energy

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

gregladen — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:47:08 +0000

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Sorry for the inconvenience, this post has been moved HERE.

gregladen Wed, 10/04/2017 - 04:47

Tags

energy

Green Energy

Carbon Price

Clean Energy

Minnesota

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

gregladen — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:03:50 +0000

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

True that. In the US, energy policy and regulation happens much more at the state level than the federal level, and our federal government went belly up last January anyway. Some states will not lead, they will go backwards, but others will lead, and show the way.

So, here I want to highlight this new item in Scientific American by Rebecca Otto.

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change
The Trump administration's threats to abandon Obama's Clean Power Plan and exit the Paris accords don't necessarily mean all is lost

The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. But as Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse notes in his book Captured, corporations had already grown so powerful by 1816 that Thomas Jefferson urged Americans to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Today the conflict between the unfettered greed of unregulated capitalism and the right of the people to regulate industry with self-governance has reached extreme proportions. Corporations now have more power than many nations and feel justified in manipulating democracy to improve their bottom lines instead of the common good.
Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than...

Then where? THEN WHERE??? Go read the original piece!

gregladen Wed, 09/27/2017 - 09:03

Tags

Indeed, and we the States MUST tale up the ball and run with it. My state, CA, is doing quite a bit as you know, but we could be doing more. The power of those who wish to frack out every last drop of oil is strong here in CA, and the tax revenues and campaign donations from that industry are not lost on Sac politicians.

Those darn corporations.

If only state law hadn't created them and gave them the right to own personal property.

Why if it wasn't for ExxonMobile, and their climate denial advertising, nobody would even buy gasoline for their car!

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

gregladen — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:02:47 +0000

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

I'll just put this item from UCS here for your interest:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Study Finds Top Fossil Fuel Producers’ Emissions Responsible for as Much as Half of Global Surface Temperature Increase, Roughly 30 Percent of Global Sea Level Rise

Findings Provide New Data to Hold Companies Responsible for Climate Change

WASHINGTON (September 7, 2017)—A first-of-its-kind study published today in the scientific journal Climatic Change links global climate changes to the product-related emissions of specific fossil fuel producers, including ExxonMobil and Chevron. Focusing on the largest gas, oil and coal producers and cement manufacturers, the study calculated the amount of sea level rise and global temperature increase resulting from the carbon dioxide and methane emissions from their products as well as their extraction and production processes.

The study quantified climate change impacts of each company’s carbon and methane emissions during two time periods: 1880 to 2010 and 1980 to 2010. By 1980, investor-owned fossil fuel companies were aware of the threat posed by their products and could have taken steps to reduce their risks and share them with their shareholders and the general public.

“We’ve known for a long time that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to climate change,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, lead author and director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “What’s new here is that we’ve verified just how much specific companies’ products have caused the Earth to warm and the seas to rise.”

The study builds on a landmark 2014 study by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, one of the co-authors of the study published today. Heede’s study, which also was published in Climatic Change, determined the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emissions that resulted from the burning of products sold by the 90 largest investor- and state-owned fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers.

Ekwurzel and her co-authors inputted Heede’s 2014 data into a simple, well-established climate model that captures how the concentration of carbon emissions increases in the atmosphere, trapping heat and driving up global surface temperature and sea level. The model allowed Ekwurzel et al. to ascertain what happens when natural and human contributions to climate change, including those linked to the companies’ products, are included or excluded.

The study found that:

Emissions traced to the 90 largest carbon producers contributed approximately 57 percent of the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, nearly 50 percent of the rise in global average temperature, and around 30 percent of global sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions linked to 50 investor-owned carbon producers, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Peabody, Shell and Total, were responsible for roughly 16 percent of the global average temperature increase from 1880 to 2010, and around 11 percent of the global sea level rise during the same time frame.

Emissions tied to the same 50 companies from 1980 to 2010, a time when fossil fuel companies were aware their products were causing global warming, contributed approximately 10 percent of the global average temperature increase and about 4 percent sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions traced to 31 majority state-owned companies, including Coal India, Gazprom, Kuwait Petroleum, Pemex, Petroleos de Venezuela, National Iranian Oil Company and Saudi Aramco, were responsible for about 15 percent of the global temperature increase and approximately 7 percent of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010.

“Until a decade or two ago, no corporation could be held accountable for the consequences of their products’ emissions because we simply didn’t know enough about what their impacts were,” said Myles Allen, a study co-author and professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford in England. “This study provides a framework for linking fossil fuel companies’ product-related emissions to a range of impacts, including increases in ocean acidification and deaths caused by heat waves, wildfires and other extreme weather-related events. We hope that the results of this study will inform policy and civil society debates over how best to hold major carbon producers accountable for their contributions to the problem.”

The question of who is responsible for climate change and who should pay for its related costs has taken on growing urgency as climate impacts worsen and become costlier. In New York City alone, officials estimate that it will cost more than $19 billion to adapt to climate change. Globally, adaptation cost projections are equally astronomical. The U.N. Environment Programme estimates that developing countries will need $140 billion to $300 billion annually by 2030 and $280 billion to $500 billion annually by 2050 to adapt.

The debate over responsibility for climate mitigation and adaptation has long focused on the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of nations, a framework used for the Paris climate negotiations. Attention has increasingly turned to non-state actors, particularly the major fossil fuel producers.

“At the start of the Industrial Revolution, very few people understood that carbon dioxide emissions progressively undermine the stability of the climate as they accumulate in the atmosphere, so there was nothing blameworthy about selling fossil fuels to those who wanted to buy them,” said Henry Shue, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford and author of a commentary on the ethical implications of the Ekwurzel et al. paper that was published simultaneously in Climatic Change. “But circumstances have changed radically in light of evidence that a number of investor-owned companies have long understood the harm of their products, yet carried out a decades-long campaign to sow doubts about those harms in order to ensure fossil fuels would remain central to global energy production. Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm,’ and now they must remedy the harm they caused by paying damages and their proportion of adaptation costs.”

Had ExxonMobil, for example, acted on its own scientists’ research about the risks of its products, climate change likely would be far more manageable today.

“Fossil fuel companies could have taken any number of steps, such as investing in clean energy or carbon capture and storage, but many chose instead to spend millions of dollars to try to deceive the public about climate science to block sensible limits on carbon emissions,” said Peter Frumhoff, a study co-author and director of science and policy at UCS. “Taxpayers, especially those living in vulnerable coastal communities, should not have to bear the high costs of these companies’ irresponsible decisions by themselves.”

Ekwurzel et al.’s study may inform approaches for juries and judges to calculate damages in such lawsuits as ones filed by two California counties and the city of Imperial Beach in July against 37 oil, gas and coal companies, claiming they should pay for damages from sea level rise. Likewise, the study should bolster investor campaigns to force fossil fuel companies to disclose their legal vulnerabilities and the risks that climate change poses to their finances and material assets.

gregladen Thu, 09/07/2017 - 03:02

Tags

Categories

Damn those fossil fuel companies for producing products that everybody needs and buys!

