Close but BAD as stated. Because the problem is not ENERGY USE but green house gas emissions--CO2 but also methane (from natural gas spills) and N20 (from agriculture, as in growing bio-fuels).
Energy produces wealth. Tax green house gas emissions. Direct the solution to the problem, not to the source of wealth. Reply to this
One energy-related problem is the burning of fossil fuels (energy use) creating greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, natural gas leaks (primarily methane) are a contributor global warming. Methane has a global warming potential 23 times that of CO2 over a 100 year period. I have a great deal of personal experience with natural gas after 12 years working for a major natural gas utility on the east coast, including three years as the engineer responsible for natural gas measurement.
On June 27, 2007, the EPA (yes, the Bush Administration's EPA) "proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog. The proposed revisions reflect new scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and public welfare. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions. Ozone exposure has also been associated with increases in respiratory infection susceptibility, medicine use by asthmatics, doctors' visits, emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Ozone exposure also may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease."
To your statement "the source of the wealth":
We're killing the goose (earth) that lays the golden eggs (wealth). How to stop the insanity? Google "Tragedy of the Commons." It will take a societal agreement to stop ALL from stabbing the goose -- because there IS individual gain in stabbing the goose (damaging our environment).
Er, is your opening statement to support the continued building of gas fired electric power plants? Is burning natural gas the solution?
If so, do we drill more? Where?
Or do we continue to import LNG? Do you think this option is safer than nuclear? And better for our trade balance?
And again, it is not "wealth" that is altering the climate, it is GHG. Why not tax those?
Of course fly ash and ozone and acid rain and mercury are all BAD. But those are reasons to stop burning coal. But what can replace coal as reliable "base load" power source? I mean if I am in a hospital I don't want those electronic monitors to shut down if it is dark or the wind stops blowing. Reply to this
My opening statement is not to support the building of gas fired electric power plants -- it's saying that greenhouse gas emissions are just one energy-related problem. The silver bullet solution to the 4 biggies is to phase-in a reduction of federal income taxes and create a BTU tax on non-renewable energy to replace the revenue.
Importing liquefied natural gas is part of the cause of our problems - dependence on energy from other countries, feeding an insatiable energy appetite that leads to accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and five years straight of record trade deficits.
Implement a tax shift as described above, and let the market decide. At a minimum, we may have the same/similar energy sources for awhile....but, we'll conserve because we want to pay less taxes. (I wouldn't want your electronic monitors to shut down either. )
9/17/2007 4:54 PM
Eric wrote:
"But what can replace coal as reliable "base load" power source? I mean if I am in a hospital I don't want those electronic monitors to shut down if it is dark or the wind stops blowing."
Well what if the guy shoveling the coal into the furnace has a heart attack?
Solar power and kinetic power are types of POWER. It can be saved, traded, and wasted just like any other power. If your hospital runs out of power, it's because the network didn't create enough power. If a corporation created a solar powered energy network without taking into consideration energy supply and demand, it would be a poor excuse for a corporation... it would be exactly the same as coal or nuclear plants. The hospital is more likely to have access to more power by having less sick people. Coal and nuclear power create sick people... lots. There are always imperfections, and there are always those that want you to throw out the baby with the bath water. Reply to this
And my comments to Portal Earth when they posted this link.
"Well this group at least understands what the issue is, and is not afraid to use the “N” word.
I don’t think it will take much analysis to demonstrate that capturing the CO2 from most coal power plants and then injecting it into geologic formation would very expensive and impractical.
For Wisconsin, where the coal comes from the west (Wyoming) and the acceptable formations are also there, preliminary cost estimates indicate that rather than shipping the coal to plants in Wisconsin and then shipping (pipeing) the CO2 back to Wyoming, it would be cheaper to generate the power in Wyoming and transmit the power TO Wisconsin.
Step one for this group should be to reverse President Carter’s ban on reprocessing our nuclear “waste” into new fuel."
Conservation by individuals will not be nearly enough. First, the world population is projected to increase by 1/3 to 9 billion people by 2050. Add to that the formerly poor 3rd world countries are becoming industrial. A decade ago cities in China were filled with bicycles, now it is cars. Don't be fooled by claims that China is acting to "reduce pollution". That means that the new coal power plants they are building will emit less sulfur dioxide. Less "pollution", but also more CO2 and less reflection of sunlight, which will make the greenhouse effect even stronger.
