1. more solar energy source wind power where applicable (no government subsidies)
2. Hydrogen run cars or plug in technology for short hall commutes.
3. Plant more trees
4. Lift the ban on nuclear power plants. Licensing
5. Private sector cut loose with less restrictive regulations to expedite new technologies.
Solar, yes.
Wind, no. Too many dead birds (maybe in some areas with no migration or raptors).
Hydrogen, yes but there is a whole lot of work to do first. Probably be thirty years before that's a useful solution.
Plant trees. Of course. There are so many benefits to that it's just silly not to...as long as they don't block my solar panels. Sacramento is a good example of that. They went on a planting spree long ago and now they have many beautiful neighborhoods (with lousy houses) because of it. Reflective paints is another great idea - they even make them in colors now.
Nukes. There is no ban on nukes. Never was. The power companies haven't been building them because they are outrageously expensive. Yes, more nukes.
Private sector. Yes. Funding is hard to come by and entrepreneurialism is stimied because of it. Conventional wisdom is that typical venture capitalist don't understand new tech and are stuck with the cheap oil mindset.
But I have a hard time understanding the attitude of "no government subsidies" for solar or any other green fuel. Our government subsidizes fossil fuels and has been doing it forever. They charge something like 18% less for deep water oil than for shallow water oil just to persuade oil companies to drill deep. Synthetic coal fuel is outrageously subsidized. Every fuel is subsidized in one way or another. So should solar. (EDIT add: NO, ESPECIALLY SOLAR!!!)
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Solar, yes.
Wind, no. Too many dead birds (maybe in some areas with no migration or raptors).
Hydrogen, yes but there is a whole lot of work to do first. Probably be thirty years before that's a useful solution.
Plant trees. Of course. There are so many benefits to that it's just silly not to...as long as they don't block my solar panels. Sacramento is a good example of that. They went on a planting spree long ago and now they have many beautiful neighborhoods (with lousy houses) because of it. Reflective paints is another great idea - they even make them in colors now. Nukes. There is no ban on nukes. Never was. The power companies haven't been building them because they are outrageously expensive. Yes, more nukes.
Private sector. Yes. Funding is hard to come by and entrepreneurialism is stimied because of it. Conventional wisdom is that typical venture capitalist don't understand new tech and are stuck with the cheap oil mindset.
But I have a hard time understanding the attitude of "no government subsidies" for solar or any other green fuel. Our government subsidizes fossil fuels and has been doing it forever. They charge something like 18% less for deep water oil than for shallow water oil just to persuade oil companies to drill deep. Synthetic coal fuel is outrageously subsidized. Every fuel is subsidized in one way or another. So should solar.
Sorry, I was thinking federally. I'm wrong about four percent of the time.
That's a good example of how states can't be allowed to make their own rules on everything. Imagine choosing coal over nuke. Completely self-serving, and bad for just about everyone else. Until there's a meltdown. Then, forget what I said .
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Sorry, I was thinking federally. I'm wrong about four percent of the time.
That's a good example of how states can't be allowed to make their own rules on everything. Imagine choosing coal over nuke. Completely self-serving, and bad for just about everyone else. Until there's a meltdown. Then, forget what I said .
No Problem I knew there was a reason, just slipped my mind.
So, why not just tar and feather any dipshit who continues the charade that we are not responsible for AGW? Why not? And apply it to other denials and scams likes the Iraq war, gulf oil drilling and the financial meltdown... Maybe even apply it to those who come up with dumb ass 'scandals' and 'bogus, disingenuous, swiftboat claims' like NWO and Co2 NOT affecting all of us and flat earth and kill for christ and all that dumb shittery... Let's start with Glenn 'moron mouth' Beck! Surely nobody here listens to him anyway....
Imagine how furiously hard the deniers and oil shills work to distort their own world's crisis into a 'non event' or a minor occurrence... After all their cooking of the books.. we're beginning to cook. Imagine how many stupid people are waiting to be told what to think in spite of a mountain of evidence that should tell them not to think but to act....... Beck will tell them too... It's all that fascist Obama's fault! Ahhh!
We have the tar and we have the feathers... A tarparty...
A group with ties to the fossil fuel industry launched a new ad campaign today pushing the idea that carbon dioxide isn't an environmental pollutant. The organization "C02 is Green" funded a half-page advertisement in The Washington Post urging people to call their senators and seek a vote against "the president's cap-and-trade bill that will increase your cost of living and not change the climate.
The UK TV watchdog, Ofcom, is the watchdog for the UK broadcasting industry, keeping an eye on how broadcasters carry out their duty to the public to be both fair and accurate and not cause harm.
Ofcom ruled today on a complaint against the polemic documentary about global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
It upheld complaints by the former UK Chief Scientist, Sir David King, the IPCC and oceanographer Carl Wunsch, stating that the filmmakers had treated them unfairly, misquoted them or misled them into being interviewed.