I bet that 25% of the remaining 50% of global warming is caused by farmers producing food! Damn those farmer for producing food that I eat to survive!

The solution - stop producing fossil fuels and food.

Simple. Problem solved.

It's a fact that mainly mankind itself is to blame for the pollution of earth and atmosphere with accelerated climate change and earth change as consequence. We don't need being amazed by the outcome of the study mentioned. The report of the Club of Rome 1972 'The Limits to Growth' had already established the same. What will the states and corporations of this world and organizations like the UN do about it? Silencing or censoring this study, or will they take appropriate action to safe mankind? Or will they be out of control? What do we do ourselves about is? What can we expect? Shall mankind wallow itself in blaming and shaming or will mankind unite and take control as far as possible?

Dear RickA

Please read the OP properly before defecating in comments:

“But circumstances have changed radically in light of evidence that a number of investor-owned companies have long understood the harm of their products, yet carried out a decades-long campaign to sow doubts about those harms in order to ensure fossil fuels would remain central to global energy production. Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm,’ and now they must remedy the harm they caused by paying damages and their proportion of adaptation costs.”

Had ExxonMobil, for example, acted on its own scientists’ research about the risks of its products, climate change likely would be far more manageable today.

“Fossil fuel companies could have taken any number of steps, such as investing in clean energy or carbon capture and storage, but many chose instead to spend millions of dollars to try to deceive the public about climate science to block sensible limits on carbon emissions,” said Peter Frumhoff, a study co-author and director of science and policy at UCS. “Taxpayers, especially those living in vulnerable coastal communities, should not have to bear the high costs of these companies’ irresponsible decisions by themselves.”

No, RickA has it right. The companies are producing what the public wants to buy. Clean energy is not cheaper than fossil fuels. If it were, there would be no need for further discussion of global warming, as well over 90% of the problem would take care of itself as developing countries adopted it(I still don't entirely understand your objection regarding infrastructure). Declaring they are guilty for not providing a more expensive product is just going after deep pocketed companies.

No, RickA has it right.

Read the OP. Then re-read the bit quoted above. The problem here is corporate, for-profit mendacity and the consequent distortion of public policy.

RickA is not right because, like you, he hasn't read the fucking words.

...he hasn’t read the fucking words.

They did read them. They choose ignore the message.

"The problem here is corporate, for-profit mendacity and the consequent distortion of public policy."

Could not agree more. But....

That is not what the headline or the published research behind the headline was about. It very clearly is making that argument that Exxon is responsible for the GHG's emitted when their products are burned.

But, this is not their crime. Fossil fuels have to be burned to make GHG's. Exxon's products burned exactly the way they were advertised to do. They make our cars go and our houses warm and our industrial processes work. Just the way we all pay them (through the nose, btw)to do.

Their crimes are exactly what you point out. Plus, I would add, the morbidity and mortality and the external costs of greenhouse gases.

But this is not the first time I have seen this same invalid argument made against Exxon, et al. But where is the discussion on their real crimes, I ask you?

Greg - how about an article on the proposed changes to the Crimes Against Humanity laws which would allow environmental crimes to be prosecuted?

How is the deliberate lying and subversion of the political process not exactly like the legality of giving a toddler a loaded pistol?

How is the deliberately false propaganda campaign against renewable energy, which will kill billions (the U.N. has already said it has killed millions), not exactly as worthy of prosecution for Crimes Against Humanity as were the propaganda efforts of Joseph Goebbels, who never physically injured a human being himself?

IMHO, these are the questions we should be reading studies and treatises about, not that Exxon sold us a lot of gasoline.

The elephants in the room are the explosive growth of word population, especially since the industrial revolution, and the increase in the urbanization of that population, made increasingly easy by the substitution of petroleum-powered machinery in agriculture for human labor. The U. S. although not the fastest growing human population, has added almost 190 million people since 1940 and the urban population has grown from a minority percentage to a great majority.
Some people seem unable to conceptualize a life different from the one they are now living, as if it were the only possibility. Their and my not too remote descendants will ne following a very different way of living unless oil reserves are somehow growing -- and fast enough to keep pace with the increasing population.

I read recently that the GOP in control of one of the states (probably one of the old Confederacy decided that sustainability would no longer be part of its planning. (I wasn't aware that it was given much more than lip service anyway. Profits always come first, don't they?)

My view is that demand for fossil fuels is what gets fossil fuels produced.

If everybody stopped using fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies would produce less.

Just like if everybody stopped smoking, Tobacco companies would produce less cigarettes.

Just like if everybody stopped drinking alcohol, less alcohol would be produced.

Just like if everybody stopped using illegal drugs, less illegal drugs would be produced.

Blaming the fossil fuel companies is silly.

Tyvor, most population projections have a peak later this century. Many of the most developed countries have below replacement level birth rates, and only immigration is keeping the population high, while Japan will shrink if their oldsters ever die.

I don't think the relevant point here is that they did this bad thing. I agree with RickA, we all bought the fuel.

To me, the relevant point is that the government can take over and liquidate a very small number of companies and be done with the whole fossil fuel thing.

First we have to get rid of Trump, though.

Greg #11:

Do you really advocate the government taking over and liquidating the fossil fuel companies?

I think that fossil fuels are still net beneficial and therefore there would be net harm caused by that action. Maybe after 2 degrees C (give or take 1/2 degree) more warming, fossil fuels will be net harmful - but that is not the case today (in my opinion).

Rick, he likely supports government taking over all companies.
'Liquidating' fossil fuel companies, what an apt phrase.

RickA

Blaming the fossil fuel companies is silly.

No, it is correct. They lied for profit and in doing so, distorted public policy and delayed the onset of decarbonisation by at least two decades. That is a crime against humanity.

If everybody stopped using fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies would produce less.

Just like if everybody stopped smoking, Tobacco companies would produce less cigarettes.

How ironic that you mention the Tobacco Companies.
The point is, both the Tobacco Companies and the Fossil Fuel Companies knew the truth but covered it up and lied to protect their bottom line.
Had the Tobacco Companies come clean back in the 1960s, many people who took up smoking would not have done so. Had the Fossil Fuel Companies come clean in the late 1970s, extensive research into alternatives to fossil fuels would have been done and less warming would have occurred.
Saying that if people stopped smoking the Tobacco Companies would have produced less cigarettes is disingenuous. As BBD points out:

They lied for profit and in doing so, distorted public policy and delayed the onset of decarbonisation by at least two decades.

#7 " through the nose "..
No. Its all extraordinarily good value. Many people dont understand how cheap energy is. Usually rich people.
I cant state this strongly enough.
Diesel is gobsmackingly cheap.
It would be good value at AUD10 a litre.
And LPG! Wow. Cheap as chips.
Its a real mystery to me why people feel liquid fuels are dear.
I think mostly its because they have not done any physical labour
to understand the value. Never hand pumped water. Never dug a ditch. Jeez the amount of hard dirt one can dig or water pumped with a litre of diesel is amazing.

