December 20th, 2017 · Comments Off on Ryan’s lie …
Last evening, Paul Ryan told the world that
opening a small … area of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge …
is the most ambitious step we have taken in years to secure our energy future.
After decades of debate, we are opening up a small, non-wilderness area of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for responsible development. It is the most ambitious step we have taken in years to secure our energy future. #ANWRpic.twitter.com/D2JCcNHdk9
First, let’s consider just what the ANWR opening might mean. A key Bush Administration energy official put it this way (in a discussion promoting opening of ANWR):
“You’re looking at production scenarios of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day,”
In other words, in a number of years, opening up a wildlife refuge might (MIGHT — dependent on oil prices, actual discovered reserves, etc …) lead to producing a few percent of U.S. daily oil demand. A different examination suggests that it would take about 10 years to hit meaningful production and nearly 20 to reach in the ballpark of 800,000 barrels per day — roughly 4-5% of current US oil demand. Let’s be clear, that 800,000 isn’t nothing — but does that truly represent, 20 years from now, a serious (‘ambitious’) step “to secure our energy future”?
Of course, putting aside that pesky little issue of opening up for environmental destruction a pretty wide swath of long protected land, there is the reality that increasingly energy analysts are discussing cannibalization of fossil fuel demand (coal being hit hardest now with ever-lowering cost solar/wind and storage, but oil soon to feel severe impacts from electrification of transportation) and projections that ‘high-cost’ oil production will be ‘stranded’ in a world with ever-diminishing oil demand. Considering opening ANWR and an over 10-year timeline to meaningful production (now, ANWR oil won’t be cheap, perhaps requiring sustained prices above $35 for profitability) with this sort of thoughtful forecasting, incorporating reasonable projections of innovations in the energy(-related) world, suggests a very high risk of stranded assets: high-cost Alaskan oil simply unable to compete with cheap oil from Saudi Arabia.
From cyber-security to grid infrastructure to smart-grid to deployment of clean energy (solar and wind, primarily) to Defense Department focus on its energy security to other initiatives and investments, the United States has seen (in both the Bush and Obama Administrations) a wide range of more “ambitious step(s) … to secure our energy future.”
Let’s take just one example, one that Ryan voted for: the creation and operation of the Advance Research Projects Agency-Energy. As the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation coined it, ARPA-E is a Versatile Catalyst for Energy Innovation. Across a wide range of energy domains (from better drilling equipment to hydrogen tanks to solar power to …), ARPAE has fostered an environment for innovation and through its strong work with its awardees moved forward numerous firms and technologies toward introduction into the commercial marketplace. While still early in the game, at less than a decade old, ARPAE is having an impact to “secure our energy future” that will only accelerate with each passing year.
No, Speaker Ryan, opening up ANWR is neither an “ambitious step” nor does it help America and Americans “secure our energy future”. To assert that it does is, simply put, a lie.
December 14th, 2017 · Comments Off on Democratic Party candidates speaking climate
For too long, such a high share of political candidates were (near) silent when it came to climate change that it was simpler to mention the few who ‘talked climate’ as, sadly, Climate Hawks were few and far between.
Seriously, this is changing.
In Virginia, quite a few of the new House of Delegates candidates — while focusing on local issues — were articulate and forceful when it came to environmental, clean energy, and climate change issues. In fact, 13 of the 15 winners taking seats from Republicans signed the pledge to take no contributions from fossil foolish interests. (Which, by the way, in Virginia primarily means saying no to the behemoth Dominion Energy, which is trying to buy its way to more fossil fuel infrastructure with two polluting and unnecessary fossil gas pipelines.)
In Alabama, unremarked by most, Doug Jones speaks thoughtfully re climate and clean energy issues which were one of the items on his campaign issues. This is, of course, in deep-Red Alabama where Jones sought to thread the needle to victory. He didn’t shy from talking about climate change and, as the sub-heading to that article puts it, “The lesson to Democrats: Don’t shy away from climate change.”
Tuesday night, as catching people celebrating sanity’s victory in Alabama, a Democrat targeted on retiring the fossil foolish Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, came up multiple times in my Twitter feed a la the below highlighting @IronStache. Spent a few months to learn a bit about “Iron Stache”, actually Randy Bryce.
..and then there's @IronStache gunning for Paul Ryan. Right now, it's 50/50 and @SpeakerRyan is sweating bullets tonight.
