To e Mail, use this e mail address   donlutz29@comcast.net

Links to Pages                 

Home Page

Nuclear

Nuclear Plant Reliability 

Fast Breeder

Reprocessing is the Answer

Commercial

Renewables

Obama's Plan

Obama's Green Energy Bubble

California's Folly

NuclearFuel Cycles

Spent nuclear Fuel    

The Plutonium Fuel cycle

Hydrogen

Fuel Cells

I C Engines

Fossils

 Oil 

Coal

Natural Gas

Desert Solar Plants

Solar

  Wind

  Biomass

Clinton Global Initiative

Global Warming

The Ethanol Debate

Religions   

 Environmentalists

The Coming Storm

Jimmy Carter's Legacy 

Hydrogen Highway

Blood and oil

Energy Security

From My Readers

News Releases

About Me

Global Warming

Global Warming is not an exact science.

The onset of global warming cannot be calculated or quantified as most engineering problems. can. There is no assurance as to what  levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will protect us from the undesirable conditions of global warming.   Getting back to 1990 CO2 levels by 2020 may not protect the world from the affects of global warming, It is a man made goal without foundation. All that can be said is it is going in the right direction.

Using renewables and conservation alone to reduce the goal of CO2 levels would compromise  California's economy  as well as standards of living. Only those in very high income levels could afford the cost of energy. California gets accolades for being green house advocates, but they do more talking then acting. Other states will follow this lead until they run into the high expenses of reality.

I repeat here. France was able to close its last coal mine in April, 2004. The same potential exists in the United States.  France is almost completely nuclear generation for their electric energy and are energy independent from Mideast oil.  Until the US does this, green house gases will be a talking subject point only.

Coal’s Advantages  News release  April 5, 2008.

Enel and many other electricity companies say they have little choice but to build coal plants to replace aging infrastructure, particularly in countries like Italy and Germany that have banned the building of nuclear power plants. Fuel costs have risen 151 percent since 1996, and Italians pay the highest electricity costs in Europe.

In terms of cost and energy security, coal has all the advantages, its proponents argue. Coal reserves will last for 200 years, rather than 50 years for gas and oil. Coal is relatively cheap compared with oil and natural gas, although coal prices have tripled in the past few years. More important, dozens of countries export coal — there is not a coal cartel — so there is more room to negotiate prices.

“In order to get over oil, which is getting more and more expensive, our plan is to convert all oil plants to coal using clean-coal technologies,” said Gianfilippo Mancini, Enel’s chief of generation and energy management.

My comment: Well to hell with global warming, Europe will use more coal for the next 200 years regardless of  a  lot of CO2..

Carbon market takes shape

Climate: Plan widely backed

August 11. 2008

 Officials from California, and six other Western states plan to set up a vast market to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The initiative would issue annual permits to firms that emit carbon dioxide and other gases. There are two options; cut their own emissions or buy permits from other firms that have made emission cuts and have permits to sell.

 Economists say a carbon market minimizes the cost of cutting emissions by allowing entrepreneurs and executives to find cheaper ways to curb greenhouse gases.  California officials are counting on that market magic to shrink the state carbon footprint by 35, million metric tons by 2020.  They believe that cap and trade is the most effective strategy for meeting reduction goals.

 Putting a price on carbon emissions is expected to add to the price of a gallon of gasoline or a kilowatt hour of electricity.  However, according to analysis by the California Air Resources Board, the state's global warming plan ultimately a will save the consumers money by improving efficiency and reducing overall demand for electricity and motor fuel.

 However, a spokeswoman from the Union of Concerned Scientists said “We've seen study after study showing that a lot of these offsets are not real, that it's been a huge waste of money.” 

 For once I agree with the Union of Concerned Scientists.  This program will not be effective.  It is not clear to me how other organizations will always have offsets to sell because they have low carbon emissions.  Every one will be in the same boat, carbon emissions will not overall be decreased. 

 In the span of 100 months, ( 8 years)  we will make vast changes to our carbon exhaust?  I wonder what microgeneration is? Also use your auto sparingly. And always invest in renewables  And we have been insulating homes since  1930. Only thing  I see new here is microgeneration.  I think I shall go to a appliance store and see if they have a microgenerator I can buy and what do I fuel it with?