MikeN

Clean energy is not cheaper than fossil fuels...

One word; subsidies.

That isn't all though, fossil fuel producers enjoy other financial benefits which drain on your tax dollars. Strange that you ignore and don't get upset about that.

I have seen these claims of subsidies for fossil fuels, and for the most part to get a big number they include tax credits available to all companies, like expensing of equipment, and wars.

MikeN #18

Please don't insult everybody's intelligence.

Subsidies to the FF industry are by any definition vast.

The inability of the free market God to readily distinguish between smart/useful/sensible demands and stupid/childish/self destructive demands creates a strong argument against apointing it the sole or perfect arbiter of how an energy dependent society ought to make its energy choices.

"#7 ” through the nose “..
No. Its all extraordinarily good value. Many people dont understand how cheap energy is. Usually rich people.
I cant state this strongly enough.
Diesel is gobsmackingly cheap."

Except for the tens of thousands of trillions of dollars in external costs (adaptation to AGW for 10,000 years) which are not included.

Except for wind and solar energy which already make driving your car 1/4 the price of your beloved diesel. Which if subsidized to the extent of fossil fuels, would provide electricity for free.

Fossil fuels are not cheap - they are ridiculously expensive.

#19 BBD, this does look like a better list of subsidies than what I had reviewed before. The IMF estimate looks like junk- almost all of it is a cost of pollution and global warming and calling it a subsidy.
I can't find a list to the IEA's report, the link just goes to a report that mentions the total. If they are using purchasing power parity to produce large subsidies(referred to as an objection made by Middle East countries) then their estimate is wrong. The idea that every instance of local price being below world price is a subsidy is not valid, but without seeing the country breakdown it is impossible to know for sure.
OECD study was the type I had in mind, looking at producer subsidies. The report goes into detail, and acknowledges the issue of capital expensing, but I can't see the list of individual subsidies that go into the totals.

The IMF estimate looks like junk- almost all of it is a cost of pollution and global warming and calling it a subsidy.

Viewed from the balance sheet, uncosted externalities are indistinguishable from subsidies.

Re #10: (1) If I remember correctly the population peak you mentioned is not a small increase. The world population is predicted to rise to almost 10 billion by 2050 and over 11 billion by 2100. By 2050 the U.S. is predicted to grow to 390 million people..

(2) The declining birth rate in developed countries is tied to several things including an increased standard of living in general, especially increased longevity, better survival rates for children, less strenuous work (so that less human help is needed), and access to birth control. However, what is happening now and has been for several decades is no longer so favorable to a declining rate of population increase.

Note, for example, the decades long stagnation of real wages for most Americans fostered by GOP economic policies (trickle down etc.), Note the relatively high rate of American child mortality for a developed country. Note the increasingly effective war by the religious right on access to birth control (especially but not just abortion), Note that the effects of global warming will increase with time and many of those effects are deleterious -- at least in the short term (i.e. decades to 1000s of years).

I'm also going to take a whack at MikeN's comment that

Clean energy is not cheaper than fossil fuels.

In South Africa, there is a program for Eskom (our national electricity provider) to purchase electricity from privately owned suppliers generating electricity from wind and solar. Already, Eskom is paying less for electricity from the independent power producers than it is for electricity generated from its coal fired power stations.
Clean energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels, and as the technology gets better, it will only get even cheaper.

There's an awful lot of bollocks talked about clean energy costs. While the energy / climate literate know that FF costs are hugely understated because they exclude the uncosted externalities of particulate and CO2 atmospheric pollution, there is routine misrepresentation of the true cost variable renewable generation from wind and solar.

By far the worst offender is the solar industry, which has seeded the meme that because solar modules have fallen rapidly in price, solar energy is 'cheap'. This is entirely false at utility scale.

Large-scale SPV generation is highly intermittent and has an absolute requirement for utility-scale storage which is still borderline vapourware unless you opt for LiION which is very expensive and inappropriate because of its relatively short charging cycle lifetime.

Solar modules are only the cheapest part of the total system cost of large-scale SPV. So presenting the cost of the array as the total system cost - as is the industry norm - is dishonest.

The same holds true for wind: although turbine costs are falling, the array is only a part of the total system cost but the same misleading claim about cost is made by the industry. Like solar, wind is intermittent and requires a combination of utility-scale storage (pumped hydro is arguably the best option but it is extremely expensive at scale) and wide-area integration via (extremely expensive) new long-distance transmission capacity and grid interconnections. All these things are carefully omitted from the 'cheap energy' pitch.

Obviously we need to transition to low-carbon generation technology and we need to do it fast. Obviously wind and solar will be the techologies that must scale to take over from FFs. Obviously W&S do not have the potentially devastating environmental externalities of FFs.

But it is equally obvious that misleading claims about cheap renewables are going to come back to haunt the industry as soon as W&S really start to scale. So IMO, the industry would be well-advised to stop misrepresenting the true cost of its products.

Re #26: Are you saying that #25 is misinformation and South African energy costs are not less for renewable energy, or what?

Anyway, if energy costs rise to save the planet drastic climate change then so what? Did you expect energy to be cheap forever? do you think fossil fuel costs going to stay constant as supplies dwindle and it costs more to obtain it from lower and lower grade supplies (like Alberta's oil shale)?

BBD,

you praise Big Oil by faint damnation (raising obvious questions as to how much they're paying you):

They lied for profit and in doing so, distorted public policy

"Lied for profit"? Could you be any vaguer, BBD? If your allegiance to the planet isn't compromised financially, then you ought to have no trouble being specific here:

Their OWN CHEMISTS were telling them that, yes, fossil fuel consumption is addictive, yet they pretended—under oath—that the scientific jury was still out on the neurological effects.

and delayed the onset of decarbonisation by at least two decades. That is a crime against humanity.

Humanity? More lies by omission, BBD.

Preventing decarbonisation was a crime against all organic life on the planet, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Deep down.

Whatever they're giving you, BBD, I hope it's worth it. You're the one who's going to have to explain to your great-great-grandchildren why you actively downplayed the worst Holocaust in the future of Western civilization.

“Lied for profit”? Could you be any vaguer, BBD?

Those of us who have been awake to the issue of fossil fuel promoted lying know only too well its history since the early 1990s. Thus the numerous agents of this propaganda are well know and we don't have to provide a list every time this is mentioned. Here are two linked names to kick off - Western Fuels and Pat Michaels.

Your statement is an example of unnecessary pedantry.

That the true scale of the impact of a warming world because of human activity has been thus suppressed with the anticipated tragedies now unfolding across the globe, but which started even before the latest round of extreme weather events, is a crime against humanity.

