Category Archives: cap and trade

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

Posted on September 19, 2011 | Leave a comment

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?  That is the question asked in a Forbes Posting.  The author, Paul Roderick Gregory, cites the prevailing warmist’s narrative that says all but a tiny minority of scientist believes that global warming is man- made.  Gregory likens this to Stalin telling Trotsky (the dissident) it is what the poliburo says it is regardless if it is true or not.

Gregory  writes: The “warmist” consensus view of “climate science” is represented at a popular level by advocates like Al Gore and at the scientific and technical level by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as supported by researchers at East Anglia (Phil Jones) and Penn State (Michael Mann). This panoply of people and organizations is the equivalent of the Central Committee in my Stalin dialog above.   “Skeptics” (the equivalent of Trotsky above) are individual scientists and advocates who stake out positions at odds with the IPCC-Central Committee orthodoxy.

Gregory says that three recent events make him think of this Stalin analogy:

First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.”

Gregory adds: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.   Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.

Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored  by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.

The author believes that the Remote Sensing editor’s action was bizarre and unprofessional. He adds : In all fields of scientific inquiry, journal editors base their publication decisions on reports of referees, who are supposed to be experts in the area. Presumably, in the case of the Spencer paper, referees supported its publication.  Even if there had been a negative report, good editors often publish controversial papers to open a scholarly dialog. (Can anyone think of a topic that is more controversial and more in need of open scholarly dialog than global warming

Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.

Regarding the criticism of Rick Perry he says: The media is tarring  and feathering  Rick Perry, we now see,  for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists.  I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of  Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee. Such intimidation  chillingly makes politicians, public figures, and scientists fearful of deviating one inch from orthodoxy.

He summarizes this situation saying: False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science.  The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives, and who could blame them.

And I will add that this is why the skeptics suspect the base motives  of the warmist’s allies —- the mainstream media.

Read this Gregory’s full post by clicking here

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Climate Models, ClimateGate, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

U.S.Chamber of Commerce to Pres. Obama–How to Create Jobs

Posted on September 8, 2011 | Leave a comment

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to President Obama and Congress on creating jobs.The letter’s purpose is stated as follows:

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The most immediate priority facing our nation is to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for work.

To create jobs, we must enact policies that promote and sustain stronger economic growth. We must also address extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth and driving away jobs. At the same time, there are specific steps Congress and the administration can take right now to spur faster job growth in America’s private sector without adding to the deficit.

The letter has a number of sections. I have picked out one of them that relates to the Climate Change Sanity blogs theme:

2. PRODUCE MORE AMERICAN ENERGY

Let American energy workers and businesses responsibly develop all sources of domestic energy immediately. This will not only create jobs but will generate new government revenues, protect our energy security, and release us from the grip of some unfriendly governments.

                              Open offshore resources. Almost 190,000 new jobs could be created by 2013 if permitting in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore development returned to pre-moratorium levels. In Alaska, opening up energy production off the coast would create 54,700 jobs.

                              Expand access on federal lands. By expanding oil and gas exploration on federal lands, we could create 530,000 jobs, reduce imports by 44% by 2025, and increase government revenues by $206 billion.

                              Promote development of natural gas. Expanding the development of the nation’s massive shale gas deposits would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and help bring manufacturing back to the United States, especially in the chemicals and steel industries.

By 2020, natural gas production in Western Pennsylvania alone could create 116,000 new jobs, generate more than $2 billion in government revenues, and add $20 billion to the region’s economy.

                        Approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline connecting Canada to U.S. refineries in Texas would support 250,000 jobs, boost investment in the United States by $20 billion, and generate government revenues totaling $585 million.

Well said, and certainly in line with yesterday’s posting see here.

The other letter sections are as follows and worth reading:

  • Expand Trade and Global Commerce
  • Speed Up Infrastructure Projects
  • Welcome Tourists and Business Visitors to the U.S.
  • Speed Up Permits and Provide Regulatory Certainty and Relief
  • Pass Tax Incentives That Create Jobs While Increasing Revenues

cbdakota

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, cap and trade, Climate Models, Domestic Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Government Revenues, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, Peak Oil, Personal Automobiles, United Nations

One Billion Motor Vehicles And Peak Oil

Posted on September 7, 2011 | 1 comment

Oilprice.com noted that in August, Wards Auto published a story saying that World motor vehicle count now stands at 1 billion.  The U.S. still has the largest registration at about 240 million.   In the Oilprice.com blog, the author considers what 1 billion vehicles and the likelihood of even more being added in the next 25 years might mean. It is interesting reading.  He seems to favor governmental intervention to ameliorate supply (read PEAK OIL) versus demand for fossil fuels.   He says:

It is highly unlikely that there will be anything approaching 240 million registered vehicles in the U.S. 25 years from now. From the vantage point of 2011, it seems probable that many will not be able to afford to own and operate personal motor vehicles of the size and types we have today.

He thinks that the newly mandated CAFÉ standard is just what we need and that we will have to abandon 6 passenger cars and other large sized vehicles. He says:

  In the U.S. we are now facing standards requiring that cars achieve an average of 54.5 MPG 15 years from now. First will come all sorts of weight reductions, such as eliminating spare tires, and adding more plastic and aluminum parts. Engines will become more efficient and car bodies will become more aerodynamic.  Although these changes will be costly, it does not take much arithmetic to conclude that if energy costs are three or four times higher than they are today then mileage will become the key factor by which motor vehicles are judged.

Detractors of these new mileage standards are usually people who have little grasp, or prefer not to think about where real energy costs are going to be 15 years from now. They point out the advanced materials required to build a low-weigh, high mileage, vehicles will be so great that it will push cars beyond what many, if not most, can afford.  

Due to governmental interference, the U.S. is facing an artificial Peak Oil problem.   This artificial Peak Oil Problem is really a part of the Peak Energy Problem that governmental interference is causing.    We have a lot of fossil fuels.  The U.S has the largest reserve of fossil fuels in the world.  It is likely that North America could become energy independent.  Yes, no propping-up Venezuela nor other countries that don’t have our best interest in mind.   And what a break for our balance of payments.  Becoming completely energy independent might possibly be the wrong thing to do because the prices of crude oil could fall below our production cost thanks to the U.S. bringing on more production capacity.  I don’t want the government to dictate how much crude we should produce or purchase.  Let the market decide whether we produce or buy.