Instead of committing our country to reversing Climate Change, investing in renewable energy, and protecting the environment, Speaker Ryan is standing in the way of progress, applauding as the US retreats from an international commitment to preserve our planet.
In my own #VA10, there is a gaggle of Democrats seeking the opportunity to put extremist Barbara Comstock out to pasture and almost all of them have something to say about climate. Dan Helmer, for example, is clearly a climate hawk — this is a central issue that drove him to quit his job to run full time. His latest fundraising appeal: “A deadly peril” (see after fold for all of it) began “Climate change is a deadly threat to civilizations across our globe.” (See after the fold …) The odds look good that, come January 2019, Virginia’s 10th will have a real Representative in the House and one who puts climate issues as a critical, core issue for legislative action.
E.g., while not quite everywhere I look, increasingly (above are examples, not an exhaustive list …) Democratic Party politicians are making climate change central to their statement of what matters and what they will work on if (when) elected.
The Climate Hawks Vote PAC (which, by the way, just announced endorsement of Sean Casten (campaign website), who has long been someone I paid attention as a leading thinker/actor in combined heat and power, with how to take waste heat and create value from it) has a real problem: unlike in past election cycles, there are a plethora of good climate champions running for office. Scientists, engineers, veterans, concerned citizens who pay attention to what experts have concluded about climate science are all greatly concerned about climate change risks … and, whatever the ‘political chattering consultancy class’ might say, they are making clear that this is an issue that matters and an issue that they will focus on if (when) elected. While many hoped/fought to make this the case a long time ago, that climate is becoming part of core messaging with so many candidates is a good harbinger of where policy making might go in a post-Trumpista/post climate-science GOP world.
December 4th, 2017 · Comments Off on #Climate activists occupy @HouseGOP offices re #TaxBill
The GOP Tax Plan (or “Deficit Augmentation to Enrich Super Rich (DATES Rich) Act) is horrid on so many grounds — from devastating graduate education, to massively increasing economic inequality, to setting the path for destruction of Social Security and Medicare, to … well, the list of horrors would take many pages of scribbling on the margins (as the bill was written). Amid the horror — worsening even further climate devastation and climate risks through additional subsidies to fossil fuels, opening up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, to …
With this in mind — recognizing both the reality of the challenge and the additional devastation that the #GOPTaxScam would cause the climate — the activist Sunrise Movement (which has done some great actions, such as during the climate talks in Germany) put together a team and are occupying House offices this morning.
#GOPTaxScam is a disaster for climate: It opens up Arctic drilling, slashes clean energy incentives, & ups Big Oil handouts.
November 28th, 2017 · Comments Off on Light at Night: a sign of …
Across energy presentations, versions the following might just be the most common image.
The globe at night: what does bright really mean?
Variations of this image and discussion have been around for decades. This post, while reflecting long-time thinking, was sparked from presentations (such as slide 2) at the excellent Green Growth Knowledge Platformannual conference with much top-notch economic analysis of climate, sustainability, and clean energy/water challenges and opportunities (along with more valuable networking opportunities/interactions).
Bright areas, in short, show higher density + higher economic strength (developed) communities. Brightest areas include Western Europe, Japan, and the East Coast of the United States.
Dark areas are low density and/or low-income economies. Sub-Saharan Africa (notably not South Africa) and
“The World At Night” provides a surrogate to discuss economic development (and, conversely, lack of development). The take-away one is expected to take: dark is bad and we need as much of the world as bright as possible.
There is substantive truth here: the bright areas have electricity, have clean waters supplies, economic and job opportunities, health care infrastructures, higher educational achievement, greater stability, higher life expectancy, and a plethora of other ‘life is better’ measures. (Even if the climate change (and other pollution) impacts are lower in the dark space … which is is used by those fighting climate action as a (false flag) argument against climate mitigation efforts.)
The basic message which we are expected to understand on seeing the image:
Bright is good.
Dark requires development to become bright.
There is another way of looking at this image. Very simple, human generated lumens reaching space is waste — no one flips the light switch with the desire to have Martians see them light up their bedroom. While, again, there is truth that ‘light’ represents developed areas, there is also a reality that the light represents a significant opportunity: how can humanity become more efficient in lighting to cut wasted energy lighting the heavens.
Comments Off on Light at Night: a sign of …Tags:Energy
November 28th, 2017 · Comments Off on A clear-eyed look at Gov. McAuliffe’s climate record …
Recently, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has been making some news when it comes to climate change.