The film itself has been sold around the world, and the DVD viewed by thousands online.
What those viewers still haven't been told is that at least 10 of the 16 interviewees are central to the denial industry - directly associated with - or even paid by - think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.
And yes, we have a map showing you just how that all works. Total funding to these groups since 1998? $11,335,600
FN slime... So greedy for oil profits. It takes the kind of guy who would design an advertising campaign to lure children into a smoking addiction...knowing all about the hazards and odds.... OH, and lie about the effects of smoking... Is that a Cheney? A Limburger? A beck? Yip
Now, who on earth would support these people?... Give them a job, let them lead, politic, lobby? Who would give a pass to their lies without even doing the research checks or without really listening to a consensus of a higher standard of science and knowledge alerting us to their lies? Who would, dismiss national institutions to listen to junk scientists after they have been blatantly exposed as junk scientists.. hired by BP type wayward Haywards? Hmmm...
Who would delay action to keep our children safe in a half decently natural world? Perhaps the same people who would elect draft dodgers for war mongers. Declare global warming as a liberal scam to hoax 1/1,000,000th the profits of the fossil fuel industry...
Go take a fookin nap or somethin' gaggy, yer waaaaaay past yer sell by date.
Semper Fi!
-Rocky-
__________________
ROCKYMT
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
An international team of climate scientists led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed that climate change is "undeniable" and clearly driven by the "human fingerprints" of greenhouse gas emissions. The findings are based on new data that was not reviewed during the most recent 2007 report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Financial Times reported today that the NOAA study drew on 11 different indicators of climate, and "found that each one pointed to a world that was warming owing to the influence of greenhouse gases."
Unfortunately, deniers have moved on to other delusional 'deniables'...Where the fvck is Inhofe & Co.? Grab that hillbilly shithead by the scruff and tar and feather the stupid, lying bastard...
Now they chant for bombs for 'enemies' and "kill the president" and nuke this and that. them and those... Still denying fallout from their own bombs, socially, physiologically and spiritually...They even deny their own Teebag idiocy...
Oh, well, now, at least, we can spot a stupido right off(what a template they have left us), and NOT have to waste time thinking they may have a good idea or two.. They have NOT apologized to anyone because they have blamed the entire idiot denial philosophy on Obama lol...
Well? Any morons out there still willing to slog what you slogged for years? Have your wells of dis/mis/shit information dried up? Still want to quote Monckton and Morano? I certainly hope you've accepted your complete failure to recognize when you're being led like a dumb ass/oX, from a $2 nose ring and a blatant, undeniable lie... formerly known as 'right wing hype'...
Instead of science you offered hatred. All that Al Gore swift boating based on denial and bizarre hatreds... wow.
All those harmful, hateful lies and liars... Where are they now? Jesus is contemplating what to do with his wayward, disrespectful, harmful and derelict 'flock'....
Go back and read the utter shite you posted in this global warming thread...., rethink your crazy bullshite, man up and apologize to all those who 'told you so'... Take responsibility for the damage you've created and exacerbated with delay and denial...maybe grab a handful of humility. Oh, and dont act like a moronic denier in other areas/fields/ disciplines or studies that need attention and cooperation....
Thats about it huh? You have NOTHING to contribute to ANYTHING...
If thats your way of saying you're determined to learn from your mistakes.. You inspire us all...
Now that you know AGW is a damned fact, do you think it's not really a fact because you have light bulb issues? Got something right wing crazy to add? Where are your 'experts'? You gonna take the same idiocy and apply it to other aspects of life?
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
Pretty unbelievable that this would get through their vetting process, unless of course they thought it was edgy or shocking enough to sell more cars.
Either way the debate did nothing more than propagate the myth that climate change is somehow not happening or something we need to worry about.
I would expect this kind of thing from the likes of former tobacco company spindoctors like the Heartland Institute than I would a company trying to promote their hybrid car.
If ever there was a moronic troll... its you coRky!!
Your shrill shills are so utterly stupid, detached, uninformed and shallow, you bring back the bushie days of old.. pa yuke!
We still love ya tho... Even tho all you have left is zero contribution to climate debate... you're beginning to sound like you work for Monckton and the bagged Tbaggers...
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 endangerment finding which said that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment. EPA found no evidence to support the claims of the petitions which assert that a conspiracy invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. On the contrary, EPA’s review of the petitions found that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.
“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.
“Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”
You guys dont need no stinking EPA.... It would probably be the first thing the right wing numb nuts attack... the nation's own EPA! Wowser. The moron brigade wants to see what happens when everything is deregulated, devalued, debauched and destabilized... fn retards. Show them a slimy Hayward asstard and they want him for president. Show them an intellectual and they want him hanged... Palin and Tbagging friends shouting and championing ignorance at every venue and vestibule. All for what? Hate of liberals? WTF.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Wind is not a new power generation technology. It was one of our principal sources of energy, along with wood and water, prior to the carbon era. However, the use of renewables in the pre-carbon age was very different from the current use of renewables. Today, people rely on energy being available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, regardless of whether the sun shines, the wind blows, or there are high or low water levels. We now have over 1,000 GW of generating plants and a large and elaborate electrical grid that requires great coordination among system operators to avoid disruptions.
Also, in the pre-carbon energy era, when renewables were the sole source of energy, there were no coal-fired or natural gas–fired power plants to provide back-up power (Figure 1). Studies have found that the efficiency of those carbon-based plants is affected by incorporating wind energy into the system. When a plant’s efficiency is reduced, its fuel consumption and emissions increase, causing unintended consequences that wind proponents do not disclose. Requiring ever-larger amounts of renewable energy through renewable portfolio standards will only exacerbate this problem. 1. The renewable to carbon-energy era in the U.S. Numbers are in quads. Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review
Recent studies have been done with actual data to evaluate the impact that cycling has on pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Energy modelers evaluating the impact of legislation such as Senator Jeff Bingaman’s American Clean Energy Leadership Act and the American Power Act proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman should take note for their models most likely are underestimating the cost of compliance by incorrectly modeling the integration of wind power into the electricity grid. Substitution Technology
Our various electricity generating technologies were designed and constructed to meet electricity demand based on their best operating characteristics for meeting portions of the electricity load duration curve. The load duration curve illustrates periods of constant demand that are served by baseload power versus periods of intermediate and peak demand. Owing to their high capital cost, low fuel cost, and high capacity factors, technologies such as coal and nuclear were designed to operate continuously to meet the baseload demand component. Owing to their lower capital costs but higher fuel costs, natural gas technologies, including combined-cycle and turbine plants, were designed to meet intermediate and peak electrical load.
Wind is an intermittent technology because it can generate power only when the wind blows. Its low operating cost (with no fuel component) and the mandates of state renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) make it practically a “must take” technology for system operators. RPSs require that a certain amount of electricity generation be produced by renewable fuels. The renewable target mandates tend to start out low but increase over time, with those of most RPS states reaching 15% to 30% by 2020 or 2025. Wind tends to be the primary technology for meeting RPS targets, because it is lower in capital cost than solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies, the other politically acceptable “green” technologies.
Part of the rationale for introducing RPSs is that the substitution of “green” technologies for carbon technologies is supposed to reduce pollution emissions as well as carbon dioxide emissions. However, studies have shown that this may not be the case. As conventional generation (coal or natural gas) is reduced to make room for wind generation and is then increased as wind generation subsides, its heat rate rises. The heat rate is a measure of a generating station’s thermal efficiency commonly stated in units of Btu per kilowatt-hour. This reduction in efficiency increases its fuel consumption and emissions. When sudden increases or decreases occur in generation output, it is referred to as “cycling.” The Bentek Study
Bentek did a study of the results of integrating wind into the generation mix of the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), using data from the company’s financial reports, the Energy Information Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. PSCO is a largely coal-fired utility with 3,764 MW of coal-fired generators, 3,236 MW of gas-fired combined-cycle and gas turbine capacity, 405 MW of hydro and pumped storage capacity, and 1,064 MW of wind generators. Colorado has an RPS that required 3% of the electricity generated by investor-owned utilities come from qualifying renewable technologies by 2007 and 30% by 2020.
Colorado’s energy demand is highest during the day, peaking in late afternoon or early evening. Wind generation, however, is greatest between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.; it cannot be counted on to provide power when most needed, and so it is used when available to meet the RPS. Most of the time that wind generation is available, it backs out (or replaces) natural gas. However, there are times when coal generation, which provides over 50% of PSCO’s baseload generation, is backed out to make room for the wind generation. When this happens, coal generation is cycled, causing its heat rate to increase and resulting in more fuel consumption and emissions. In PSCO, coal cycling predominates because of the low amount of gas generation in the system because most of its gas-fired generation is from turbines and because wind is strongest at night when coal use is even more pronounced (Figure 2). 2. Wind blows strongest between 9:00 p.m. and 5 a.m., when electricity demand is weakest. Source: NREL and FERC 714 filings
In the Denver nonattainment area, PSCO has four coal-fired plants: Arapahoe, Valmont, Pawnee, and Cherokee. Between 2006 and 2009, these coal-fired plants experienced higher emissions ranging from 17% to 172% higher for sulfur dioxide, 0% to 9% higher for nitrous oxide, and 0% to 9% higher for carbon dioxide. In 2008, Cherokee even switched to a lower sulfur coal, but still ended up with sulfur dioxide emissions higher by 18%. And, between 2006 and 2009, these plants reduced their generation by over 37%, exacerbating further the increase in emissions.