The Bush administration now says that the growth of greenhouse gas emissions must be halted by 2025. After years of opposing any such regulations, the White House is laying out what might become the general framework for new discussions. It's a necessary move, as political candidates and businesses alike realize that carbon constraints are becoming increasingly real. A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, meantime, requires the administration to take action if it deems the release of those emissions as harmful to human health and the environment.

Democrats, meanwhile, believe that a more aggressive plan will be formulated after a new administration is sworn in.

Well it comes to the US in real terms even thought global warming is not an agreed on reality.   It will be very interesting to see what the democrats do if they should be in power.

It has been reported that since 2006, China has built 90,000 MWe and India built 22,000 MWe of coal fired electric generating plants. lndia plans to build another 70,000 MWe of coal plant in the next five years.

My comment: it seems like these two countries are not concerned about global warming. They really have no choice if they are to come into the modern world with the rest of us. Also it was reported that this building pace the price of materials such as steel has risen rapidly and there is a shortage of engineers.

FROM FRANCE

In 2004, the U.S. had 2.56 times the per capita CO2 emissions of France's.  France generates 78% of its electricity with nuclear power.  As a result, France's CO2 emissions began a steep decline in the late '70s, and they now have the lowest per capita level among major developed nations -- by a wide margin.  Much of France's public transportation is electrified, and several years ago, then-President Jacques Chirac pledged that all of France's public transportation would be free of fossil fuels by 2020.

My comment: If California is really concerned about global warming they would follow France's nuclear practice.

By Gretchen Randall
Date: April 24, 2008
Issue: Several countries in Europe such as Italy and  Germany  are building new coal-fired electric plants because of the high cost of imported oil and gas from Russia, lack of reliable alternative sources and the abundance of coal.  In addition, new nuclear power plants are banned in Italy and Germany where electricity prices have risen 151 percent since 1996 according to the New York Times.

Apparently Germany and Italy are not too concerned with global warming.

Report: Climate-Change Concerns Could Spur $7 Trillion in Global Clean-Energy Investment, Including Nuclear

Accelerating public concerns about climate change could result in a $7 trillion increase in worldwide clean-energy investment by 2030, according to a Cambridge. Energy Research Associates (CERA) report released last week.  Climate-change concerns are driving public policy and private investment to bring “clean-energy technologies from the fringes of the global energy industry to the  center of activities as quickly as possible,” the report said, with nuclear energy poised to be one of the clean-energy sources most utilized in the changing global energy picture. Growing concerns over climate change and energy security could support construction of 700 gigawatts of new nuclear plants by 2030, the report predicted in assessing the prospects of clean-energy sources. “We are seeing a major shift in public opinion, reinforced by the expectation that carbon policies could fundamentally change the competitive landscape. 

My comment: Yes nuclear power is the answer to off set a large amount of global warming. let's get on with it now. Just think 700,000 MWe of nuclear power plants would off set about 18  gigatons of CO2 per day.

I agree with this. Cap and Trade is a farce

Groups vow to fight emissions cap-and-trade plan in California

LOS ANGELES, Feb 20, 2008 --

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's move to allow heavy polluters to partly buy their way out of lowering their emissions has met resistance from Low- income community groups, it was reported Wednesday.

In a 21-point "Environmental Justice Movement Declaration," the groups said the cap-and-trade plan would harm poor neighborhoods where most of the heavy polluters are located.

"Cap and trade is a charade to continue business as usual," said Angela Johnson Meszaros, director of the California Environmental Rights Alliance.

Environmental justice groups instead favor carbon fees on polluting industries, a strategy endorsed by many economists as simpler and more transparent, although politically tough to enact.

My comment:   Carbon free systems are not too abundant. I wonder what they have in mind? Certainly not nuclear, the real solution.

Another true set of facts. But we do about global warming?  Nuclear power anyone?

Pollution bill attacked: Effort to slow global warming carries high price, critics say

Feb 20 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Tom Pelton The Baltimore Sun O'Malley administration officials said yesterday they don't yet know how they would achieve the governor's ambitious goal of cutting global-warming pollution by 90 percent by 2050.