Have you totted up the numbers of displaced persons globally. You may try to point at wicked regimes, racial - religious differences with resultant armed conflict as causes of migrants and refugees but that would be to ignore the underlying 'stressors' due to climate change - drought and flooding with large scale crop failures. Coming to a place near you before much longer so don't be smug.

BBD in his #14 and #19 is absolutely correct.

If this is 'vague' to you then do some research, I am sure you really know where to begin and are simply playing the annoying sophist card, as ever.

Lionel,

You'll be glad to know that the bulk of your comment at #29 can be filed under 'Preaching to the choir in a hyperechoic closed space.'

That said, I'm very grateful for the reminder that this is really about those human beings we're all guilty of forgetting, even the best of us, from time to time: those displaced, bereaved and dispossessed by the horrors of climate-aggravated conflict.

Whenever the news turns to a man-made Hell like Syria, I'm ashamed of all the times I've cheapened words like 'climate wars'.

There are people out there for whom that term actually means something, and surviving a couple of brusque twete-a-twetes with Rob Honeycutt doesn't give me the right to appropriate it.

That's why I was so disgusted by the triumphalism on display a couple of days ago at WUWT, with Mr Watts crowing, "Sorry, Alarmists: New research disputes claims that climate change helped spark Syrian civil war."

My snarky response (as follows) may have cost me the opprobrium of the denialistic wing of the Worshipful Church of "Skepticism," but that's a small price to pay on a question of conscience.

Brad Keyes
September 8, 2017 at 10:27 am

At least we’ll always have Khartoum….

New York Times, June 10, 2032

‘For Darfur, justice. For Northern Africa, a chance to heal?’

THE HAGUE, Netherlands—Twenty years late, a war crimes tribunal has given Sudan’s most celebrated genocidaires their freedom again. The conviction of the ‘Darfur Four’ over a spree of atrocities between 2002 and 2003 was overturned today after courts finally accepted the science blaming regional violence on climate change.

“In rendering [the original verdict in 2012], His Honor erred by treating traditional peoples and Earth’s systems as independent,” said an appeals court judge this morning, his voice hoarse from sobbing.

"This led to a significant overestimation of the free moral agency of the appellants, who are black."

The acquittal brings closure not only to decades of hell for the four men, but to a test case in international climate-legal theory.

The released rapists and torturers held a conference in Khartoum this evening to thank the scientists and climate ethicists who “never gave up” on them. They closed by imploring the crowd of thousands to never forget—or forgive—the real culprits, “who sit in the air-conditioned boardrooms of America’s great oil companies.”

Alcohol is dangerous according to traditional knowledge-holders, so revelers who thronged the capital's pro-government suburbs had to make do with firing their assault rifles into the warm night air.

But justice comes too late for Muammar bin Skaf al Khartoumi, one of the original Darfur Five, who died behind bars in 2022. The tragedy was a complication of an HIV infection blamed on one of his victims, a child prostitute who gave him the disease while being raped in the bloody summer of 2003.

Col. al Khartoumi told interviewers on his deathbed that his greatest comfort was having lived long enough to see his killer pay for his crimes against Allah in 2015. (Shari'a does not permit the throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings until they’ve "attained manhood"—a threshold most scholars interpret as the age of 18.)

Sir Julian Assange, a leading advocate for the rights of the innocent, reminded the international community that today’s news was no excuse for complacency.

“Hundreds of men and women still rot in UN dungeons for ‘crimes against humanity’ committed in the heat of wars they didn’t even start, no pun intended.

"Remember: people don’t increase the frequency and severity of regional conflict; global warming increases the frequency and severity of regional conflict.”

Sir Julian is no stranger to legal trials—or at least tribulations—himself, having spent years on the run from one embassy to another. His own nightmare began on an "unseasonably balmy night" in 2010 when he put his penis in a sleeping colleague, only to be charged with an act of microaggression.

# 27

Re #26: Are you saying that #25 is misinformation and South African energy costs are not less for renewable energy, or what?

Yes. At small scale, as in SA at present, W&S are free riders on the back of existing FF-fired plant which compensates for their intermittency. W&S plant owners pay nothing for this service as it is implemented at grid-level. So their costs are artificially reduced.

Anyway, if energy costs rise to save the planet drastic climate change then so what? Did you expect energy to be cheap forever? do you think fossil fuel costs going to stay constant as supplies dwindle and it costs more to obtain it from lower and lower grade supplies (like Alberta’s oil shale)?

What I am saying is that the W&S industries should stop peddling the meme that their products are cheap when in fact they are only partially costed. That's coming very close to a false prospectus and there will be consequences.

It would also be nice to see the meme disappear from online discourse.

Julian Frost, if renewable energy is cheaper now or at any point in the next decade and a half or so, then global warming is not something to worry about. Developing countries are not going to invest in fossil fuels to pay more money for energy. This will be the bulk of global warming emissions in the next 50 years, with China already at 30% of the global share, and India at 5%, both increasing emissions yearly. We have already seen price cause huge changes to the US source of power production from coal to natural gas, so we can assume the developed countries will also change to renewable energy if it is cheaper. That is about 30% of global emissions for US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Russia.

There will be whatever warming is 'locked in' plus the emissions of the next decade and a half which will be higher than now, and then the emissions will start to drop whenever renewables are cheaper, taking RCP8.5,4.5 etc off the table and more towards RCP2.6. All of this would happen with no specific action targeted towards global warming, just because it is cheaper.
Note emissions have already started to drop in some places due to a switch to natural gas from coal, but this drop is not a path towards stabilizing CO2 emissions. Depending on the price difference, there may not be a 100% drop in emissions, but there would be a path towards a substantial drop that would significantly reduce global warming not just the 30% or so reduction that natural gas can produce, but 80% or more.

I stand by my claim that renewables are not cheaper than fossil fuels. They may be at some point, but not yet.

Re #32:

So basically you are saying that you have been and are still happy to wait for the drop in cost of renewable energy to below that of fossil fuels so that the free market can substitute for human intelligence and planning. And this, presumably is to save you from any increase in your energy bills even though they will rise anyway as fossil fuels become harder and more expensive to locate and develop and despite the fact that the longer action is postponed, the more difficult life on the planet will find it to adjust without trauma. In a previous post, Greg pointed out that there is already enough warming to come because of past greenhouse gas emissions to cause a significant rise in sea level over what would have happened otherwise. What do you think will happen when the people in the present coastal cities on low-lying coasts have to move elsewhere. More good farmland covered by city and suburban sprawl, more people forced to move from where migrations are headed because of rising prices for land and the resulting increases in other prices and property taxes as well as the overcrowding and stretching of services as the inland cities try to cope. Yeah, it'll be great -- for people who own property they don't need to live on..

Tyvor, what I am saying is that I don't believe renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, or will be anytime soon.
Frequently this statement gets said to make it look like there is no cost to dealing with global warming; it's just a free ride with less pollution too! Well if you really believe this, then stop worrying about global warming, the problem is largely solved.