Peak Oil will come sometime, but not in the near future.  What the U.S. is facing is an ideological, artificial Peak Oil problem.   The Obama administration gives money to “renewable fuels” programs and tells us that we must do this to reduce the purchase of foreign crude.   How the government thinks they can do this with renewable fuels is beyond comprehension.  Renewable fuels, are now neither economic nor reliable enough to do that.  In fact, the electrical grid people that distribute the nation’s electricity have found it necessary to have fossil fuel powered back-up capacity equal to the wind or solar capacity.  The renewables can’t be scheduled, meaning their supply is too erratic to provide steady voltage and current.  The wind slows down or stops or the sun goes behind clouds and the former balance of supply and demand goes south. They have to have something as a backup to keep the lights on.  Their second argument is that fossil fuels not be used as combustion results in C02.   The fossil fuel back-up capacity blows that argument.  See here and here to read about the folly of renewable fuels.

The Radical Environmentalists fight every attempt to develop our resources.   Oil in Alaska, offshore oil, oil in the Baaken field, nuclear power, low cost coal,etc..  It doesn’t matter, they are against it.   They use global warming, polar bears, darter fish, left-handed ground squirrels  (I guess I made that one up) and one of my favorites–the Houston toad.    According to some reports only 300 Houston Toads remaining in the world and they have been placed on the endangered species list.  “A world without the Houston toad ... is not a world we can physically live in,” says Paul Crump, a reptile and amphibian keeper at the Houston Zoo who works with the small brown toads.  Who knew?  The world is on the way to a collapse. More dangerous issue than the Osama binLaden threat so lets get the Seal Teams to see nothing bad happens to those warty little buggers. (SARC).

Fracking and the oil pipeline from Canada are the causes du jour for the radical environmental crowd.   It is patently clear that they will only be satisfied when this country is reduced to a third world status.   And our Government supports their activities through the EPA and other departments.  God Bless Michelle Bachmann and her vow to eliminate the EPA if she is elected President.  If she is not, she should be given the job as the EPA Administrator.

We will run out of economically recoverable oil some day.  Same for natural gas, iron ore, etc.  But the many forecasts made by experts about when the oil peak would occur have always been vastly overstated.

We quoted The Oilprice.com author saying that in 15 years the price will be 3 to 4 times higher than today.  It could happen but only if we just sit back and let it happen.  For a more realistic assessment of the Peak Oil tipping point, lets look at what has been said on a WardsAuto.com posting titled “Oil’s Price Always Comes Down.”

Five years ago, I believed in the Peak Oil theory. It postulated that global oil production would peak in 2006, and the following shortage would send prices skyrocketing. Sure enough, in 2008 a barrel of oil shot up to $150.

But less than 12 months later, oil plummeted to less than $40 a barrel. Yes, the price now is back up to $100, but I no longer believe in Peak Oil. Here’s why:

Brazil recently discovered massive oil reserves off its coast that match or beat Saudi Arabia’s. Brazil will start tapping those reserves before this decade is out. In Iraq, infrastructure is being put in place to increase oil production six or seven times greater than today, potentially making it the largest oil producer in the world.

And in the U.S., a new drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing is the mother of all game changers. (My emphasis)  Texas wildcatters figured out a way easily extracting natural gas and oil from shale. Using high-pressure water and sand, they fracture the shale, releasing trapped gas. As a result, the U.S. has added 100 years of natural gas use (at current rates), and the price of natural gas has fallen to nearly half from its peak in 2008.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it’s also called, is controversial. Some environmentalists have seized on it as the next great danger to the planet. A documentary called “Gasland” probably will win an Academy Award for hysterically pointing out the dangers of fracking.

Of course, “Gasland” approaches its topic with the impartiality and evenhandedness of pseudo-documentaries such as “Roger and Me” and “Who Killed The Electric Car?” So far, fracking has been done mostly in the U.S., but it soon will spread to the rest of the world. (My emphasis) Before this decade is out, we are going to see vast increases in the amount of oil and natural gas available. And this will have enormous implications for the auto industry and policy planners.

Closing out is a good time to call for a lesson from “Minnesotans 4 Global Warming”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiKvNDTjB4&feature=player_embedded

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, cap and trade, Climate Models, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, Peak Oil, Personal Automobiles, Windpower

Skeptics Ahead on Science but Lag on Politics/Media

Posted on July 30, 2011 | Leave a comment

The Skeptics are winning the science battle but are still running behind in the political /media arena.  What can we do to help?

SCIENCE

Scientists are abandoning the man-made global warming  (AGW) theory in increasing numbers.  They are recognizing the obvious:  The skeptic’s science is based upon observationally based science whereas the AGWers theory is based on computer projections.

Observationally Based Science versus Computer Projections

Amazingly, the AGWers will often say that the facts are wrong because their computer comes up with different answers.  This is most recently illustrated with respect to the recent reports on global sea level. From a WattsUpWithThat posting:

A few months ago a widely-publicized article by Houston and Dean was published in the Journal of Coastal Research (and on your site), noting that although sea-level is rising; the tide gauge data does not show any increased rate of rise (acceleration) for the 20th and early 21st centuries.  This augmented by a >).”>recent paper authored by an Australian scientist as well.

Houston and Dean (2011) considered only tide-gauge records with lengths greater than 60 years, noting that shorter record lengths are “corrupted” by decadal fluctuations.

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (RV) had previously reported on sea level change using their computer-aided program that provided different results of those of Houston and Dean.  RV attacked the Houston and Dean entry.  Houston and Dean responded to the RV criticism by saying:

RV link sea-level rise with temperature using a simple linear relationship with two free variables of opposite signs that allow them to “fit” any smooth data set. However, they are curve fitting, not modeling physics, so the approach cannot be used to predict future sea level.

