion the regulation was made simple.

"If it makes noise and we can measure it, you shut it down," Arndt said."

Shall we apply that to coal burners and natural gas turbines (jet engines)??

British government approves world’s largest offshore wind farm

Plans for the world’s largest offshore wind farm have been approved by the British government. The project, led by Shell and European energy company Eon, would place up to 341 turbines over 90 square miles off the coast of Kent. While it’s not a done deal, presumably the biggest regulatory hurdles have been overcome; if […]

Survey on what we’re willing to do for the climate crisis

Not a whole lot, apparently.

The coal industry’s extortion is on increasingly obvious display

Good God. If you want to see the coal industry’s bizarre, Möbius strip arguments in all their glory, check out this Reuters article conveying the comments of Brett Harvey, CEO of coal producer Consol Energy. The mind reels. I want to look at some of the individual statements, but what it comes down to is […]

What Californians know that Shellenberger & Nordhaus don’t

"The kind of technological revolution called for by energy experts typically does not occur via regulatory fiat" claim Shellenberger & Nordhaus. Actually, that is typically the only way it occurs. I defy anyone to name a country that has successfully adopted alternative fuels for vehicles without employing some kind of regulatory mandate.

This is also true in the electricity sector. Consider that in terms of electricity consumption, the average Californian generates under one third the carbon dioxide emissions of the average American while paying the same annual bill.

Did California accomplish this by technology breakthroughs that S&N mistakenly say we need? Not at all. They did it by accelerating the deployment of boring old technology -- insulation, efficient lightbulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances, light-colored roofs, and so on -- through tough building codes and intelligent utility regulations, especially ones that put efficiency on an equal footing with new generation. The result: From 1976 to 2005, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in hi-tech, fast-growing California.

S&N think we must have massive $30 billion-a-year government programs and clean technologies. One of their central arguments is that "big, long-term investments in new technologies are made only by governments." This is perhaps half true, but 100 percent irrelevant. What we need is big, long-term investment in existing technologies -- and that is made primarily by the private sector stimulated by government regulations.

Why isn't government spending more important? Let me relate an eye-opening story from my time in government.

Climate campaigners could have a shot at winning the Nobel Peace Prize

Word around the campfire is that climate campaigners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier may be on the short list of nominees with a shot at landing this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. The prestigious award — to be announced Oct. 12 — has traditionally been awarded to human-rights activists and peace advocates (except for that whole […]

New energy proposal in California

California -- already a leader in intelligent utility regulations -- is taking aggressive steps to stay the leader. The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) made the following remarkable proposal last month:

• All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020
• All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030

In addition, the PUC established "a new system of incentives and penalties to drive investor-owned utilities above and beyond California's aggressive energy savings goals." Under this framework:

Earnings to shareholders accrue only when a utility produces positive net benefits (savings minus costs) for ratepayers. The shareholder "reward" side of the incentive mechanism is balanced by the risk of financial penalties for substandard performance in achieving the PUC's per-kilowatt, kilowatt-hour, and therm savings goals.

Kudos to the PUC for its aggressive strategy, which "puts energy efficiency on an equal footing with utility generation," as Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon put it. "It will align utility corporate culture with California's environmental values."

Even though utility regulations seem mundane, they are a core climate strategy, so here are some more details of the PUC's ground-breaking decision:

Notable quotable

“At the risk of oversimplifying, our current energy policy in the United States involves shooting bearded people. It’s not hard to imagine better ideas coming out of a reality TV show.” — Scott Adams (thanks Kate!)