Canute Get There From Here

Andrew Revkin at the New York Times Dot Earth blog does his best to annotate Al Gore's latest climate hysteria. From the perspective of an engineer who has worked in the utility area, I think Revkin misses an important point. Simply put, Gore has no clue - whatsoever - what he is talking about. None. Take this quote:

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity.

The fact is, we do have an interconnected grid - or nothing would be working the way it does. The other fact is that the laws of physics dictate how line losses work. It is not possible to transmit power from "where the sun shines and the wind blows" to anywhere all that distant from those places. This has to do with the pure physical constraints of how electricity is produced and transmitted. All those overhead transmission lines have real - and absolute - physical constraints on them. Al Gore cannot wave his magic wand and remove those constraints.

When Gore can pull off what King Canute could not and repeal the laws of physics that govern how things work in the real world, I'll listen to him.

I rahter doubt I'll ever have to.

Traction, Part Two

The Democrats have a real problem. Prior to the holiday recess, they announced how super-confident they were that they had the Republicans in a political corner with their enlightened energy policies. Except they have withdrawn all their big bills from consideration - because the people, bless their hearts - want DOMESTIC solutions that don't count on windy promises.

House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their energy plan.

Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling, the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess.

Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills — including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.

Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar — their “use it or lose it bill” to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back — saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers.

And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back.

“We’ve taken some bold steps this week, and we’re going to build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,” Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at the press conference.

But, as of Monday afternoon, neither “use it or lose it” nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor action this week.

Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach to passing their top energy-related priorities.

What is their super-whamadyne strategy? The money quote:

“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

Larger families - which exist in large numbers - the Democratic strategy leaves out. Those who actually understand the realities of power generation are shaking their heads - trust me on this. Regardless of what your political beliefs are, wind power is available about 30% of the time. Period. Most of the time the wind is either too weak or too strong to produce power.

Politics by wishful thinking is not going to solve the energy problem. Waiting for windy promises is downright stupid. The Democrats are terrified of having to vote an up-or-down "drill now" bill.

Because they would lose.

How Many Orangutans Per Mile?

I have written several posts about the plight of the orangutans. A new study shows just how badly off the great apes are because of the mad rush to produce "biofuels".

New orangutan population estimates revealed in the July issue of Oryx reflect those improvements in assessment methodology – including standardized data collection, island-wide surveys, and better sharing of data among stakeholders – rather than dramatic changes in the number of surviving orangutans.

The experts’ revised estimates put the number of Sumatran orangutans (P. abelii) around 6,600 in 2004. This is lower than previous estimates of 7,501 as a result of new findings that indicate that a large area in Aceh that was previously thought to contain orangutans actually does not. Since forest loss in Aceh has been relatively low from 2004 to 2008, the 2004 estimate is probably not much higher than the actual number in 2008. The 2004 estimate of about 54,000 Bornean orangutans (P. pygmaeus) is probably also higher than the actual number today as there has been a 10 percent orangutan habitat loss in the Indonesian part of Borneo during that period……

…….Although other threats to orangutan survival exist, such as hunting in agricultural areas where human-orangutan conflicts exist, the biggest by far is forest destruction associated with the burgeoning palm oil industry in Indonesia and Malaysia. Together, they are the world’s largest palm oil producers with a combined global market share of 80.5 percent. Rapid expansion of the palm oil industry coupled with poor land-use planning are further pressuring forests and the orangutans who depend on them for survival.

The madness of biofuels. The truth is that biofuels produce more carbon emissions, not less.

Notes From Novak

A couple of interesting items in Robert Novak's column today. First, Wesley Clark may have ruined his chances of being chosen as Obama's running mate with his attempt at belittling John McCain's military experience.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, whose stock as Sen. Barack Obama's possible vice presidential running mate had been rising, may have ruined his chances with his belittling attack on Sen. John McCain's war record.

Clark, along with other Obama surrogates, followed the campaign's line of downgrading McCain's performance as a Vietnam War POW. But Clark was particularly insulting. ("I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.") He also got more attention by appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," while other surrogates addressed campaign gatherings.

Even more interesting is an item further down the page:

When Chairman David Obey announced before the Fourth of July break that he was shutting down his House Appropriations Committee's consideration of money bills, House Republican leaders felt they had the Democratic majority on the run over soaring gas prices.