A recent workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2010) considered the semi-empirical approaches of Rahmstorf (2007), Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), and others and concluded, “No physically-based information is contained in such models …” (p. 2) and “The physical basis for the large estimates from these semi-empirical models is therefore currently lacking” (p. 2). Other recent studies show slowing or reversal of the sea level.  See

The AGWers Are Getting Desperate

For some 12 years, global temperatures have not shown any discernable trend upward to match the increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2.   At last the AGWers know the reason, its volcanoes or it might be China’s coal based power plant emission.   Certainly we can be grateful that the computers have resolved (well sort of) this issue.  So coal based power plants actually make the global temperatures cooler and all along we have been told just the opposite.

For more information read this link and if you want a laugh read this link.

POLITICS AND THE MEDIA

The Need For an Informed Public

For the nearly 10 years that I have been actively involved in discussions and reporting on global warming, I have always believed that the science was on the skeptic’s side.   In a status review of global warming prepared for some State Senators in 2003, I stated that being right about the science would probably not be enough to win this struggle with the AGWers.  For example, the taxing and regulating authority that would stem from enacting Cap and Trade legislation will drive the politicians.   I think the beginning of the end of AGW driven legislation will take place when the public began experiencing pain of the resulting financial burden.   But are we going to be reduced to third-world status as a nation before we can turn the ship of state around?

How can we avoid this national  destruction on the altar of the watermelon (red on the outside/green in the inside)  movement?

First principle should be that the people who are going to be asked to pay for these green programs be completely informed of the consequences of the regulations or legislation being enacted.  This is not happening now.

LEGISLATION

Let’s remember that the House of Representatives in 2009 passed legislation for imposing Cap and Trade on fossil fuel use.  The bill was over a thousand pages long.  The Democrat leadership pushed this massive attempt to bring the nation’s energy under the control of the Government without anyone fully understanding what was in the bill.  The committee chairmen said they did not know!!!!!!   In an attempt to mollify the unhappy conservatives, they agreed to have the bill read.  So those clowns hired a speed-reader.  I believe that a legislative rule should be enforced that requires no bill can be voted upon without a minimum of a week’s worth of legislative sessions following proposed law being published unless a ¾ vote in favor of suspending the rule is passed.   This would not impose a significant burden upon the members.  The objective would be to raise their constituents’ understanding and the legislators should not be afraid of doing that.    Fortunately, as you know, the Senate failed to pass companion Cap and Trade legislation and thus it was never enacted.

REGULATION

Regulations for Cap and Trade are being written by the EPA.  Yes, the EPA is writing regulations for legislation that could not get approval in Congress.  Part of the blame for this are five  of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

  Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Despite the knowledge that this legislation could not get passed in Congress and despite the fact that CO2 was excluded from the Clear Air Act, the Supremes gave the EPA the authority to determine if CO2 were a threat and if so, to write regulations to control it.

The EPA used the 2007 IPCC Global Warming report as their  science basis.  The EPA  asked for comments on their study and then they ignored any response that said that AGW science was badly flawed.  People within the EPA that expressed doubt were told to be quiet.  The EPA found CO2 to be a threat and began writing regulations.  These regulations are vast and growing.

There is a little irony here in that the environmentalists want all sources of CO2 to be regulated.  The EPA does not want to do that because the enormity of the ensuing burden.   Every furnace exhausts CO2, every hospital, every mall,  almost everything that makes our nation go would have to be monitored and reported.  The regulation overload will quickly result in demands for changes.  In fact I believe the EPA worries that it would result in legislation taking CO2 out of the Clean Air Act again.

Here again, the straightforward thing would be for your representatives to inform you of what the impact on them will be.  Congress should limit the damage the Supreme Court and The Executive (EPA) Branches do when they usurp the Legislatures prerogatives,   by passing legislations that restores the balance of powers.

Any other suggestions?

THE MEDIA

We all value the freedom of the press as guaranteed in the US Constitution. However the media, by and large, is supportive of BIG GOVERNMENT versus more individual freedom and responsibility. So they practice a form of soft censorship themselves by only reporting one side of the story.   One would expect better of them.  Although their domination of “what is fit to print” has been somewhat weakened by the ubiquitous Internet, it still is the primary input of news and information for most of the citizens of the US.  If our citizens would do less American Idol and pay more attention to what the politicians are doing, it would have a salutary effect on the their personal well-being and the nation’s well-being.

Surely some part of their misguided reporting of climate science is because they are not trained scientifically.  They apparently are too lazy or too intimidated to try to research the issues.  A science reporter from a newspaper in my area has obviously no curiosity or no understanding of what a millimeter is.  He reported about the danger of calving Antarctic Ice that would raise sea level several millimeters per year.  Recently he did a fairly straightforward report on the transfer of State Climatologist title from one PhD to another.  The one surrendering the title is a notable skeptic and frequent co-author of papers with other notables such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.   At the end of the report about the transfer, the reporter took a cheap shot at the skeptic saying that the skeptic was know to be a member of a group that was part of another group that once received money from Exxon.  If the reporter had any level of curiosity he could find out that the most of Exxon’s grant money is for groups that are working on alternative energy.  If the reporter believes funding by an advocate of a particular position is wrong, then why not then report on monies granted by Greenpeace, of the World Wildlife Fund to AGW scientists and groups. Secondly, the grants of money by AGW groups swamp the piddling amount the skeptics receive.  These grants are governmental and NGOs supplied and they total into the billions.  See these reports for further information about the distribution of monies.Here & here & here.

One suggestion is that you keep up with the skeptic blogs like WUWT, Ice Cap, Climate Depot, Heartland, Climate Audit, Science, etc and I hope, Climate Change Sanity and spread the information widely.

Also write to the newspapers.  Tell them when they are off base.  Suggest things they should look into.