When climate-science denier Donald Trump declared his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Gov. McAuliffe stepped up to declare that Virginia would act to address climate change at the state level.
Following an executive order earlier this year to examine what it would take for Virginia to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the report came back with a path to join RGGI via Executive action, which Governor McAuliffe has initiated.
Various press appearances and other statements highlighting advances in Virginia clean energy (e.g., deployed solar and the prospects for a two-turbine offshore wind demonstration project).
McAuliffe’s actions, like those noted above, merit praise for moving the ball forward in Virginia in the facing of mounting climate risks on the one hand and, on the other hand, improving clean-energy and energy efficiency economics.
Joining RGGI, in particular, creates real opportunity for Virginia. As a relatively polluting state compared to the existing RGGI pool, Virginia could:
Potentially draw in financial resources from other states to accelerate energy efficiency and clean energy across the Commonwealth.
See improved economic competitiveness with a cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable energy sector, along with increased attractiveness to clean energy/climate-leading businesses and people.
In sum – thank you Governor McAuliffe for taking steps that should see Virginia become an RGGI member under Governor Ralph Northam.
Of course, a healthy relationship is also an honest one, and an honest, clear-eyed assessment of Terry McAuliffe’s climate change record is, unfortunately, far from rosy.
November 27th, 2017 · Comments Off on Energy Bookshelf: the potato famine has a myriad of lessons for our 21st century (climate) challenges
We sometimes talk about the end of nature or treats to nature.
But nature, though it includes trembling subtleties, can be a son of a bitch. [p 238]
Humanity’s history is inextricably that of mankind’s relationship to the natural world and exploitation of nature for nourishment. And, with the explosion of human population over the past several hundred years, that relationship has both grown more complex in many ways and more remote from people (in developed nations) as fewer and fewer people are involved in agriculture.
Rob Dunn‘s Never Out of Season provides a compelling window on that complex relationship, with a powerful call for enhanced support for those who study plants (and threats to plants/agriculture) to help assure humanity’s ability to feed itself in the decades and centuries to come. Critical issues include:
How a focus on maximizing productivity has fostered monocultures that create increased risk of catastrophic collapse.
That seed, disease, and insect ‘banks’ are critical to reducing risks of catastrophic collapse and maintaining tools to deal with a changing world —
from parasites attacking monocultures to human-driven climate change creating radically different growing environment.
Basic investments — from human capital to physical infrastructure to basic science — in these ‘banks’ are inadequate and, in fact, dwindling.
That, in fact, humanity needs expanded efforts:
from focus on an ecosystem (rather than stove-piped) understanding of (potential) crops (e.g., the plants, soils, insects, parasites, propagation, and other elements rather than simply the plant isolated in a greenhouse)
to building on/expanding the best of US land grant college relationships with agricultural extension agents in to a global (rather localized) set of relationships
to developing programs and tools to engage ever greater portions of humanity in collaborative efforts (such as Plant Village.org) to better understand and share knowledge about agricultural (eco)systems.
the most dramatic change in 2016 came from coal emissions, which fell by 50% compared to a year earlier to around 37 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2). A decade earlier, in 2006, UK coal emissions stood at 137MtCO2.
The 2016 record low coal use levels followed 2015’s record low coal use followed 2014’s record coal use. Coal is now 75% below 2006 levels and 1/12the peak 1956 usage level. There is no one (except perhaps coal-promoters in the Trump White House) who have any expectation of a turn-around in this path forward as the United Kingdom accelerates its move beyond coal.
UK Carbon Emissions in 2016 Were Lowest Since 1894, After Coal Use Fell 74% In Just a Decade.
The United Kingdom soon will fall to half its peak (1970) emission levels primarily because of coal’s decline. Coal is being drven from the market by:
Cheap natural gas
Renewables
Energy efficiency
Closure of a steel plant
Even with all these, the key driver that will maintain the accelerated pace is the United Kingdom’s imposition of a reasonable (even if below actual externalities/social cost of carbon) price imposed on carbon that “doubled in 2015 to £18 per tonne of CO2.”
A simple economic reality globally … coal is not coming back.
Sadly, the Trump Administration is governed by #alternativefacts dystopian ideology, rather than reality, and conceives of a coal renaissance. Thus, while the United Kingdom drives down emissions by moving @BeyondCoal, #PollutingPruitt, Rick Perry, and the rest of the fossil-foolish GOP seek to hurt the U.S. by reviving a less efficient and more polluting 19th century coal economy.