How to clean coal

gregladen — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:35:27 +0000

How to clean coal

It suddenly became apparent, just a couple of days ago when President Trump was ranting and raving at a political rally, that the man does not know what clean coal is.

This is a concern because his entire energy policy stems from the assumption that we can mine lots of coal in West Virginia and use that for energy, that this is OK because it will be clean coal.

The term clean coal has been used in three ways, but really, is correctly used in only one way (number 2 of the three below), and when used that way, it is still bogus.

1) The term clean coal, or phrases very close to it, have been used by the energy industry to refer to their cleaning up of coal plants to have them put fewer nasty particulates and chemicals into the air. Clean plants produce clean effluence while burning coal. This is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the fundamental problem that burning coal is a major contribution to global warming, because when you burn coal you take Carbon that is attached mainly to other Carbon atoms in solid form, and combine it with Oxygen, to make heat and CO2. The CO2 is the greenhouse gas.

2) The term clean coal refers to burning coal and somehow making the CO2 not go into the atmosphere. A method that makes the Carbon not become CO2 is essentially impossible because it is the oxidation of the Carbon that is the energy production process. You can not turn coal into heat energy without making CO2. It. Is. Not. Possible. But, some say it is possible to make the CO2 go away or not be a problem in some other way. If we were talking about a small amount of CO2, that might be possible. We could store it underground or something (never mind that this takes energy too). But for burning a lot of coal, for keeping coal as a major part of our energy policy, we simply can't do that. You cant store away a gazillaton of a gas every year and expect it to stay stored.

3) This is the newest definition. This is Trump's definition. You dig the coal up, then you wash it so it is clean. Then you burn it and everything is fine.

Nope.

By the way, the photo above is of the harvesting of sea coal in Hartepool. That, apparently, was a thing.

gregladen Thu, 08/24/2017 - 14:35

Tags

energy

Green Energy

President Donald Trump

clean coal

Nope

Trump Coal

For those who are wondering WTF is our host talking about - read President Trump Made a Confusing Reference to 'Clean Coal.' Here's What He Probably Meant

I would love to read the article but there is a Camery ad that will not let the page scroll. It seems that more and more sites have so much crap on them that they can't even be navigated properly. If you visit a porn site you pretty much expect to have to wear a virtual condom to keep control of your computer. But here? You - like the coal companies - are responsible for the world that your choices create.

Sorry, feeling grumpy tonight. Truth is this place is much better than many. But then that's why I'm grumpy.

Thank you, Kevin ONeill. That helped considerably.

We had Reagan, the "Great Communicator" (of a lot of lies and bullshit), now we have Trump, the "Great Obfuscator" (through accident or design). Is he really as ignorant as he seems of so many important things which are part of his job?

He's shown lately that he has remembered how to say "you're fired" from his tv years but that's a tool of limited usefulness for the problems facing him and the U.S..

Scores are just resigning first. He's lost, what, four? five? of the advisory councils now because they've all just sodded off because the orange turd is not listening to anyone.

Smaller government is what the Republicans wanted. They just wanted to get the tax cuts and pork barrel sorted out first.

Re #5: "Scores are just resigning first."

Oh yes, resignations galore. Maybe that's a sign that some Trumpcateers do have limits in what or how much they can stomach.

"Smaller government is what the Republicans wanted."

That's what they say they want/wanted but in actual fact government has gotten bigger during Republican administrations since Reagan.

Republicans also say they want to decrease the national debt but it has risen through all the Republican administrations beginning with Reagan. You can credit that to the supply-side economics idea that Bush the 1st correctly labeled as "voodoo economics" during his battle for the GOP presidential nomination. During his post-Reagan administration he was later condemned for raising taxes to avoid the crash to which the Reaganomics voodoo led.

It seems to me that the original definition of clean coal was either low sulfur coal from certain sources or coal that had been treated before burning to reduce the sulfur content. Low sulfur content coal releases less particulate and less SO2, which were the main concerns with coal before we started looking at CO2 and climate change.

I'm not a big fan of the carbon capture and sequestration plans. It seems to me like it's just pushing the problem further into the future and setting us up for a big fail at some point.

Tyvor Winn:

"You can credit that to the supply-side economics idea that Bush the 1st correctly labeled as “voodoo economics” during his battle for the GOP presidential nomination"

Looks like we might be in for a second dose because Laffer, believe it or not, has risen from the politically dead and the Trumpsters appear to pay attention to what he says.

So, another round of tax cuts for the wealthy with fingers crossed that trickle-down will work this time.

Tesla Model 3 is Breakthrough Technology

gregladen — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:13:22 +0000

Tesla Model 3 is Breakthrough Technology

The Tesla Model 3 will have a 215 mile range. Zero to sixty in 6 seconds, in case you ever have to do that. Seats five adults. Five star safety rating. Uses supercharging (so, if supercharged, charges in something like the time it takes to fill up a gas car IF you also use the bathroom, pick up a candy bar, there's a few people in line ...).

It cost the same as a lot of cars a lot of people buy: $35,000.

It is 100% electric.

You can't have one yet, but if you really one one and work on it you might be able to get one by the end of the year. The first ones out will be distributed to their new owners Friday.

gregladen Mon, 07/03/2017 - 09:13

Tags

energy

The question I have about these cars is whether they last. The jury is out. Consumer Reports gives them a low rating insofar as needing repairs.
If they need a lot of repairs, and if they have to be junked after 100k miles, they would not benefit owners more than conventional gas cars. The expense of having to replace them would negate any environmental benefit. That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy, with extra greenhouse gas emissions.

Uh, they have fewer working parts and are built from the same manufacturing process.

In what way would the default be that they don't last longer?

"If they need a lot of repairs"

They don't. Fewer moving parts, remember. Not forgetting that there isn't a very fast moving bit that has to deal with thermal shock of an explosion inside and a hot gas rushing around in it.

"and if they have to be junked after 100k miles,"

They don't.

No more than cars do. And in a car the battery is the most recyclable bit and guess what a lot of the mass of an electric car is? That's right batteries.

"The expense of having to replace them "

Is the expense of having to replace them. Guess what: if you're buying a car in the Tesla S or 3 range, you're going to have an expense replacing them with the same level car.

"That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy,"

No, the expense isn't in any way connected to the further waste of materials and energy. Throw away an aluminum can and that's a shit-ton of energy thrown away for pennies. Throw away a plastic bottle and that's a dangerous waste for thrown away for pennies. Throwing away the original Mona Lisa is a massive expense to replace, but very little waste is generated.

#1 t marvell,

The maintenance costs and working life of an electric drivetrain makes it about 3 times as valuable as an ICE system. (My ballpark estimate.)

Given the same build quality, (if the body doesn't rust away around it), it will last much longer with very low "repair" costs.

For example: There is no transmission. Transmissions are a major cost in older cars. Lots of other stuff like that.