But representatives of Maryland's only steel mill, the Domino Sugar factory in Baltimore and a paper mill in Western Maryland warned of closings or dire financial losses if the state passes a law with some of the nation's toughest limits on carbon dioxide.

"That plant is not going to survive," said Gene Burner, lobbyist for the ArcelorMittal steel plant at Sparrows Point, which employs 2,500 workers. "In order to make steel, you have to produce carbon dioxide. ... The only way to limit carbon dioxide is not to make it."

China National Electric wins bid to build power plant in Malaysia

BEIJING, Feb 20, 2008 -- XFN-ASIA

China National Electric Equipment Corp (CNEEC) has been awarded a contract to build a 310 mln usd coal-fired power plant by Malaysia's state power utility, Tenaga Nasional, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

CNEEC won the bid to build a 336-megawatt power plant in Malaysia's eastern state of Sabah on Borneo island, the agency said.

The power plant will source coal from Indonesia and is slated to be completed within three or four years, it added.

My comment: They do not worry about global warming. This will put about 8,000 tons per day of CO2 in to the atmosphere. We are all one world.

 In the United States, the release of 700 million metric tons of CO2 is avoided every year through the use of nuclear power. This corresponds to 94% of the emissions from the 138million vehicles on the road in the U.S.

Top meteorologist calls Gore's theory of man-made global warming "ridiculous"

By Gretchen Randall
Date: October 15, 2007

Issue: Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University told an audience at the University of North Carolina that we're "brainwashing" our children when we allow them to see Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Dr. Gray, who is a well-known forecaster of hurricanes, said that the warming of the planet is due to a "natural cycle of ocean temperatures" and predicted a cooling cycle is on its way.

He also predicted,  "We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was.”  

More from Dr. Gray: "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Comment 2: "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

Comment 3: Dr. Gray's comments are not only convenient, they're actually the truth.

Link: Here's the story in the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

Contact: Gretchen Randall
Winningreen LLC
3712 N. Broadway – PMB 279
Chicago, IL 60613
Phone: 773-857-5086
e-mail: grandall@winningreen.com

More Cap and Trade Nonsense

Greenhouse gas cut is costly, study says

WASHINGTON  Making big cuts emissions linked to global warming could trim US economic growth by $400 billion to $1.8 trillion over the next four decades, a new study says. Halving emissions of carbon dioxide will require fundamental changes in energy production and consumption.

The Electric Power Research Institute said the most cost effective way to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to make many changes including expanding nuclear power, developing renewable technologies and building systems to capture and store carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants.

My comments: nuclear power will drastically reduce green house emissions, but I do not think renewables will supply much energy to cut emissions, and carbon sequestering is not feasible. Cutting our economy by $1.8 trillion over the next four years would be a financial disaster especially to the poor.

Public Not Ready For Cost Of Climate Change Fight, Say CEOs At S&P's Utilities Conference
Several industry chief executives at Standard & Poor's Annual Utility Conference, held in New York City on May 31, expressed the fear that one of the hottest topics in the power sector, global warming, was likely to become ever more contentious and difficult as consumers become aware of the costs of remediation.

My Comment: Yes global warming remediation will cost an arm and a leg as the saying goes. But a large use of nuclear power could help the cost of electrical energy and forgo a large amount of global warming green house gases. But California would rather bear the high cost  than go nuclear. The Sierra Club controls the energy situation in California.

Shazam!  Greenland was really green

By Gretchen Randall

Date: July 9, 2007
Issue: Ancient Greenland was green — in fact a large part of it was covered with conifer forests. Danish scientists found DNA from plants and insects in three ice borings in Greenland that Eske Willerslev (one of the world's leading experts in extracting DNA from permafrost) claims are indicative of grain, pine, yew and alder.  He says, "These correspond to the landscapes we find in Eastern Canada and in the Swedish forest today."  

This is the first empirical proof that there was forest in southern Greenland. Willerslev also found genetic traces of insects such as butterflies, moths, flies and beetles that he estimates lived 450,000 years ago.  

Comment 1: As Al Gore tries to convince the world that this is the warmest period in earth's history and calamity will befall us if we don't stop using fossil fuels, we find that indeed the earth was warmer than it is today.