If you have some thoughts on all of this, let me know.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Climate Models, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

Obama Plans to Nationalize the Energy Companies

Posted on July 13, 2011 | 4 comments

This Administration’s actions lead me to believe that President Obama is planning to nationalize the energy companies.  When will he do this?   When gasoline hits somewhere around $10 per gallon as some predict it will this year.  See, see. Maybe you think that if gasoline prices get that high, he wont be re-elected?  That is why he will act.  His narrative will be that he had to do it to save the country. Many of our citizenry will applaud his actions. Unfortunately the idea that the government is everyone’s safety net is becoming too engrained.  If gasoline does not reach $10 in his first term and he gets a second term (and a Democrat majority in Congress, a real possibility if Obama is re-elected) he will wait until then.

Demonizing Energy Companies

So you think that this not something Obama and the Democrats would do.  They nationalized most of the automotive industry and got a way with it.   Obama Care is the first step on the way to nationalizing the Health Care industry.  The Congressional Democrats have long advocated nationalizing the Energy companies as have their echo chamber, the mainstream media. See, see, see, see. President Obama is not standing on the sidelines but rather is leading the charge against energy companies.

What Are The Signs

What is going on is an all out assault on the US energy companies by all of Obama’s administration.  Coal is being regulated out of business.  By managing permitting, Oil can’t increase the supply of crude domestically or from neighbors like Canada which will result in higher crude oil prices.  Natural gas re-emergence, resulting from fracking making available vast quantities of domestic gas, is facing the EPA and other environmental groups that want to outlaw or severely restrict the use of fracking.

And the Administration seems to want to reward our foreign foes or competitors while penalizing domestic Energy Companies.    What other conclusions can be derived from the way this President and his allies are conducting business?

The US has plenty of energy.  A recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) determined that the USA has the world’s most abundant supply of fossil fuels.  The fuel resources counted were oil, coal and natural gas and all were equilibrated to the energy in barrels of oil equivalent  (BOE). The Chart below has the top seven nations from the study.

Nation Total Fossil Fuels in BOE
United States 973    billions of barrels equivalent
Russia 955                     “
China 474                      “
Iran 328                      “
Australia/New Zealand 315                      “
Saudi Arabia 309                      “
India 227                      “

Data from CRS Report “US Fossil Fuel Resources”:Issued 30Nov2010

We have the resources but President Obama does not want to use them.   All this leads to the obvious conclusion that the President is trying to create a “crisis” so he will, as Rahm Emanuel would say, “never let a crisis go to waste.”   Which brings us back to how will he use this crisis.  I believe it will be to nationalize the US energy companies.  If that happens, don’t be deluded into thinking that the Government will be able to provide us with “low prices”.  The private energy companies, e.g. BigOil, are motivated to innovate ways to locate and exploit reserves at the lowest cost possible.  They represent private enterprise at its best.  Don’t expect nationalized oil to provide this leadership or low prices.   Likely there won’t be any benefit to our economy, or boost in jobs and I suspect President Obama knows this.  The reason then must be the ultimate goal of socialists—– redistribution of wealth.

It is hoped, that the following discussion will help one understand the battle the Energy Companies are facing.

OIL

Another investigation is underway to find out if Big Oil (e.g. Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips) is manipulating the prices.   That Big Oil has been exonerated in all of the previous investigations, and will be in this one, is not the main issue here.  The Liberals know that this technique plants seeds of doubt in the publics mind. Typically, their accusations get all the headlines and the acquittal is seldom mentioned.

If Big Oil is driving up the prices how do they do it?  The American Petroleum Institute (API) listed the 20 Largest Oil and Gas Companies based upon their 2009 oil reserves.  It shows that 72% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by nations (not privately owned companies) such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Libya.  The biggest US Company to make the list was Exxon-Mobil at #17.   The Exxon-Mobil reserves as a percent of the world reserves are 0.68%.  Think about this situation where the OPEC type state owned companies have reserves 100 times greater than Exxon-Mobil.  Do you really believe that Exxon-Mobil is able to dictates the price of crude to OPEC?   Of course they can’t do that.

Well, there are those obscene earnings, right?  In 2010 the earnings as a percent of sales for Oil and Natural Gas was 5.7%.  Compare that to 19.4% for Beverages and Pharmaceuticals; 17.3% for Computers; and ALL MANUFACTURING was 8.5%.  So the average for manufacturing was 8.5% and Oil and Gas came in with 5.7%.    So, yes, their earnings are large but not out of line with their sales, in fact they are coming in lower than the average manufacturing business.  And further, U.S. oil and natural gas companies tax rates are considerably higher than the average manufacturing company. In 2010 income tax expenses (as a share of net income before income taxes) averaged 41.1 percent for Oil and Natural Gas companies compared to 26.5 percent for the average  S&P Industrial company.

Domestic oil production could make a real change in supply and it would significantly reduce our balance of payments deficit.  Further it would reduce the income of those countries that use the money to make problems for the US—Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, etc.  It is said that Venezuela’s Chavez needs oil above $40 per barrel to have money to support his dictatorship.   And his friend President Obama wants to see the price much higher than $40, too.

Classic wrong headedness is illustrated by diddling over access to Canada’s rich tar sands.  From the IBD posting “China has its eye on Canada’s oil”:

Together, the U.S. and Canada have enough oil and natural gas locked up in shale formations, tar sands, Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and the Outer Continental Shelf to make OPEC pound sand. But we won’t drill for ours and apparently; we don’t want Canada’s.

With more than 170 billion barrels, Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and ahead of Russia and Iran. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to nearly triple to 3.7 million by 2025. The only question is, will this crude be flowing south to U.S. refineries or west for export to China?

At issue is the Keystone XL pipeline, parts of which have already been built, that would bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline also could transport oil extracted from shale formations in the Rocky Mountain West.  The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the region, dubbed the Persia of the West, may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, and enough to meet U.S. oil needs for the next two centuries. By 2015, oil executives and industry analysts say, the oil-rich lands of the West, including North Dakota’s booming Bakken formation, could produce 2 million barrels a day, more than the pre-Deepwater Horizon production rate in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmental groups oppose Keystone XL on the grounds that tar-sands extraction harms the environment through water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and potential pipeline leaks. The State Department, which must approve any pipeline entering the U.S. across international borders, has withheld its approval pending a final decision Nov. 1.  The Chinese aren’t waiting. Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China’s other big oil company, and representatives of China’s banks.