I have pointed out in the past that a major beneficiary of electric vehicles will be poor people, who will be able to get reliable transportation with much less possibility of being ripped off. The batteries would be the only issue, and they are consistently coming down in price and improving in lifetime.

And if each wheel is driven by a separate engine, guess what you don't need? The differential. Anyone want to guess at how to design the differential of a car? Anyone? No?

Add in that torque can be made independent of revs so you don't need a fast car for your "Oh, but if I'm near an accident, I need to be able to accelerate away out of trouble much quicker" excuse why you can't have a speed limiter. The peak speed of an EV could be 60 and incapable of going (much) faster, but accelerate up to that extremely fast.

Wow,

A while ago I looked into the individual wheelmotor idea. It is an ideal design conceptually, but probably isn't going to be adopted any time soon, for various reasons.

I believe most manufacturers are going with two motors, front and rear, for now.

And no offense, but I would only accept a top speed of 85, not 60, here in the USA. Others would not like even that, because "freedom", of course, and because they don't understand about torque.

It's fairly common, zebra. Many older designs used the differential because they repurposed the same ICE design that had them.

Hybrids are also more likely to be repurposed ICEs with the differential.

But it's easy to make a smaller engine (cheaper) that if it fails manufacture test is just replaced, and it cuts a lot of the constraints on side torsion of the frame by needing a huge long T-shape driveshaft. And if you want battery replacement you can't have a long driveshaft. The battery has to come out underneath.

Nice cars. Here in Michigan our wonderful governor and hair minions passed an "anti Tesla" law that makes it illegal for them to sell cars directly to customers.

Uh, why 85? That's 25% higher speed therefore 50% greater power drain. And your limits there is 55. Indeed in the EU many lorries have limiters to 72mph.

Know why they overtake each other at +2mph over two miles of motorway? So that each gets the chance to make the most of drafting reducing the fuel used.

So why do you want 85 in a country with 55mph limits?

Wow,

It's fairly common?? I've never heard of a passenger vehicle with 4 electric motors.

Oh, and isn/t it only 4wd evs that use front and rear? Two motors on the front, because FWD is the common design is the obvious choice for common car EVs.

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2017/06/hondas-all-electric-nsx-4-m…

Though I've known about two from Top Gear (of all places) that used 4 wheel drive for their cars. These were performance cars. Then again 0-62mph in 6 seconds is a performance car.

Tesla was also denied a dealership license in late 2016.

From The Detroit News, Sept. 16, 2016

State officials have officially denied Tesla Motors Inc. a dealership license to sell its all-electric vehicles in Michigan.
The license was denied because the company’s business model of selling its vehicles directly to consumers is illegal under Michigan law, according to a final decision and order released Thursday by state officials. The state requires a dealer to have a contract with an auto manufacturer — not act as both."
>>>>I

Yes, this civilization-damaging closing of the ranks started the moment Tesla started to sell cars years ago. The reason Tesla's model is illegal is because they saw it coming, saw the price of cars for everyone dropping by cutting out the con artists in the middle, and made it illegal.

Wow,

The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe.

55 was in place for a few years a while ago, but mostly ignored.

I have driven at 72mph on well-built and maintained highways for decades, because that is the "safe" speed in terms of getting a speeding ticket. I am constantly being passed, often by someone talking on a cellphone.

But you do need to be able to hit at least 85 to get out of the way of trouble in that speed range.

Wow,

Glad to hear they are trying out the wheelmotor design, but getting from there to a production vehicle is going to take some time, as I said. (The reference has a good discussion if anyone is interested in learning more.)

Front and rear motors each driving two wheels is actually a good compromise at this point, again for various reasons.

Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. It's not like an airplane where you can maintain stable flight on one engine.

They're not trying it out, zebra. It has been used for years.

There's already production vehicles using it. That link was the first one and it says that there's a new product out soon ***based on two previous designs that already are out there and being driven***.

Actually, no real need for RWD and FWD as two separate motors. About all having one motor between the two driven wheels has for it is you can put gearing in rather than use a differential (again, go look at how they're designed and what they're supposed to do, it's crazy that anyone thought it would be doable when you look into the idea and not the solutions found), having both forward and rear driven wheels is kinda pointless for the same reason as 4WD ICEs are. You don't need the extra grip, the extra weight is not worth it (though EV AWD will not have as big a weight penalty unless the total engine weight is higher) and that's just more expense.

Why do they do it? Maybe marketing. Higher range vehicles want more bling and ticking the AWD box is a bling point. And expense in the higher market is another bling point.

"Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. "

I think they can already see that. Don't you? It's not like a Harrier where in hover you lose one engine and no longer hover.

Lose one wheel and you can't power from that wheel. Then again if you lose one axle you can't power that axle. So moot, really.

And if you have two wheels linked to independent motors, lose the link or seize up and you're again at the "lost one wheel" option,

From my recollection, such motors fail in the "regenerative braking" form of failing, neither freewheeling nor max power out LoC. Which is safer than losing the differential.

There is another reason to avoid AWD. Brakes can be added to the rear for slow speed stopping. You have to have brakes anyway, and the brakes have to be strong enough to overcome the engine power (or the engine has to decouple only in a failure mode for electric engines, this is possible), so regenerative braking cannot be used for safety regulations. Add in that braking this way doesn't actually stop you because power drain depends on rotation, and you're nearly stopped when you're nearly but not quite still, so you can't stop. Only slow down.

So you need actual brakes. And if they're not attached to the same wheel as driving, you can avoid problems of the engine running and the brakes braking on the same wheel causing some local issues. And strengthen the wheel specifically to allow braking on the axle.

"The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe."

So is it only non-highway speed limit of 55?

Here's the thing about speed. Two things, really.

One, the UK has a limit of 70mph. But if I drive at the rate of the traffic, therefore (with the expected under-reporting from the speedo) being right on 70mph, I get 220 miles or so, including off motorway and roundabouts and piss breaks in about 3h 20min. Driving at 60-65mph it takes me a little over 3:35. I could waste that time taking another piss break. And the range on a full tank goes from less than 600miles to over 700.

Secondly when there was a petrol tank driver strike petrol was rationed and hard to get, so people drove slower. They found to their surprise that they got in at the same time as always but it was much less expensive and a little less stressful. EVERYONE noticed that (who drove to work, I cycled the 6 miles). But when the strike was off, everyone else saw everyone else passing them and sped up to not lose position and the price of the commute rose back up again, leaving them getting in no earlier anyway.

If you're NEARLY at your destination, I can see you wanting to speed up a bit to get out and finish the drive when you've been driving several hours. Though that's the least safe time to do so. But apart from that, no reason to go faster.

"Freedom" doesn't cut it, because there are other people on or near that road.

Despite being about 1.5 miles from the motorway, with the window open, even at 3am, the motorway traffic is loud enough to keep me from sleeping. I'm up on a hill so there's not much in the way of my window and the motorway for 2 miles or so.