The supreme  court has now ruled that the EPA has the authority, under the clean air act to protect the public from  pollution from automobiles. It was a 5 to 4 decision. Amy Luers, of the Union of Concerned Scientist, published a newspaper article which calls  the action a landmark decision in the battle against global warming. Amy says it is now time we will bring in engineers in place of lawyers who fought this decision.

OK lets see what we can  do,  I am an engineer.  The following are some suggestions to reduce or eliminate  green house gasses from auto exhausts,

1.0  Make the engines use less fuel by:

• Increase the compression ratios.

• Authorize the auto companies  to only make   hybrids

• Manufacture  only Diesel engines.

• Make a lot of two seat  smaller cars.

2.0  Use fuel cell engines and fuel them with hydrogen.

3.0  Use IC piston  engines and fuel them  with hydrogen. \

4.0 Tax gasoline like they do Europe.

I am not going to explain why these measure are unacceptable. Also ethanol does not reduce the CO2 emissions over that of gasoline.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenezenegger calls for a low carbon fuel for transportations use.

This is in reference to the Bill 32 that requires California to reduce in ten years the GHG such as CO2 to the level of 1990.

It is commonly thought  that the transition to ethanol will reduce the CO2 from  transportation vehicle's exhaust compared to gasoline's exhaust. Where does such information come from?

Basically the exhausted quantity of CO2 from ethanol and from gasoline fueled engines is about the same magnitude for the BTUs of energy used by the engines.  Converting the State to gigantic quantities of ethanol will make very little difference in the CO2 exhaust produced. This is because although gasoline produces more CO2 per pound burned, gasoline also produces one and a half times more energy per pound compared to ethanol.

The only answer here is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to make hydrogen to fuel  transportation vehicles is the only way to significantly reduce CO2.  And the hydrogen can immediately be effectively used in  internal combustion engines.

Governor takes heat on climate deals

News release on May 13., 2007

 Governor Schwarzenegger gets photo-ops  signing deals with other states and foreign governments for a market based system in which companies can buy their way out of emissions reductions. It seems that the California Air Resources Board is not finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions to meet California's Assembly Bill 32 requirements.

In other words companies which cannot reduce their CO2 emissions can buy credits from others who can. 

My comment: And who keeps track of the net results? Does anyone really believe that this system reduces the net amount of CO2 emissions?

Expert: Global Warming a ‘Joke’ in Five Years

A climate expert in New Zealand has added his voice to those downplaying the threat of global warming, calling it a “myth.”

Meteorologist Augie Auer, speaking at a meeting of farmers, said: “We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years. It’s time to attack the myth of global warming.”

Auer said man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small that we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, and water vapor was responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, according to a report in the Timaru Herald.

He asserted that carbon dioxide accounts for only 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect. Furthermore, man’s activities can be blamed for only 3.2 percent of that — meaning that only about 0.12 percent of the greenhouse effect results from man’s activities.

“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” Auer declared.

Instead, he said, the campaign warning of manmade global warming has “become a witch hunt.”

Some comments I have seen from various writers.

 The U.S. Senate has twice voted down cap-and-trade legislation.  The passage of this legislation may give the feeling that something is being done, but without the technology  the cost of power would rise while emission levels would fail to drop.

"The reality is that if we really want to alter the warming trajectory of the planet, we have to cut emissions by an extremely large amounts, and we do not have the technology to do so, " writes Cato senior fellow Patrick Michaels. "We would fritter away billions in precious investment capital in a futile attempt to curtail warming."

Utility Executive Makes Case for West

Apr 30 - Las Vegas Review - Journal Nevada's electric utilities, which are developing a $3.8 billion coal-fired power plant, seized a chance Thursday to tell Congress why they should not be burdened with big expenses to control carbon dioxide emissions from the plant.

Congress wants to place new limits on carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to reduce global warming.

Lawmakers are considering bills that would set caps on carbon dioxide emissions, allocate carbon dioxide limits and allow businesses to buy and sell the carbon dioxide credits for carbon allocations.

Roberto Denis, senior vice president of Sierra Pacific Resources, urged a Senate panel Thursday to make the cap-and-trade system fair for growing areas of the West that need to build new coal-fired power plants.