I am no longer upset by those (so called) Greens that oppose converting our nuclear "waste" into fuel and replacing coal with nuclear. Because I know that it matters little what the US does about GHG.
Any reductions/person by Americans will be more than offset by increased population. And since population growth in the US is more the result of immigration than native birth rate, no one dare object to it--the way Gaylord Nelson called for Zero Population Growth during the 1960's and 70's.
The reaction to hotter temperatures is more air conditioning and greater electric power consumption, not less. We lived in this Madison house for 40 years without AC. But when we saw Al Gore's movie, my wife insisted that we install central AC. So Gore IS having an impact on our behavior Reply to this
and subsequent comments - "I'm not anti-nuclear, we just need to be able to handle nuclear waste long-term and know how much it costs to store it. When reprocessing plants are operating that can handle the nuclear waste generated, and we have long-term storage for all of the 5% or so that is left over, and someone is willing to invest in this because it is economically viable (without subsidies)......go for it."
Regarding coal, it is not the answer. That's why we need to start including the environmental and health costs of burning coal in its price via a tax shift from income to non-renewable energy. This will create jobs in the renewable energy industry and a mighty economic engine - both domestic goods and exports. The population growth you mention will be the market for U.S. renewable energy products and technology. I believe that people don't want to kill themselves or others via global warming, and that all will eventually do something about it.
We need legislation leading to the price of fuels reflecting all costs..... then let the market decide. I'll bet that after the full costs of burning coal are added to the price of coal (phased-in of course to minimize economic disruption), there would not be another plant built.
Regarding the installation of more AC - yep, it's going to happen. Part of the downward death spiral of global warming that I'll cover in a future entry. But, if electricity from non-renewable fuels was more expensive, many might decide that overhead fans and attic fans would suffice.
7/15/2007 7:31 AM
Jim Blair wrote:
" I'm not anti-nuclear, we just need to be able to handle nuclear waste long-term and know how much it costs to store it. When reprocessing plants are operating that can handle the nuclear waste generated,...."
Hi,
Such reprocessing plants are in operation now: in France, Russia, England, even India and maybe China. But not in the USA, because President Carter issued an order prohibiting them.
So you say "don't build new nuclear plants until we can reprocess the "waste", while reprocessing is illegal.
I say "legalize recycling": it is an established technology utilized by other countries.
"Regarding coal, it is not the answer"
But unfortunately it IS the "answer" because that is what is now being built, and is being planned for the future. Just that it is the worst answer (in my opinion).
So why are we now building new coal power plants? Basically because nuclear was ruled out 30 years ago, when reprocessing the waste was outlawed.
I say "tax CO2, legalize recycling, and then let the market decide". Reply to this
1/24/2008 7:17 AM
jasen from wisconsin wrote:
When you saw Al Gore's movie your wife insisted that you have central AC installed? Did I read that right? Wouldn't seeing it make you want to use less electricity, not more?
I am all for higher taxes on non-renewables. It is a way of internalizing the externalities.
As far as reprocessing nuclear waste goes, the weapons grade plutonium that is produced is a darn good reason to outlaw it. Not to mention the fact that even if this were done, more and more uranium would have to be mined (until we run out) because there would still be some unusable waste. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT RENEWABLE!!! Of course the industry made promises of renewability and energy so cheap that meters wouldn't even have to be installed back in its beginnings. Unfortunately this has been a gross mis-estimate, much like the subsidized cost overruns and building times for the infrastructure.
If you were truly interested in reducing ghg emissions you would be for spending money on cleaning up coal plants - modernizing them to reduce co2 emissions (in addition to the obvious - wind, solar, tidal, hydro, etc.) Every cent spent on nuclear energy is a cent not being spend n these better, sooner, solutions to climate change.
Let the market decide? If we had let the market decide nuclear energy would be where it belongs - in a theoretical section of a textbook and not polluting our aquifers, wasting our money and putting us all in danger.