Because the PSCO data are limited, Bentek checked its results against data from the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, whose utilities are required to report generation levels by fuel every 15 minutes. Texas has the most wind capacity in the country—over 9,500 MW. Texas also has an RPS that was instituted during George W. Bush’s governorship that pushed Texas ahead of California in wind capacity during 2006. The Texas renewable portfolio standard requires that utilities have 5,880 MW of renewable capacity by 2015, including a target of 500 MW of renewable energy capacity from resources other than wind. The legislation also set a target of reaching 10,000 MW of renewable energy capacity by 2025, although it will be exceeded much earlier. However, even in Texas, which has a large natural gas–fired capacity base, with over 40% of its generation being natural gas–fired, coal-fired generation is cycled as is shown in Figure 3. 3. Coal plants are cycled as wind generation increases in ERCOT (November 5–12, 2008). Source: BENTEK Energy
Another benefit that wind power generators get is that their forecast power generation entails no penalty if it is not available. Other generators must provide their own back-up power if their generation is suddenly unavailable. Nevertheless, the owners of wind generators believe that they can’t be held accountable for whether the wind blows and thus for inaccuracies in their forecasting capability. For example, on February 26, 2008, a cold front moved through West Texas and rendered wind’s output 1,000 MW less than promised, and that unexpectedly had to be made up by other generating technologies. Only careful and extensive coordination, such as was carried out in West Texas on that cold February day, can divert brown outs and black outs from occurring.
The Netherlands Experience
Two researchers, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, found that the Netherlands Government was overestimating the amount of carbon dioxide reductions associated with wind production. The government was using incorrect data because it did not correct for the reduction in efficiency of the conventional power plants once wind was introduced into the system. Using data provided by CBS, the Dutch Institute for Statistics, the researchers made an estimate of the “turning point” where the efficiency reduction of conventional power plants balances out the fuel savings from wind energy. Using data for 2007, when wind power was at 3%, they found the turning point to be at an efficiency reduction of 2% based on all the power stations serving the Netherlands. That is, when the efficiency of the back-up plants was reduced by over 2% due to cycling caused by the integration of wind energy into the system, fuel use and emissions of the back-up plants increased.
Heat Rate Simulations
An engineer, Kent Hawkins, evaluated several heat rate simulations to represent cycling of the plants when wind is introduced into the system. One set of simulations evaluates wind energy replacing coal power with different technologies serving as the back-up power to wind, in order to evaluate their effect on fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. He found that because of cycling, carbon dioxide emissions increase with the incorporation of wind energy if coal is the sole back-up power for wind. If coal and gas turbines or gas combined-cycle and gas turbines are used to back up the wind power, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced mainly due to the lower carbon dioxide emissions produced from natural gas generators as compared to coal generators. This is best seen by examining the last bar in the Figure 4 where the lowest carbon dioxide emissions result when natural gas combined-cycle plants are solely used to replace coal. The original study can be found here. 4. Carbon dioxide emissions under several cycling scenarios. Source: A free-market energy blog — MasterResource
An interesting consequence of this analysis is that certain areas of the world where wind is integrated into a system that is primarily coal-based may see an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions as a result of using wind in their generating sector. That is, in these circumstances, wind would not be providing an offset in carbon dioxide emissions but would actually be providing an increase in those emissions. China, for example, relies on coal for 80% of its generation and natural gas for only 2%. China also added the most wind power of any country in 2009, 13 GW, ranking third in the world in total wind capacity, with the U.S. first and Germany second. Because China’s wind would primarily be backed up by power from coal-fired generating units, it is no wonder that China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 9% in 2009. Closing Thoughts
As more wind units are built and data become available regarding their integration into conventional energy systems, we will learn more about the effects of wind units on the operation of conventional plants. A few studies have been done showing that the effect of wind integration on both fuel consumption and emission reductions can in fact be negative. Further evaluation of our current wind units and their effects on fuel consumption and emissions should be done before increasing the penetration of renewable energy to the 20% and 30% levels currently mandated by some state renewable portfolio standards, and before a national renewable portfolio standard is considered for enactment.
Portions of this article appeared previously on the Institute for Energy Research and Master Resource websites.
—Mary Hutzler is a distinguished senior fellow for the Institute for Energy Research and formerly the top energy analyst for the Energy Information Administration, where she specialized in data collection, analysis, and forecasting. Hutzler also served as acting administrator in 2001.
.
So greedy for oil profits. It takes the kind of guy who would design an advertising campaign to lure children into a smoking addiction...knowing all about the hazards and odds.... OH, and lie about the effects of smoking... Is that a Cheney? A Limburger? A beck? Yip
Linear Mode