Lets hear it from the Nevada senator who is all for prevention of global warming. What happened to solar plants? How does one cap and trade for a huge coal fired plants? Plant a few trees that take years to grow? What a farce.

Here is a past history of the electricity generation up to 2003 and a projection to 2025. Coal and natural gas are the future unless something is done to replace them. Coal and natural gas are both heavy providers of the green house gas CO2.  Will it be renewables? Of course not. Nuclear is the only the real answer and California will not permit it, so the future looks like greenhouse gasses will be significantly increased regardless of the little nit picking measures California selects.

The Cap and Trade Farce Raises its ugly Head

 Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-CA) has introduced a bill, "The Safe Climate Act" (H.R. 1590) which calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 80% by 2050.   The bill would set up a cap-and-trade system to cover all aspects of the economy including power plants and transportation segments. Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense and U.S. PIRG have all endorsed cap-and-trade efforts and are offering their ideas for administering the caps.

Through a system called "cap and trade," many members of Congress and governors from both coasts expect to reduce greenhouse gases by expanding this program to every sector of the U.S. economy. That's an option few businesses can afford because of its well-documented drain on jobs and economic growth.

Here's how it would work: To reduce greenhouse gases, the government would set a limit -- or cap -- on pollutant emissions.

Companies are given emission credits (some plans require companies to purchase all the credits they need) allowing them to emit specific amounts of greenhouse gases. If they need more, they must purchase them from companies that have credits left over.  (My comment: Most companies have no left over credits, but sell some anyway. The checkers do not keep accurate accounts  of carbon inventory.)

Recently, the European Union implemented a carbon-credit trading program, after pledging under the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2010.

Today, their emission trading system (ETS) appears to be failing. The European Environmental Agency projects that the EU will emit 7% more CO2 in 2010 than it did in 1990 unless Europe adopts costly new measures to reduce fossil fuel use.

Meanwhile, the cost of basic utilities has risen for many Europeans. In Britain, for example, electricity leapt by over 34% in 2005. Part of that increase was due to the emission trading system. And in mid-2006, Greece's electricity prices rose dramatically after the country's main electric company ran out of credits.

Unfortunately, many policymakers have not learned the lessons from our European friends. Multiple state legislatures are considering some type of legislation calling for cap and trade. Governors from five Western states recently agreed to form a similar alliance like those in the Northeastern states under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

It's highly unlikely that any state, regional or national cap-and-trade system would work better -- or cost less -- in America. Economic research shows that if the Kyoto Protocol targets (reducing emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels) were adopted, America's gross domestic product or economic output would drop between 1 percent to 4 percent annually in 2010, costing almost 2 million jobs.

Here is a piece by Gretchen Randle that puts the cap an Trade in its proper  perspective:

Budget office reports emissions caps would harm economy

By Gretchen Randall

Date: April 27, 2007

Issue: A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) entitled "Tradeoffs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions" released April 25 states that no matter how a cap-and-trade of emissions is designed, much of the cost will fall on consumers, primarily in higher "prices for products such as electricity and gasoline."  In addition, lower income consumers would be hurt more as these costs are a larger portion of their income. The CBO also noted that many employees of certain energy sectors such as the coal industry would likely see job losses.

In addition, the CBO found that cap-and-trade allocation system "would increase producers’ profits without lessening consumers’ costs. In essence, such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers—among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens—to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households."

Comment 1: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The CBO report should be viewed as a stern warning to our elected leaders to avoid symbolic solutions that place the financial burden on America's poor and working class."

Comment 2: Democrats seem to want the U.S. to copy Europe's attempt to curb emissions that has raised the cost of electricity in Germany by 25% in the last two years and has led to the loss of many jobs.

Comment 3: The Democratic senators who are presidential candidates flew in separate private or chartered jets to their debate last night.  Wonder if they bought off-setting emissions credits to remain carbon neutral?