France is a nuclear socialism. Nuclear Energy is by its nature impossible in a truly free market. The externalities are inestimable for a waste which has radioactive half lives of basically eternal timescales, and the liability is so great that the insurance policy will always have to be taxpayer backed. Nuclear infrastructure has proven to be consumptive of capital on an unprecedented scale.
Go down to Dixon, Illinois and see what Exelon has done to the Rock River, taste what they have done to the groundwater, then tell me that nuclear is a good direction to go.
<When you saw Al Gore's movie your wife insisted that you have central AC installed? Did I read that right? Wouldn't seeing it make you want to use less electricity, not more?>
I believe what Jim meant when he wrote this is that, based on the movie, his wife believes that it indeed is going to get hotter and so central AC will now be needed to keep cool.
You give lots of good reasons why nuclear is not a good idea - I agree. The external costs are indeed huge; the best way for us to start paying them at the time we use the electricity is via a federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy. Agree again....<NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT RENEWABLE!!!> Yes, the nuclear insurance policy will always be taxpayer backed.....sad and very costly, but true.
Yes, FIRST "change the rules" of the game by increasing the cost of non-renewable energy via tax shift (so external energy costs are paid when the energy is used), THEN let the market decide. If we had been doing this, say, from the 1970's we would not be in this dire situation. (period)
"As far as reprocessing nuclear waste goes, the weapons grade plutonium that is produced is a darn good reason to outlaw it."
??? reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods produces new nuclear fuel; 2-4% enriched, not weapons grade (90+%). And we can't stop other countries from doing this, we only stop the USA. That is foolish.
"If you were truly interested in reducing ghg emissions you would be for spending money on cleaning up coal plants - modernizing them to reduce co2 emissions ..."
Clean coal is worse than "dirty coal" from a climate change standpoint: it does not have the "solar dimming" offsets. As for removing the CO2, that is expensive, and where is it to be stored? It will remain a hazard to the climate even longer than that nuclear "waste" remains radioactive.
When the forecast is for a hotter climate, more people will use more AC. The "solution" is not to use less electricity, but to produce it in ways that emit less GHG. And given today's technology, that includes nuclear. Reply to this
Not sure I'm ready to advocate dirty coal to gain it dimming "benefits." Last I checked the particulate matter created goes into our air, that we breathe.
As for removing CO2, let's not create it in the first place by significantly increasing the percentage of our energy that we get from renewable sources. When we enact a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy, we'll begin to pay the external costs of our non-renewable energy use and entire tiers of renewable energy projects will become economically viable.
I'm not exactly advocating "dirty coal" because of its solar dimming offsets, just stating the facts of the situation.
And I agree that we should not be creating more CO2. But we are, and are likely to continue to. And that is because the only practical alternative is nuclear, which is effectively forbidden in the USA.
And I would agree with your final paragraph above if you replace "renewable" with "non-GHG" (and apply the double negative Reply to this
Riddle me this Batman - if the only "practical" alternative is nuclear:
- where are we going to put the nuclear waste and how much is it going to cost (including transportation)? When we know what the costs are, we can start paying for them AT THE TIME THAT WE USE THE ELECTRICITY from nuclear..... Yucca Mountain, if it's ever opened (the responsible thing to do is to open it since we do need a safe long-term repository (at least tens of thousands of years)), will be filled with nuclear waste we'll create by 2014 (!) I agree with Mark J. at Grinning Planet when he says, "Nuclear energy is the generational equivalent of child abuse." For me, given how we're mis-using nuclear (by largely ignoring the external costs), Mark's statement is true. When we recognize the full costs of nuclear.....we'll likely stop using it completely. A phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy will cause this process to occur. We shouldn't close existing nuclear plants now - we need them in the short-term as we create our sustainable energy future.
- are you, and the nuclear industry, concerned about the current (and likely future) droughts we're facing given the huge water requirements of thermoelectric power production -- particularly nuclear since, on average in the U.S., they are almost 50% larger than coal plants?
***********************
It's a quite frightening perfect storm - global warming we've created by our overuse of fossil fuels, leading to drought, that makes thermoelectric energy production more risky. It's a perfect storm we're creating and one that we can stop if we take smart and significant action now.
)