While the U.S. dithers with concerns about “dirty oil” from Alberta’s rich tar sands, energy-hungry China makes Ottawa an offer it might not refuse. Memo to Washington: Pipelines can run west as well as south.

It is not that the President does not know that the laws of supply and demand are important to price of commodities.   When he pulled the stunt of releasing 30 million barrels of crude from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), my guess is that his intent was twofold.  Maybe he thought that OPEC would see it as a threat that he would permit additional releases from the SPR if they did up their production and thus reduce crude prices.  As the 30 million only amounted to two days of US crude requirements, it’s likely they were not too worried.  Probably the real reason was to signal that things were out of control and he was trying one of the possible levers to stop the “runaway” gasoline pricing.

COAL

The US has the largest coal resources in the world. It is inexpensive relative to other fossil fuels and it is abundant. Coal is used to produce 45% of the nation’s electricity.    While electricity is very dependant on coal, coal is highly dependent on electricity as 93% of all US coal is used to generate electricity.  But Obama wants to put coal use in the past tense.   Obama announced before he was elected that he was going to put coal out of business and he means to do just that.  He is using the EPA to put very stringent emission restrictions on coal based electrical power plants.  The price increases for the ratepayers in the Mid-Western US States are going to be ugly.

A posting in the TownHall blog, “Clearing the Air”:

EPA’s proposed “mercury and air toxics” rules for power plants are built on the false premise that we are still breathing the smog, soot and poisons that shrouded London, England and Gary, Indiana sixty years ago. In reality, US air quality improved steadily after the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted.

EPA’s “most wanted” outlaw is mercury. But for Americans this villain is as real as Freddy or Norman Bates. To turn power plant mercury emissions into a mass killer, EPA cherry-picked studies and data, and ignored any that didn’t fit its “slasher” film script. As my colleague Dr. Willie Soon and I pointed out in our Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily articles, US power plants account for just 0.5% of mercury emitted into North American’s air; the other 99.5% comes from natural and foreign sources.

Energy analyst Roger Bezdek estimates that utilities will have to spend over $130 billion to retrofit older plants, under the measly three year (2014) deadline that EPA is giving them………, On top of that, utilities will have to spend another $30 billion a year for operations, maintenance and extra fuel for the energy-intensive scrubbers and other equipment they will be forced to install.

Many companies simply cannot justify those huge costs for older power plants. Thus Dominion Power, American Electric Power and other utilities have announced that they will simply close dozens of generating units, representing tens of thousands of megawatts – enough to electrify tens of millions of homes and businesses.

Electricity costs are set to skyrocket, just as the President promised. Consumers can expect to pay at least 20% more in many states by 2014 or shortly thereafter. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois families and businesses will shell out 40-60% more! How’s that for an incentive to ramp up production and hire more workers? How’s that “hope and change” working out for families that had planned to fix the car, save for college and retirement, take a nice vacation, get that long-postponed surgery?

For a mid-sized hospital or factory that currently pays $500,000 annually for electricity (including peak-demand charges), those rate hikes could add $300,000 a year to its electricity bill.

And it’s not just private businesses that will get hammered. As the Chi Trib notes, if the Chicago public school system wants to keep the lights on and computers running for two semesters, by 2014 it will get hit for an extra $2.7 million it doesn’t have, to pay for skyrocketing electricity costs.

Carry those costs through much of the US economy – especially the 26 states that get 48-98% of their electricity from coal-fired power plants – and we are talking about truly “fundamental transformations.” Millions will be laid off, millions more won’t be hired, millions of jobs will be shipped overseas – and millions will endure brownouts, blackouts and social unrest.

The Chairman of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Jonathan Samet implies there is no limit to the EPA authority according to a Junk Science Posting “Samet” No End To EPA Air Regulations:”

What Samet is saying is that there is no scientific basis for EPA not continually reducing manmade air emissions until there aren’t any. As Samet points out, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could literally regulate us out of any sort of industry without regard to the consequences.

Classic doublespeak by those who are  our “betters” that want us to use mercury laden lights that are much more expensive than low cost incandescent bulbs (that they are banning) when Energy Secretary Steven Chu said “ We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their money.”

Natural Gas

Fracking technology involves pumping high-pressure water, sand and some chemicals into a borehole to create fractures in the shale formations in which natural gas and oil resides.  The fracturing of shale makes paths for the gas and oil to move to the collection piping and up to the surface.   This technology has been used by the oil and gas producers for some while but recently fracking has been used to tap massive quantities of natural gas. The quantities are so large that some estimates of the available natural gas are said to be equal to a 200-year supply for the US.

But the Obama administration never sleeps when it comes to seeking ways to deprive the nation of new supplies of energy.  The EPA has begin to study fracking:  National Review Online’s “The Fracas about Fracking” raises concerns about the likelihood of the study providing a fair review or a predetermined outcome which will reflect unfavorably on the practice of fracking:

In deciding on a policy on fracking, we should not wait for a congressionally mandated EPA report on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, due in 2012. A congressional hearing held in May revealed fatal flaws in what was supposed to be a definitive, vigorously peer-reviewed study. For one thing, it will be an inside job from the EPA; the study’s review panel excludes anyone with professional expertise in current industry practices or the technology of hydraulic fracturing. Under the current administration, industry experts, like highly credentialed professors of petroleum engineering, are assumed to be shills for greedy enterprises.

The EPA study has some other serious defects. It will cherry-pick only four wells, out of hundreds of thousands, for full forensic analysis, and it has excluded representatives of state regulatory agencies — which have six decades of experience in regulating this practice, which began in 1948 — from its review panel. Nor do the researchers seem aware of the difference between, on one hand, models of the assumed effects of hydraulic fracturing and, on the other, physical measurements of the results of hundreds of actual fracking treatments. To learn the fundamentals of this issue, the EPA would have to bother to speak with experts on the technology.