Link: To access the CBO report, go to: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8027/04-25-Cap_Trade.pdf
Contact: Gretchen Randall
Winningreen LLC
3712 N. Broadway – PMB 279
Chicago, IL 60613
Phone: 773-857-5086
e-mail: grandall@winningreen.com

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

This is an excerpt from Mark Clayton's article. It shows that California's effort will be all for naught assuming that global warming is taking place. The real choices for energy are either coal or nuclear.  Piddling around  with renewables will make no difference, their contribution is too small.

CHINA ISSUES NEW FIVE-YEAR ENERGY PLAN TO 2010  

 
The National Development and Reform Commission on April 10 published the `11th Five-Year Program for Energy Development' on its website.

By 2010, China's primary energy consumption will be controlled at 2.7 billion standard tons of coal, averaging annual growth of 4 per cent.

According to this plan, by 2010, the proportion of energy systems as follows:

·        Coal                     66.1 per cent,

·        Oil                        20.5 per cent,

·        Natural Gas         5.3 per cent,

·        Nuclear               0.9 percent,

·        Hydro                  6.8 per cent

·        Renewables        0.4 per cent respectively.

By 2010, China's primary energy production will also be 2.446 billion standard tons of coal, averaging annual growth of 3.5 per cent.

According to the plan, China should speed up constructing government oil reserves, establish enterprise compulsory reserves and encourage the development of commercial oil reserves, in an effort to enhance energy safety in China.

My comment:  Is seems that what little we do to offset carbon is insignificant to what China does because they will increase their use of coal 4% per year. Their use of coal as a fuel is already enormous,

Chinese see climate draft a growth threat

A U.N. draft proposed in Thailand reportedly says global climate can still be stabilized if nations act now but that China sees it as a threat to its growth.

The world body's draft, seen by the BBC, is designed to find ways to control rising levels of greenhouse gases. It is being discussed behind closed doors by delegates from 120 countries attending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Bangkok.

The BBC report said China's objections stem from concerns that this year it is predicted to become the world's biggest polluter. If the draft becomes final, the report said, it will increase pressure on China to take steps so drastic as to seriously jeopardize its economic growth.

According Canada's Environmental Minister John Baird, Canada can meet its newer and more realistic commitment by mandating "strict" targets for industry that have the option of making in-house reductions, purchasing offsets or taking advantage of domestic emissions trading.

The market can play a role, he says, noting that the country is exploring a trading exchange whereby U.S. and Mexican firms can participate.

The free market approach has its critics who say some industrial facilities will find it cheaper to buy credits than to install new technologies, all of which benefits a few bankers that profit with every exchange. In fact, a recent Financial Times investigation found that such programs in Europe are riddled with examples of organizations buying credits that do not yield any reductions. Furthermore, there is now a surplus of credits, making it cheap for companies to get the "pass" they need to emit more than they should.

My comment: Sounds like  a large bureaucracy will exist that plays the market without real results, Perhaps we will have large groups like financial market personnel who seek, advise, and find trades like the stock market does.  It looks like a real farce in the making as they found out in Europe.

Experts are telling Gore  to cool it.

Issue: In a New York Times article today, scientists who are supporters of Al Gore state that they feel he has overstated his case on global warming — in fact, they warn that he may be hurting the cause with his "alarmism."  Don J.Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told the Geophysical Society of America, “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

According to the Times, others like Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, feel Gore is “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.” Even James Hansen of NASA admitted Gore had exaggerated the link between hurricanes and global warming.

The below was taken from the Department of Energy  (DOE)

 Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

 Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Gore talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk on energy consumption
By Gretchen Randall

Date: February 28, 2007

Issue: Al Gore, recent recipient of an Oscar for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, in which man-made global warming is laid out to be the cause of catastrophic events, has a 10,000 square foot home that consumes large amounts of energy. Gore's average monthly electric bill in 2006 was more than $1359 according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research which it says is more in one month "than an average American family uses in an entire year." Gore's electricity and natural gas bills combined last year for his 20-room home and  guest house were about $30,000.

Compare that to President Bush's 4000 square foot home in Texas that is environmentally friendly.  Bush's home was built to use a geothermal heating and cooling system thereby using 25% of   traditional systems. The house is also designed to save water which is scarce in west Texas.  The President's house has a system that recycles and purifies water used in showers so that it can be used to water gardens.