Freedom to sleep in comfort? Not for those wanting freedom to drive at 70mph...

The Volvo AWD EV uses an electric motor and automatic ICE.The electric motor drives the rear wheels (IIRC) and the engine drives the front. The "first gear" uses the EV motor the "second gear" only uses the ICE if it's still accelerating at the changeover. This means stop-and-go traffic is EV and regenerative, as is parking and starting off in the snow. As well as hill starts. The engine is set to add ICE for higher levels of speed and the EV then only regenerates the battery as its part to help brake the car in normal traffic.

Not to cast nasturtiums, but I'd come up with something very similar for a hybrid design myself a few months earlier. But I was just idly speculating. I can't help but think engineers need longer than a year to come up with a design, so even if they'd heard it from someone who heard it from someone who.... all the way back to me, I sincerely doubt I had a novel idea they used. It's just kinda obvious if you think about the pros and cons of current engine tech.

At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base).

Wow,

I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15, but I suspect you could figure it out for yourself if you did a little organized research.

Most of it is incorrect, if I understand what you are saying correctly.

AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because...snow. And I can tell you from experience that it makes a big difference.

Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor-- think about it.

No idea what you are talking about with mechanical brakes working against motors, unless you are one of those two-foot drivers?

#13 and #22,

And some people here get on my case when I say "let's have a (real) free market".

What the Republicans call a "free market" is as close to Fascistic Oligopoly as you can get without dressing up in brown shirts.

"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”.

Yes, the modern right has a habit for valuing things (the Constitution, Reagan, rights, decency, the market, science, pretty much everything) as they imagine them instead of what they are.

"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”."

And this is relevant to Greg saying that Tesla is not in a free market because of the businesses lobbying government to pass laws to make the middleman relevant how?

"I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15"

But you would prefer to pretend that would happen rather than indicate it.

Seems legit.

Not.

"AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because…snow. "

No, it's because you've been sold the idea it works. Let me tell you about farmers here in the UK. They buy clapped out ford fiestas and similar FWD cars because they frequently have to drive through slurry and mud and the use of a 4WD or AWD really doesn't help them much at all, this getting nearly as frequently as stuck as the cheaper and lighter FWD cars they buy.

Moreover, being lighter, they can, if they get really stuck, easily tow the car out with their tractor for the very rare cases they need it.

And if it gets muddy/scratched/dented/abandoned, it's cheap enough to not matter at all.

AWD doesn't make a lick of difference. You'll see plenty of AWD/4WD cars sticking their arse out of the roadside in winter because the heavier car, when it loses it, loses it much worse. And the reason to lose it is down to the driver more than anything else. The miniscule bit of traction you get from a second set of wheels only matters when you're running slowly over deep ruts, deep and tough enough to make your car balance on them in the middle of the wheelbase.

You've been sold AWD because it's a blingspot. And it makes more profit for the dealer. No different from underseal.

"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit."

So?

You whined about the credit and now you're deadpanning it not being available as if it were some dismal failure and problem.

"Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price."

Oh, car dealers upsell additions?!?!?! OH NOES!!! WORLD IS ENDINGINGINGINGN!!!! How dare car dealers upsell! BASTARDS!

"Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor– think about it."

You can't stop it with regenerative braking. Go ask a diesel electric train engineer.

MikeN:

"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base)."

MikeN, first, this is a $50 car of the future for the price of a normal car (not a normal cheap car, just a normal car, like Prius or a Subaru Forester, etc.)

Secon, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this car goes to $50 once you ad things. That's absurd. No car has ever done that. Also, many of the ad-ons regular cars often have (a few thousand here, a few thousand there) have to do with drive train features that simply are not needed on an electric car, or other features that are standard on this car.

THIS is the one that is supposed to be the revolutionary one, and it is. The next one, that can be a revolutionary one too.
Or did I misinterpret what

Greg,

You have to accept reality....Haters are gonna hate.

What's fascinating is how this

https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-price-data/

supports the point about the direct sales model-- so many of the buyers really know what they are getting into, far from what happens when you walk into a dealership.

But I guess other companies are providing cars with self-driving capacity at no extra charge.

It isn't surprising that the thirty elites that get to buy the first cars are willing to buy extraordinarily expensive options.

Perhaps I should have noted in the post that this is a new and dynamic situation so you can't just go out and buy one yet.

Oh wait, I did!

Greg, I'd respond, but I'm not sure what you are objecting to in my post. The $35k becomes $50k with options or more. This is not unusual in the car industry. I was pointing out that the base model buyers are likely missing out on the tax credit because the people who made deposits will get their cars based on order of price.

"More".

a) I had assumed you were being facetious with the 50k, but since you hadn't said that in your defence here, you must have been serious. So go ahead, show the extras you'll buy to bump it up by 60%. We'll wait. If your nest post isn't that, we'll consider the post voided.

b) You're complaining that this car isn't the next one and greg is pointing out that this is what they goddamned say it was in the fist place, yet you whine about it like it's some vast scam.

Wow,

Look at the reference I gave #29. The information is there.

For example, getting what appears to be a high level of autonomous driving would add $8K. So it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.

What you should be asking is: "What's your point?"

My point to Greg was that unlike dealing with the traditional dealer, people know upfront what is going on, or they will when more detailed prices get published. You actually know what the markup is and what it is for.

This is a standard EV-bashing argument about cost-- there's supposed to be some "correct" price for electric vehicles, but not for ICE.

The evidence for what? 35+8=50?

You can buy a Ford Focus for about £16k. That would be the 1.6L. You could pay £30k but that would be the 2.4L Which would be a different car.

#34

The evidence that it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.

Nope, that isn't in there. What is in there is they're preparing to pay about 50k.

reread #35. For an EV getting the bigger battery is like getting a bigger engine for an ICE.

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

gregladen — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:32:15 +0000

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

Two items I know you'll want to check out.

The ‘intellectual’ debate Rick Perry says he wants is already over

Last week, Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC he considers his skepticism towards climate data to be a sign of a “wise, intellectually engaged person.” Yesterday, at a press briefing at the White House – it’s apparently supposed to be “Energy Week” – Perry used similar phrasing, calling for “an intellectual conversation” on global warming.

Four myths journalists should watch out for during Trump’s “Energy Week”

The White House has declared this to be "Energy Week" and is pushing a theme of "energy dominance," with a particular emphasis on exports of natural gas. Three of President Trump's cabinet members are out in force this week trying to spread misleading or false messages about energy and exports through the media.

"An energy-dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence," Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote in a joint op-ed published Monday in The Washington Times.

Watch out for these myths:

Myth #1: Natural gas exports are good for ordinary Americans and the overall U.S. economy

Myth #2: Natural gas exports are good for the climate

Myth #3: Natural gas exports have been blocked until now

Myth #4: The U.S. can achieve "energy dominance"

The item at MMFA has the details.

gregladen Thu, 06/29/2017 - 02:32

Tags

energy

Green Energy

President Donald Trump

climate change

global warming

Perry

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad - that is good.