The committee was considering the Labor-HHS appropriation when ranking Republican Jerry Lewis offered the Interior money bill as an amendment to force a vote on oil drilling. "As far as I'm concerned," Obey said as he adjourned the committee, charging Republican obstructionism, "they've had their shot."

The Democrats are desperate to avoid voting on expanding oil exploration. This is a surprise hot-button issue for the Republicans to run on, one that resonates with the majority of Americans who are sick of the price of gasoline. The sky high cost of fuel is causing inflation across the board. Even my local garbage collection service has had to raise prices because of the rise in fuel prices. By a substantial amount.

Wonder Why Food Prices Are Skyrocketing?

I have pointed out for some time now that so-called biofuels are an environmental and economic disaster. Now The Guardian, of all places, reports on a leaked report they have obtained. The report, from the World Bank, says that the biofuels craze has driven the cost of food up by 75%.

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

It isn't the White House, really. It is Congress and European governments that have driven this madness. (No, I am not letting the White House off the hook, either.) Biofuels are nothing more than a grossly inefficient energy transfer scheme - and a way for vested interests to make huge profits off the backs of the people.

There have been many voices raised against the insanity of biofuels, but Europe and the United States keep blindly riding the biofuel bandwagon.

"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

Speculators and special interests are making things worse. It has never been easier to rape the planet than it is today. Just say you're "saving the planet" and you have a license to destroy. The human cost of biofuels is too high. It is time to stop this madness.

Jobs. Good Ones.

Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, has been mentioned here at Blue Crab Boulevard several times in the past. Moore is now an eloquent spokesman in favor of nuclear power. He is now the co-chair of an advocacy group called the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy. They have just released a report detailing the economic impact a "nuclear renaissance" would have. Basically, lots and lots of extremely good jobs would be created.

Currently, 17 companies and consortia are considering around 30 new reactors in the United States. This new era of nuclear energy will translate into tens of thousands of jobs created to construct,maintain and support new reactors.

Both plant construction and operation will create thousands of jobs in communities surrounding the plants. Depending on the building technique selected, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) anticipates new reactors planned will require tens of thousands of workers for construction,engineering and project management —as many as 4,000 per project at peak periods.

These are high-paying jobs, many of them are union jobs. And the plants produce enormous economic benefit for their localities. Existing plants currently inject large amounts of money into the local economy:

Already, each reactor generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income.

That money creates a cascade throughout the region the plants are situated in. The full white paper can be downloaded here.

The thing is, this will produce more than just nuclear jobs. Huge amounts of construction material will be required. Pumps and valves, piping and cable, concrete and steel. All will provide opportunities for manufacturers to expand their facilities and workforces. Abundant energy will, in turn, allow other sectors of the economy to flourish. It is worth reading this paper if you're worried about the economy and jobs.

Traction

Robert Novak notes that Congressional phone lines have been going berserk over a surprise hot-button issue. People are backing Republican calls to "Drill NOW!"

Members of Congress were swamped by telephone calls and e-mail messages Thursday demanding, "Drill now!" in response to a Republican call for increased American oil production to fight runaway gasoline prices.

Lawmakers got little response to previous proposals intended to lower the cost of oil: alternative energy sources, a federal gasoline tax holiday, an excess profits tax on U.S. oil producers and pressure on foreign oil producers. In contrast, the demand to "drill now" (first urged this year by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich) has taken hold.

Our politicians had better pay attention to this one, this could be extremely damaging to Democrats if they continue to stonewall drilling for oil here in this country. This could also be a massive boost for Republicans in November. So far, the "Drill NOW!" support is coming from Republican lawmakers. Democrats ignore this at their own peril.

Washington's stupid energy policies are directly responsible for the promotion of pie-in-the-sky ethanol and the refusal to allow drilling for known reserves of billions of barrels of oil in our own territory. It's time to send a message to Congress. Call your lawmakers and make sure they hear your views. Drill NOW!

Looking Green

As opposed to actually being green. The Washington Post notes that most of the highly publicized ways of "fighting" climate change are completely useless - or very nearly so. Instead they are more of a fashion statement.

In March of last year, the World Wildlife Fund in Australia teamed up with Leo Burnett, the multinational advertising agency that created the Marlboro Man, to come up with a new environmental campaign called Earth Hour. The idea was to get 2 million residents in Sydney to turn off all the lights in their homes for one hour. The campaign generated wide publicity, but the energy saved was small — the equivalent of taking about five cars off the city's roads for a year.