Comment 1: Not a surprise to me that Gore is hypocritical.  This is true of many so-called environmentalists who want Americans to stop driving SUVs while they ride in limos and fly on private jets.

Comment 2: Which "man" is the cause of man-made global warming,

Below is a statement that does not bode well for the goals of global warming. It seems to be clear that if the US does not go nuclear, global warming will increase as usual with coal plants.

Carbon dioxide emissions rose 27 percent from 1990 to 2004, says a report by a coalition of investors, environmentalists and utilities. And the examination predicts a bigger increase in the years ahead because of the expected growth of coal-fired plants that cause much of the carbon releases. About 160 new coal plants are being proposed across the U.S., leading the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project a 66 percent increase in coal-based power production and a 43 percent increase in carbon emissions by 2030 if no pollution controls on such releases are required.

EPRI Technology Analysis Cites Potential to Reduce CO2

PALO ALTO, Calif. - February 15, 2007 The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) announced today the results of an assessment of technologies that have the potential for achieving significant CO2 emissions reductions from the U.S. electric power sector within the next 25-30 years.

The assessment was unveiled today by EPRI Board Chairman Jeffry Sterba during a presentation in Houston at Cambridge Energy Research Associates 26th annual conference, a forum for delegates to exchange ideas and debate critical issues in the energy industry.

EPRI researchers used the U.S. Government’s Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook 2007 as the baseline and calculated the CO2 reductions from the baseline that could potentially result from very aggressive development, demonstration, and deployment of a broad portfolio of technologies including:

•  Increasing end-use energy efficiency in homes, building and industry

•  Boosting deployment of cost-effective large-scale renewable energy resources

• ·Continuing the operation of all existing nuclear generating plants and adding substantial new generation from advanced light-water reactors by 2020.

• Improving the efficiency of new coal-based generating plants

•  Deploying CO2 capture and storage technologies at most new coal-based generating plants by 2020

•  Accelerating the wide-scale adoption of “plug-in” hybrid electric vehicles

• Expanding deployment of distributed energy resources including solar photovoltaic

My comments:  Frankly I have not seen much good results coming from EPRI over the last 25 years and the above certainly fits that category. Most of the suggestions have all ready have been proposed by others and EPRI is  running around to get in front of the pack.

I will comment on the fourth bullet about coal plan efficiencies.  This is a nit picking method by getting a little more efficiency. This is being done already, but it does not significantly  prevent  global warming. New coal plant put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere even if  they are more efficient. We should not  build more coal plants.  Go to nuclear plants, they put no green house gasses into the atmosphere.

As for the second bullet, the industry is beginning to see that large scale solar plants are much too expensive and cannot be financed.

One Man's View of global Warming

Burning coal produces sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide including particulate matter and mercury, which should be captured. It also produces carbon dioxide CO2. A substance the world believes is the cause of global warming. A belief that I consider to be pure nonsense and I believe the world is chasing its tail based on that theory. No one, and I mean no one, can tell me what are the heat trapping properties of CO2. Does CO2 capture heat or does it reflect heat or is it a barrier to the passage of heat? The fact is that global warming has been with us since day one. We should stop wasting so much of our resources on trying to capture and sequester CO2.

Bill Dulude

Australia Looks To a Nuclear Powered Future

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is backing nuclear energy as the solution to the country's power needs and a good way to help combat global warming.

A conference about global warming

A conference on global warming was held in Sacramento CA on 9/13/2006 to 9/15/2006.  California was praised for a plan to cut green house gases, but many worry that it may be too, little too late. In attendance were more than 300 environmental scientists.

NASA scientist Robert Hansen was the keynote speaker. He warns of  trouble unless people change their fossil-fuel burning ways. He further defined the problem. Atmosphere responds in a delayed way to greenhouse gas output. So even if all emissions were stopped to day the earth would continue to warm by about a half of a degree Celsius over the next several decades. A rise  of 2 degrees  C or more could cause rising sea levels and spur mass extinctions. 

Robert Hansen also warns of trouble unless people change their fossil-fuel-burning ways.

Robert Hansen's suggestion to moderate global warming is to:

• Limit the use of coal plants and capture and sequester the carbon dioxide coming from existing coal plants.