Why wouldn't natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

We still live in a world were just a few percent of power is produced from renewables - so natural gas has lower CO2 emissions than coal or oil.

The first two "myths" don't seem like myths to me.

After nearly sixty years of natural gas exploitation in the province of Groningen and a worldwide sale of Dutch gas, complete areas are getting uninhabitable, because of earthquakes ruining houses, farms, churches, monuments and soil. What are the effects of the overexploitation of non renewable energy for the economy, the land, richness and well being of citizens? The USA can open its gas tap fully and unconditionally, but what happens than?

Climate Change and Earth Change are two sides of the same medal. People help raise the temperature of oceans, land and atmosphere and in doing so people bring earth to the melting point of poles and glaciers. In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses. The president of the USA and the GOP are (blindly) applying for a historic role as fuse igniters. Not a thing to be proud of. They are literally playing with matches. Time for change. Laren NH, Thursday 29 June 2017, 23.38 PM DT.

"In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses."

Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue.

"Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? "

So you have some sort of magical carbon free hydrocarbon gas?

Or are you an idiot?

The latter, isn't it.

@ Wow: "Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue"

Comment by a non-anonymous to troll Wow:

an excellent choice of words of Wow’s own input.

Laren NH, June 30th. 2017, 6:47 AM DT.

No, it was a comment by me, great boogers.

Go learn about reality. Any piece of it would be an improvement. Because all you have at the moment is complete shite.

#1 By christ you export alot of shit movies and telly shows.
Give it a rest will yas.
Your Hummers and Ftrucks are an abomination too.
That said, thanks for MASH and Sienfeld and Rear window, which is one of my favorite flicks. Raymond Burr was outstanding.
Cant think of one decent yank motorcar or lorry.

RickA

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad – that is good.

Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

Both incorrect claims are addressed in the link in the OP.

Perhaps read?

BBD, RickA invests in fossil fuels. This is why he ignores fact and favours the GoP mythology on the goodness of coal, oil, and gas.

A suicidal economy based on conspicuous consumption makes us little more advanced than megaloceros giganteus, and promises us the same fate.

NGS Coal Industry Documentary Free For A While

gregladen — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:49:29 +0000

NGS Coal Industry Documentary Free For A While

There is no free lunch, but you can watch a normally unfree documentary for free on the usual streaming networks for a little while.

Click here to get to the NGS site

From Hollywood Reporter:

Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, says, “Coal affects our lives and planet in important ways, but people often take positions on it without seeing the full picture. So this week, National Geographic is making From the Ashes available for free on a number of platforms. We encourage family and friends to watch the film and join the CrowdRise campaign to support organizations that are helping create new jobs in coal country.”

The film premiered earlier this year at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival and then had a limited theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles before its global broadcast debut on National Geographic beginning Sunday. National Geographic will continue to roll out the film globally across 171 countries and 45 languages.

Bloomberg Philanthropies also organized a worldwide screening tour of From the Ashes, hosting viewings in several cities including Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, San Francisco, Vancouver and Washington, as well as stops in Brussels, London, Mexico City and Paris. The film has also been screened at more than 200 colleges and universities nationwide.

gregladen Tue, 06/27/2017 - 03:49

Tags

Not available outside the US (or at least here in Canada) without a VPN

If there are only 50,000 coal miners left then as each coal mine closes pay those miners $30K/year until retirement - that would be about 1.5B a year - peanuts in the US economy - take it from the military or tax the wealthy.

Or cut medicade 2Bn.... then blame democrats and obama.

It is time to stop punching the hippies

gregladen — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:05:12 +0000

It is time to stop punching the hippies

The Republican line is this: Bring back coal, shut down development, subsidies, any encouragement at all, for solar and wind energy.

There is absolutely no logic to this policy, but it is in fact the policy. The reason for it is generally thought to be that the big rich corporations and individuals that control coal and petroleum resources, and that are fully engaged in delivery of those energy sources (and other materials, such as plastic bags made of petroleum) pay off the politicians to support their businesses. And that is true, they do this. But that does not explain why regular voters or grassroots "populist" supporters go along with it. Every other thing about how such folks think and act should turn them away from the big corporate donors. These grass-rooted populs should be putting up their own energy generators and cutting themselves off from the grid, telling Big Electricity to tread no more upon them. But they don't do this. Rather, they go along with the Republican plan to repress the development of renewable independent energy production, which I like to refer to as the making of Freedom Volts, and this is entirely inexplicable.

In the broader context it makes sense, in the context in which the populs vote for the faux populist against their own interests. Voting for coal and against solar is voting against one's own interests, by and large, even if you are a coal miner. But then, while we have explained the bone-headed approach to energy that most Republican voters embrace we've only explained one illogical process by saying that it looks and feels like a larger illogical process.

The reason the leaders and politicians that run the Republican party vote against the planet and in favor of the Koch Brothers is because the Koch Brothers and their ilk own them.

But, the reason the people who support those politicians, against their own interest, act like they do, is a matter of punching hippies. Some call it identity politics. That's a fancy term, "identity politics." Translation: "hippie punching."

But recently, it seems like there is a move to stop punching the hippies quite so much. Consider the following quote, from a recent piece in Bloomberg News:

“Seventy five percent of Trump supporters like renewables and want to advance renewables. The conversation has changed. You have to have the right message. Talk about energy freedom and choice. The light bulb will go off.”

Those words were uttered by Tea Party organizer Debbie Dooley at a recent energy finance conference.

Indeed, we are seeing a pro-energy transition shift among the right wing generally. It is not at all clear that the current Republican White House, assuming they ever manage to do something that isn't based on a night time drunken tweet storm by the leader of the free world, will go in one direction or the other on energy, climate change generally, or Paris in particular. Subsidies for renewable energy may be left alone. Promises to renew coal have already been broken. Paris may be kept intact.

(Make no mistake: Big oil owns the state department, science is fully under attack and research will be curtailed. These things are very real and very bad. But at the same time, there is strong evidence of waffling on just how much the Trump White House well end up hating on clean energy in the private sector.)

Congress is less uncertain. The Republicans in Congress are bigly owned by Big Energy and they will not change their stance at all. Or, more exactly, the only way the hoax huxters in the House and Senate are going to drop their love affair with coal and oil is if they are replaced.

I would predict a fight between Congress and the White House over this, but there won't be. The Congress owns the White House and will own the White House until actual arrests are made. (Never wonder again why both the House and Senate investigations of the White House are stalled.) So there won't be any real fighting, just a lot of counter productive and destructive confusion.

But long term, the hippie punching is becoming a thing of the past, with respect to energy.

Don't worry, though, there are still plenty of reasons to punch the hippies. No one on the right wing need be worried that their favorite past time is going anywhere any time soon.

gregladen Thu, 04/27/2017 - 03:05

Tags