This year, Earth Hour expanded to dozens of cities around the world. The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Empire State Building in New York were among the U.S. landmarks that went dark. Many corporations signed on to burnish their green credentials. A bar in Phoenix served a drink called an ecotini — organic vodka, green tea and an edible orchid.

But if everyone who participated in Earth Hour had left their lights on and instead switched to mundane, high-efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs, simple calculations show, it might have saved 1,368 times as much energy, because the bulbs would have saved energy all year…..

….."It is very difficult to get people to invest in home insulation and energy efficiency, which are much more effective than putting solar panels on your roof," he said. "Solar panels are popular because you can see you are doing something — and your neighbors can see it, too."

Greenier than thou rules. Style over substance. Just as Al Gore preaches carbon neutrality while consuming vast quantities of energy. The official in charge of the Earth Hour initiative for the WWF admits that the whole thing is designed to manipulate people:

"You are not going to get people to change what people do by engaging their heads; you have to engage their hearts," she said. "You need symbols to spur action. You are not going to get people to take action unless you get them to care about the issue. You are not going to do that by pulling out the U.N. report on blah, blah, blah."

Very nice. It's really about a political agenda.

Who’s Paying For All This?

Why, you and I are, of course. The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the way the Federal government subsidizes energy production in the United States. It's appalling.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

This is our tax money being glad handed away by Washington. The numbers for biofuels are equally bad:

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

If the subsidies for all sources of energy were taken away, which technologies would survive? That should be obvious. This isn't even taking into account the fact that fossil plants have to back up wind and solar power and be ready to take up the load when those sources drop offline suddenly. This was illustrated last February in Texas.

California’s Environmental Sleight Of Hand

Max Schulz, writing in The Wall Street Journal, points out California's dishonesty. Activists and politicians there brag about how great a job they have done on environmental issues, Except that they really have not. All they have really done is export their pollution.

His words are in keeping with the state's self-perception. Politicians, business titans, academics and environmental activists proudly point to four decades of environmentally conscious public policy – while maintaining a dynamic economy, arguably the eighth-largest on the planet, with a gross state product of more than $1.6 trillion.

In truth, the state's energy leadership is a mirage. Decades of environmental policies have made it heavily dependent on other states for power; generated crippling costs; and left the state vulnerable to periodic electricity shortages. Its economic growth has occurred not because of, but despite, those policies.

Since the early 1970s, California has instituted new efficiency standards for appliances and the construction of new buildings. It mandated aggressive conservation programs and required a certain percentage of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources like wind and solar, which it has subsidized. It implemented far-reaching regulations on emissions from car tailpipes and from stationary sources like factories. And it has moved to shut down the state's nuclear facilities.

For a time, it worked. Since the mid-1970s, California's economy has grown while per-capita energy consumption stayed flat – an astounding fact, considering that such consumption has increased by roughly 50% elsewhere in the country over the same period.

But consider the story of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Opened in 1975, it was capable of generating over 900 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough to power upward of 900,000 homes. Fourteen years after powering up, the nuclear reactor shut down, thanks to fierce antinuclear opposition. Eventually, the facility was converted to solar power, and today generates a measly four MW of electricity. After millions of dollars in subsidies and other support, the entire state has less than 250 MW of solar capacity.

The cracks in the energy infrastructure are showing more and more these days. Many companies refuse to build facilities - especially manufacturing - because of high energy prices and an unreliable energy supply. I remember when they shut down Rancho Seco, thinking at the time that they were making a dreadful decision.

At this point, something like 20% of California's energy is imported. Virtually all of their state-mandated super energy-efficient technology is made elsewhere - and the pollution required to manufacture that high-tech stuff is deposited elsewhere. California brags that is has worked magic. But magic is nothing but misdirection.

Dearth Day

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in 1986, explains why he has turned against Greenpeace. It's quite simple, really, it is the dearth of science in the hysterical warnings of the group. Many of those hysterical warnings are either baseless or completely self-serving.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

The latest hobbyhorse Greenpeace is riding is trying to force a ban on the common plasticizer diisononyl phthalate (DINP), which has been tested repeatedly, used for years and is perfectly safe. Greenpeace wants it banned and untried, unstudied compounds substituted. That and the opposition to chlorine points to more than a dearth of science. It also shows a dearth of compassion for their fellow humans.

Incidentally, I have posted about Patrick Moore in the past. He has become an eloquent advocate of nuclear power - which Greenpeace also froths unscientifically about. Greenpeace has, as Moore points out, become a politically-motivated organization more interested in its agenda than in really saving the earth. Or caring about the human beings who have to live here.