• Adopt a carbon tax that rises gradually to discouraged the use of fossil fuels and to encourage the use of alternatives.

My comments about the conference.

• People can not reduce their use of fossil fuels until  they are presented with  affordable alternatives.

• California is limited in coal plants. There are very few in the state. If they want to retire those out of state coal plants the energy suppliers  need to come up with a substitute. Moreover, I do not think capturing and sequestering carbon dioxides from fossil burning power plants will ever be practical or economical.

• A carbon tax might be a good thing, but there needs to be alternatives available to deploy. Right now I do not see any.

• I am surprised that no one at the conference suggested nuclear power as a viable alternative, There are no green house gases with these plants. Why do the environmentalists prefer to accept global warming in lieu of deploying nuclear plants? With the nuclear -hydrogen option we can do away with green house gases for both electric generating plants and transportation vehicles.  (And please do not give me the what about the waste question.)

Governor in the hot seat

My comments:

• What clean burning fuels are available?  Hydrogen is but where does it come from? Certainly not renewables. Ethanol? Not enough corn in the world to supply ethanol.

• Replace 20% of electric energy from coal plants operating  in other state? Replace them with Combined cycle Natural gas plants?  Natural gas cannot be the future fuel for California and also they give off a lot of CO2.

• It appears to me that they are calling the Governor's bluff when he said California will be back to 1990 CO2 levels by 2020.

Here is PG & E's answer to global warming.

A recent announcement. Russell City Energy Center represents a unique opportunity to invest in a critical new generation facility in the highly sought-after California market. This investment will help California meet its power needs. Calpine will construct  a combined-cycle power- 600 MWe plant that will be in time to help meet peak electricity summer demand. Calpine agreed sell the Russell City Energy Center's full output to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

 Notice that this plant is not a renewable. It will contribute 100 million cubic feet of CO2  per day of operation.  This 600 MWe plant operating at a capacity factor of 90% will provide more electric energy than all of the wind machines  installed in  California.

Here are two web sites for those who like to find a lot of data about global warming,

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html   ---  This short government bulletin defines and discusses each of the Greenhouse gases.  It identifies that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html  ---  This site discusses how much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by human activity.  The conclusion: the total human greenhouse contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect

Here is a sample of bogus energy and CO2 savings.

General electric has announced that a new 775 MWe combined cycle gas turbine power plant  ( 2 units of 387.5 MWe each ) will be delivered to the Inland Empire Energy Center near Riverside, CA in 2008. They state that the new  units will save 146,000 tons per year of CO2. The savings comes from the plants being more efficient compared to the old gas fired units that have been used in the past.

Not so fast here. The new plants will generate about 6,000,000 tons of CO2 per year,. How does this wash with the fact that California has to get back to the1990 CO2 production by 2020? They certainly  will not do it by adding combined cycle natural gas plants. I have not heard an announcement that some old gas fired plants will be retired. That would cost an enormous amount of money considering that California generates about 45% of its electric energy using the old natural gas plants.

Also San Diego  Gas & Electric added a 1.000 MWe combined cycle gas fired plant this year. And it too is a very efficient plant over coal fired plants, but it still emits  millions of tons of CO2 per year.

It ought to be obvious that these efficient combined cycle gas fired plants do not help in meeting the 2020 CO2 reduction goal. goal.

Here is a good one. The insurance companies are concerned that global warming will cause events that will up the number of claims they must pay.

They are thinking about doing something bout it,  Here are their planed actions:

• Offer hybrid owners a 10% price break on each purchase of a car

• Offer owners a 5%  credit on each environmental friendly building they own

• Issue to its clientele a 36 page booklet on change alert

• Hire an economists to oversee the company's climate related risk activities.

An investor network on Climate Risk, an organization of 50 U. S. an European institutions, is encouraged by this progress.

A comment from Energy Daily about California's actions to instigate GHG global warming laws.

To be sure, the law could turn out to be devoid of real change. Critics say that the new laws will end up costing consumers more and will subsequently drive out large employers. The Western Petroleum Association says that the emissions cap would require a 17 percent cut in the state's refining capacity.

This is what I think will actually happen to California's global laws.

Return to Top