The study seems designed to substantiate a predetermined conclusion: that hydraulic fracturing poses grave risks. Therefore the EPA must either assert regulatory control on all drilling using this technology, or issue a “temporary” moratorium — as in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf spill — until further study is complete. If fracking is delayed or discontinued, massive resources will remain untapped, hundreds of thousands of jobs will not be created, and billions of dollars of potential federal, state, and local tax revenues will be lost.

And some thoughts about this study from the American Thinker “Obama continues his war on cheap American Energy”:

Even if the panel should somehow miraculously decide that fracking is safe, there is a history of Obama appointees rewriting decisions from panels evaluating the safety of energy development, so as to change the outcomes to suit Obama’s biases against cheap and abundant (and American) energy. When the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling platform Macondo sprang a leak, a panel’s conclusion regarding the safety of offshore oil drilling was doctored by White House political appointee Carol Browner (or someone operating under her authority) to make it appear that the panel of experts endorsed a moratorium on offshore drilling. When this manipulation of science was brought to light, many members of the panel objected to the distortion of their views and disavowed the “report”.

Stacking panels with ideological soul mates is Barack Obama’s modus operandi. If that does not work to accomplish his goals, creative re-writing is the next step. There is always one more trick in Obama’s pocket that he can use to keep us away from cheap, abundant and American energy.

There are some things we can do—–you probably know what they are.  Anyway, I will list some in my next blog.

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower

MONBIOT ON DISCORD IN THE GREEN RANKS

Posted on May 6, 2011 | Leave a comment

George Monbiot writes for the UK Guardian newspaper and he is perhaps the most influential green blogger in Europe.  This week, beginning with a blog on 2 May and a follow-up several days latter, he discussed the problems within the green movement.  The title of his 2 May posting is  “Let’s face it: none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking project”.  His subtitle for that posting is:”All of us in the green movement are lost before the planet’s real nightmare: not too little fossil fuel—but too much”.

Monbiot is a believer in catastrophic global warming resulting from fossil fuel use (the “planet-wrecking project”).  And his preferred solution is “sustainability” which means to allocate resources and wealth across the globe while at first reducing and eventually eliminating fossil fuel use.  Ultimately world societies would become less complicated and perhaps more agrarian.  De-developing the Western societies while developing those nations that are second and third world will be necessary to accomplish this.  A tenet of sustainability is that governments will have to exercise more control to assure the outcomes.  Saying it differently, you will surrender much of your freedom to the UN or some like group.

He was hoping that fossil fuels would become less available but he laments, that is not the case.

This posting is not to dispute Mr. Monbiot’s premise of catastrophic global warming due to fossil fuel uses, but rather to examine his view of the sects within the AGW crowd and their differences in beliefs. To begin, Mr. Monbiot is not my kind of guy.   When John Bolton, our UN Ambassador, traveled to England in 2008, Monbiot wanted to arrest him and try him for war crimes. Monbiot also began a campaign to have then Prime Minister Blair taken to court on similar charges related to the Iraq war.  His thoughts on things he thinks we should be doing, IMHO, demonstrate a low level of economic reality and a love of “Big Brother”.   Although our worldviews are quite different, he is quite intelligent so we need to keep track of what he is thinking.

He begins his first posting regarding discussions with his fellow warmers like this:”You think you’re discussing technologies, and you quickly discover that you’re discussing belief systems. The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, whom we want to be, how we want society to evolve. Beside these concerns, technical matters – parts per million, costs per megawatt hour, cancers per sievert – carry little weight. We choose our technology – or absence of technology – according to a set of deep beliefs: beliefs that in some cases remain unexamined”.

He makes sense when he defends his recent acceptance of nuclear energy as a vital need going forward, with or without fossil fuels: “The case against abandoning nuclear power, for example, is a simple one: it will be replaced either by fossil fuels or by renewables that would otherwise have replaced fossil fuels. In either circumstance, greenhouse gases, other forms of destruction and human deaths and injuries all rise”.

“The case against reducing electricity supplies is just as clear. For example, the Zero Carbon Britain report published by the Centre for Alternative Technology urges a 55% cut in overall energy demand by 2030 – a goal I strongly support. It also envisages a near-doubling of electricity production. The reason is that the most viable means of decarbonising both transport and heating is to replace the fuels they use with low-carbon electricity. Cut the electricity supply and we’re stuck with oil and gas. If we close down nuclear plants, we must accept an even greater expansion of renewables than currently proposed. Given the tremendous public resistance to even a modest increase in windfarms and new power lines, that’s going to be tough”.

He believes that “accommodation” (read sustainability) is the goal but he says:”But even if we can accept an expansion of infrastructure, the technocentric, carbon-counting vision I’ve favoured runs into trouble. The problem is that it seeks to accommodate a system that cannot be accommodated: a system that demands perpetual economic growth. And adds: Accommodation makes sense only if the economy is reaching a steady state”.

He has been criticized in Simon Fairlie’s posting in the magazine The Land. To which he responds:”There’s a still bigger problem here: even if we make provision for some manufacturing but, like Fairlie, envisage a massive downsizing and a return to a land-based economy, how do we take people with us? Where is the public appetite for this transition?”

Monbiot adds that:   “A third group tries to avoid such conflicts by predicting that the problem will be solved by collapse: doom is our salvation. Economic collapse, these people argue, is imminent and expiatory. I believe this is wrong on both counts”.

He then gets to his central point about too much fossil fuel: “The problem we face is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much. As oil declines, economies will switch to tar sands, shale gas and coal; as accessible coal declines, they’ll switch to ultra-deep reserves (using underground gasification to exploit them) and methane clathrates“.

Monbiot sums up his view of the current state of the environmental movement:”All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project”.

In his second posting is “The green problem: how do we fight without losing what we are fighting for?”.  It is subtitled: “Environmentalism is stuck-factional and uncertain even of the goals we seek.  But we must face facts and engage in reality.”