Slamming Bio-Fuelishness

I have been writing for quite some time about the biofuel scam and warning that the growing political demands to convert food into fuel would cause serious problems. It seems others are finally waking up to the facts.

The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy. It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis…..

…..It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources.

Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm. Here in the United States, farmers are pulling land out of the federal conservation program, threatening fragile habitats. Increased agricultural production also means increased fertilizer use. The National Academy of Sciences reported last month that meeting the congressional food-to-fuel mandate by 2022 would lead to a 10 to 19 percent increase in the size of the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone" — an area so polluted by fertilizer runoff that no aquatic life can survive there.

The authors of that piece from the Washington Post, Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis are not rightwing extremists. They are the founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute and a climate specialist and lawyer with the Clean Air Task Force, respectively. They also point out the growing global food crisis and the extremely negative impact of diverting food into fuel. (Ahem, see previous post.)

This nation is diverting something like 20% of the national corn crop into ethanol production. That is projected to rise to around 25% this year. There is a wall looming and we are about to collectively hit it. The myth of ethanol is evaporating rapidly in the harsh reality of the laws of physics. Ethanol is an inefficient energy transfer scheme, not a new source of energy.

Graphical Nightmare

The BBC produces a page of graphical data that shows what is happening to the price of food worldwide. These are not pretty pictures, folks. Now you know why attacks on ethanol production have suddenly become the rage in the mainstream media.

False Promises

You know that an implosion in the ethanol mania is coming soon when even the Boston Globe comes out strongly against the false promises of ethanol.

Ethanol consumes almost a quarter of US corn production. The energy self-sufficiency that all the candidates seek should not come at the expense of the environment or the food supply.

Increased ethanol production isn't the only reason for the spike in food costs, but it's more controllable than drought in Australia, higher fertilizer prices, or increased meat consumption by the Chinese. Unlike those other cost-drivers, ethanol production is encouraged by federal subsidies.

And it's not as though ethanol improves the environment. When emissions inherent in the production process are included, ethanol consumption generates more carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline, according to a recent report in Science magazine. Conversion of other cultivated biomass, such as sugarcane or soy, presents the same problem. The only biofuel that produces a net benefit is agricultural waste, an uncertain source. The best way for American motorists to use less gasoline is to drive fewer miles in lighter vehicles, rather than rely on the false promise of biofuels.

Do read it all, it pretty thoroughly savages the entire ethanol scam. Billions of dollars in US taxpayer money is going into biofuel subsidies at the same time that rising demand for corn is driving food prices into the stratosphere. I suspect that we are one bad growing season away from a real disaster.

Side note: It is particularly nice to read the Globe acknowledge that ethanol actually produces more carbon emissions than gasoline. It's about time the major media started paying a little attention to that fact.

New Nuclear Plants

Georgia Power has reached an agreement to build two new advanced Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power plants. The new plants would be rated at 1,100 MW (electric) and are to be built at the existing Vogtle plant site, south of Augusta, Georgia.

Westinghouse's reactor, the AP1000 design, is new and has not been used before. Utility officials tout its simpler design and enhanced safety features.

Nuclear power is making a comeback in the United States as the nation tries to lessen its dependence on natural gas and foreign oil as well as cut back on carbon emissions and other pollutants. Based on the state's expected growth, Georgia Power says it needs to add more than 7,000 megawatts of capacity and that nuclear energy is essential to achieving that goal.

While several utilities have hinted at building nuclear reactors, few have actually committed to doing so.

Part of the issue is cost for utilities and consumers. The first generation of nuclear plants throughout the country was expensive to build. Construction cost overruns, combined with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, stunted the industry's growth in the United States.

Georgia Power seeks to hold Westinghouse to a firm price on the reactors but is not yet sharing estimates.

Estimates have been given in other states. For example, Raleigh-based Progress Energy and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. have estimated that two of the new Westinghouse reactors would cost between $4 billion and $6 billion combined.

Expensive? Well, consider how expensive it would be if the lights went out - and stayed out. There will have to be a lot of new nuclear plants in this country very, very soon or there are going to be real problems with the supply of electricity. More about the AP1000 design here. There are significant reductions in the number of safety-related valves and piping and greatly simplified safety systems. (Not less safe, just easier to maintain and operate.) I've been hearing about these for a number of years now. Four of these units are under construction in China right now.