November 25th, 2017 · Comments Off on Electric ship: powered by and carrying coal (scratching head)
Shipping is highly polluting — burning pretty much the dirtiest liquid fuels with limited (to no) pollution controls, shipping pollution is extreme. A variety of measures are occurring, worldwide, to tackle this — from global agreements on shipping to nations creating regulations as to pollution in their coastal waters and ports, to the introduction of new technologies. One of those technologies, with limited but growing applicability, is electrification.
Construction of first fully-electric cargo ship (http://www.chinanews.com/cj/2017/11-12/8374429.shtml)
One of the key energy paths for mitigating climate change is electrification — moving as much economic activity, as possible, from fossil fuels to electricity (whether heating, industry, and/or transportation) while cleaning up the electricity supply.
While intriguing as a step forward toward a more energy-efficient and lower-polluting future, the particular situation does set one ill at ease:
While wind and solar are booming, with nuclear also expanding, dirty electricity remains the predominant reality across the PRC.
Thus, while using an an electric ship using coal-fired electricity to move coal might (MIGHT) represent some small incremental pollution improvement over the burning of bunker fuel, it is hard to see its current use as exemplifying desired “harmony between humans and nature”.
For the first time in history, green energy is now cheaper than black energy. The world now has a unique opportunity to create a world that runs entirely on green energy.
People think it is important to move to a world powered by clean-energy technology
and this support is true across educational levels, age groups, and ideological self-identification.
People love clean energy
and every country has vast majorities in favor of wind and solar.
People are seriously concerned about climate change
and rank it #2 (mistakenly behind terrorism) in terms of global security risks.
People support clean energy for many reasons
and want their nation leading (key: for nationalistic pride more than ecological or economic reasons).
People want government to be in the lead
and view it as necessity for energy companies to go/lead on clean energy.
People hate coal
and want it gone as fast as possible..
People in China are pretty much the strongest on all the above points
and thus demonstrate strong public support for the Chinese government’s massive investments to secure the leading role in the clean-energy revolution (and the associated economic benefits).
In the United States, the Federal Government is simply the opposite of what the public wants when it comes to clean-energy leadership. From Donald Trump on down, the climate-science denying, anti-clean energy investment pro-coal attitudes and objectives are at odds with global attitudes, necessities, and economic opportunities. This clearly seems to be one of those reasons why, when it comes to both US and international publics, Trump and coal are seen in much the same way:
Large majorities understand that they are both polluting the commons and damaging to humanity’s future prospects;
Large majorities hate them; and,
Large majorities (globally AND in the United States) want both gone from the scene …
as soon as possible.
Trump, however, was not the focus of Orsted’s polling and analysis — that is on public attitudes toward clean energy transformation. There is much of interest in this 26,000, multi-national poll. On first blush, there are two elements that seem somewhat surprising and revealing:
That people, writ large, want their country to be aggressive in this domain
While there is majority support re environmental benefits,
the dominant/strongest reason is for “national pride”.
if you’re keeping track, China is No. 1 on seeing the importance of clean energy, No. 1 in wanting its government to be ambitious on clean energy, and No. 1 in wanting to phase out coal.
November 17th, 2017 · Comments Off on Tesla is not alone: Green4u large vehicle options coming soon
Tesla is THE mark when it comes to electric vehicles. The brand name, sort of like Apple, which people immediately recognize and — with quality products — all too many salivate over. The announcement yesterday of a long-haul truck option (discussed all over, such as here,here, here …) truly moves the situation from dominated by soft benefits (who buys a Tesla roadster or plunks down a $1000 deposit to wait a few years for a car because they want to save some $s on their daily commute — as opposed to wanting the higher quality ride, to #ActOnClimate, to have a status symbol, to …?) to true green-eye shade calculation (Do the numbers work out?). While there will be some firms and orders who might ‘want a Tesla, damn the price’, a tractor trailer will only work in the market place if the numbers work out: will the electric tractor trailer perform as well (or better) at the same (or lower) price? Every indication: the Tesla system is well on the way to delivering that ‘higher performance at lower cost/lower risk’ nirvana for CFOs while also easing serious challenges like urban pollution from diesel engines.
Okay, Tesla … Tesla … Tesla … lets stop salivating for a minute.
There are others ‘on the road’ and others hitting the road shortly.
![Earth at Night, North America [hd video]](https://i0.wp.com/farm9.staticflickr.com/8216/8269691015_884a14a44b_n.jpg?resize=320%2C180&ssl=1)