In this posting he expands upon the point he made in the first posting and he adds some interesting things.  He  enumerats the disagreements that he believes permeate the green community: “We have no idea what to do next. We have no idea what to do next.  Partly as a result, we have started tearing each other apart. This is an understandable but unnecessary reaction. Those seeking to protect the landscape are not our enemies; nor are those advocating that renewables should replace fossil fuel; nor are those promoting nuclear power as the answer; nor are those opposing nuclear power. We are all struggling with the same problem, all bumping up against atmospheric chemistry and physical constraints”.

“The enmity arises when people go into denial. Denial is everywhere. Those opposing windfarms find it convenient to deny that climate change is happening, or that turbines produce much electricity. Those promoting windfarms downplay the landscape impacts. Nuclear enthusiasts ignore the impacts of uranium mining. Opponents of nuclear power dismiss the solid science on the impacts of radiation and embrace wildly-inflated junk numbers instead. Primitivists decry all manufacturing industry, but fail to explain how their medicines and spectacles, scythes and billhooks will be produced. Localists rely on technologies – such as microwind and high-latitude solar power – that cannot deliver. Technocratic greens refuse to see that if economic growth is not addressed, a series of escalating catastrophes is inevitable. Romantic greens insist that the problem can be solved without even engaging in these dilemmas, yet fail to explain how else it can be done”.

“We’re all responding to the same impulses, but we’re all being tripped up by denial. Denial, and a failure to see the whole picture, are our enemies. Or perhaps, as doctors say about alcohol, our false friends”.

He cites Paul Kingsnorth’s posting titled “The quants and the poets”.   Quants are numbers/facts people and poets are people that examine societies values and underlying mythology.  Kingsnorth’s posting is very well written and he too contrasts the various divergent opinions alive in the green world today.  He believes that Monbiot is loosing his credentials as a Poet.

Monbiot responds to this quants/poets issue here: “Perhaps we are less tolerant of myth than we used to be. Perhaps we should be. Is creating new, opposing myths the best way of confronting the founding myths of neoliberal capitalism? I don’t think so. Is it not better to fight them with withering analysis, quantification and exposure? But can we do this without becoming insensible to beauty, and to the impulse – a love for the world and its people, its places and its living creatures – which turned us green in the first place? I don’t know”.

Well this has been a long post and I thank all of you that read it all the way to the end.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, United Nations, Windpower

BETWEEN THE ROCK AND THE HARD PLACE—U.S. ENERGY POLICY Part 1

Posted on May 4, 2011 | Leave a comment

Between the Obama administration’s plan to drive prices up in order to put fossil fuels out of business and the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the U.S. is in real danger of another economic collapse, just as we seem to be coming out of the very deep recession.  In both cases the problem is ideology.  Obama’s ideology  apparently  is to cause the  US to become a second rate, socialist nation. (Perhaps I am redundant when I use “socialist” and “second rate” as descriptors.)  The ideology behind the turmoil in MENA is less clear.  In some cases it seems to be a move for a democratic society and in other it appears to be a power grab by the “Muslim brotherhood” for example.    Thumbs up for the former and thumbs down for the latter.

Part 1 of this entry will be a  look at the Obama Administration. Part 2 will be a look at the turmoil in MENA and the interconnections with the US Energy Policy.

Obama Administration Policies

President Obama made his position on energy perfectly clear, even before he was elected. He said he would cause the electricity rates to skyrocket.  He told people that if they put their money in coal plants he would see that they would go bankrupt.  see here

He is for offshore drilling in Brazil. In his recent visit to Brazil, he applauded their efforts and pledged billions of dollars in aid for their work.  But he does not like offshore drilling for the US.

He populated his Administration with people of the same mind.

Obama’s Science Advisor is John Holdren.  If you have followed Holdren’s career, you know that this man has made more bad predictions of things to come that anyone except possibly his cohort, Paul Ehrlich.  According to CNS News.com Holdren said:

In a video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.” (My emphasis added)

He and Ehrlich described de-development in their book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions ” as:  “Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,”

Ken Salazar is the Secretary of the Interior.   He manages to minimize leases for new drilling and he prevents development of good potential fossil fuel resources sites by setting aside land.   He and Obama do not want the prize areas like ANWR developed although these and other could make us far less dependant on sources outside to the US.

Steven Chu the Secretary of Energy has said that we should figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to $8.    This Administration seems to be on track to do just that.

The EPA  Administrator Lisa Jackson has a big role in these policies.

Lets look at their latest outrageous abuse of power.    See full posting here

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. 

The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. 

“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case.

Who is on  the EPA appeals board that is appointed by the EPA Administrator, Shelia Jackson?

The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund

And here is another one:

A three-inch lizard that thrives in desert conditions could shut down oil and gas operations in portions of Southeast New Mexico and in West Texas, including the state’s top two oil producing counties.   Called the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, it is being considered for inclusion on the federal Endangered Species listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  To read more click here.

And we don’t want to forget the cover his ever faithful friends, the mainstream media, are giving the Administration: click here

While Obama is taking some heat for the price of gasoline, he never forgets what his goals are.  Remember how he seemed to back off ObamaCare only until he found a way to get it approved through the back door of the Senate.  He is not pushing for Cap and Trade legislation.  He does not need to do that because the Supreme Court in a monumental example of bad judgment gave the EPA keys to our bank account when they said the EPA could write regulations for capping CO2 emissions.

His solutions are primarily wind farms and solar cell farms to make up for the fossil fuel powered utilities that he would see shutdown.  These renewable energy sources are not ready at the present time to accomplish this.  They may never be able to substitute for fossil fuel.  See these postings for more information on renewables:

dept-of-energy’s-analysis-says-wind-and-solar-not-competitive/

/real-wind-power-data—disappointing-performance/

https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/are-windfarms-driving-the-uk-to-third-world-status/

https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/treasury-few-renewable-energy-projects-deserve-funding/

In Part 2 we will look at what are the forces shaping the new energy world order.

cbdakota


Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, Environment, Uncategorized

Obama Wants Supreme Court To Throw Out Case Against Utilities

Posted on April 17, 2011 | Leave a comment

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a lawsuit brought by several environmental groups as well as several States.  This group is asking the Court to force power plants in 20 states to reduce their CO2 emissions.  The Obama Administration is siding with the power companies asking that the EPA throw out the lawsuit.  Obama on the side of the Utility companies you ask with a stunned look on your face.  Well, they are but not because they don’t want to cut CO2 emissions.  They are arguing that the Supremes should not set the regulations, but rather that should be left to the EPA which has not yet written them.  They say that the Court should not meddle in the powers given to the Executive Branch of which, as you know, the EPA is a member.

Laurence Tribe, lib lawyer extraordinaire, is supporting the Administration in their quest to get the Supremes to drop the case.  In his letter to the Boston Globe he says:

“Congress, through the Clean Air Act and other measures, has empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, and that agency has begun to do so, prodded by a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Massachusetts when the state sued the EPA to compel it to take up the problem. The courts should reject the political and administrative roles that would be thrust upon them by litigants dissatisfied with Congress’s decision to entrust the EPA with this challenging mission — or by those dissatisfied with the efforts of the president and the State Department to engage in the international diplomacy required to cope with an obviously international problem.” (underlines are my emphasis)

Give me a break.  The  previous Congress thought it necessary that it write legislation to manage CO2 but could not get a bill to pass. And that was with a Democrat majority in both houses and the Presidency!!!   How does that translate into “…Congress’s decision to entrust the EPA”????  Today, neither the House nor Senate could muster a bill with 50% voting for regulation of CO2.

NOW, Tribe thinks the Supreme’s activities on this topic are a “dangerous perversion of the judicial process and would likely retard efforts to grapple with climate change…..”  It was A-ok to do it in the Massachusetts versus the EPA when it resulted in the Supremes making that horrible decision in Mass.’s favor. Do I smell hypocrisy?

I believe there are two reasons Obama, supported by Tribe, don’t want the Supremes involved any more:

  • Fear that the Supremes will somehow try to make up for their previous error by narrowing the EPA’s power to regulate
  • Hundreds of lawsuits await the EPA if they follow through with their intended path of focusing on the “big polluters–hence Utilities and automobiles” and ignoring everything else.  Folks say that the EPA can’t be selective—- picking and choosing whom they are going to regulate— but rather like with other “pollutants” they must regulate all sources. All the hospitals, the high schools, the office building down the street, your house, etc.  The EPA  doesn’t want anyone to tell them what to regulate.  A decision by the Supremes to set emission limits on these utilities would open the gate for the lawsuits.
UPDATE 19 APRIL 2011  Seems the Supremes are likely to side with Obama. See this posting.
cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures

Real Wind Power Data—Disappointing Performance

Posted on April 7, 2011 | 1 comment

It is difficult to get comprehensive data on wind farm performance as it is shielded from view by “protection of competitive data” or by contract terms.  A new study bearing comprehensive data from Scotland confirms what skeptics have been saying about windfarm performance. This new study is perhaps the most comprehensive since the Bentek Energy(an energy analytics firm) study of Colorado and Texas windfarms.

Stuart Young Consulting with support from the JOHN MUIR TRUST (emphasis mine, to highlight that this study was commissioned by a green NGO) has released a report studying the ability of wind power to make a significant contribution to the UK’s energy supply. It concludes that the average power output of wind turbines across Scotland is well below the rates often claimed by industry and government.

This report examined 5 common claims by the wind industry and the Scottish Government.   The five claims are in RED with the actual result in BLACK:

1. ‘Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year’ In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

2. ‘The wind is always blowing somewhere’ On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.

3. ‘Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.’ Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

4. ‘The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.’ At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

5. ‘Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.’ The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

The final claim about “pumped storage” varies with the area where the windfarms are located.  In the US, an area such as the Great Plains, where wind availability is favorable to siting of windfarms, has little to no pumped storage hydro capacity available.   Availability in most other areas is either used or would be difficult to develop as environmental groups object to the use of dams.  Further there is a loss of efficiency when the windpower electricity is used to pump water to some higher elevation and then recovered in hydroelectric turbines.

The author of the report said:

“It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed.

At the end of the period studied, the connected capacity of wind power was over 2500MW so the expectation is that the wind network will produce, on average, 750MW of energy. In fact, it’s delivering far less than everyone’s expectations. The total wind capacity metered now is 3226MW but at 3a.m. on Monday 28th March, the total output was 9MW.”

To see the John Muir Trust posting in more detail, click here

For further information on the Bentex study mentioned at the begining of this posting click here.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, Environment, United Nations, Windpower

Does your state have Renewable Electricity Mandates?

Posted on March 31, 2011 | 1 comment

Twenty-nine States have passed legislation that requires utilities to sell or produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources.   Electricity prices are higher in those states, partially due to these mandates.

According to the Institute for Energy Research these mandates are an expensive way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.   In their posting The Status of Renewable Electricity Mandates in the States they note the following:

Some argue that renewable electricity mandates are a good way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but renewable electricity mandates are a very expensive way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. According to the California Air Resources Board, it costs $133 per ton to reduce carbon emissions through the mechanism of a renewable electricity mandate. An internal Obama administration memorandum on subsidies for renewables recently noted that carbon dioxide emissions “would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton for CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.” To put these numbers in perspective, it currently costs about $15 a ton to purchase a certified carbon dioxide allowance traded on the European Climate Exchange.

There are currently no Federal renewable energy mandates. The Heritage Foundation has calculated the economic impact of enacting Fed mandates as follows:

Its researchers found that a mandate starting at 3 percent for 2012, and increasing by 1.5 percent per year until 2035, would:

• Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry;

• Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035;

• Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four;

• Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and

• Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

Similarly, Credit Suisse estimated the capital expenditures necessary to achieve different levels of renewable generation by 2020. The bank noted that a nationwide 10 percent renewable electricity mandate would require capital expenditures of $350 billion, a 15 percent mandate would require $500 billion and a 20 percent requirement would require $750 billion. The California Air Resources Board has estimated that it will cost $115  billion in new infrastructure to meet California’s renewable electricity mandate in 2020 (33 percent).

I recommend that you open up this link to see how your State stacks up.

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower