Posts Tagged by fossil fuels
New Environmental Review for Tar Sands Pipeline
| November 22, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
By any standards, the folks at the Sierra Club have been terrifically effective at leaning on government with respect to environmental policy. On November 10, the Obama administration announced that it would order a new environmental review for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline — just days after thousands of Sierra Club members and other activists encircled the White House to protest the project.
I thought it would be appropriate to thank President Obama for this wise decision, which I did using this link here. You may wish to do the same.
Bellingham, WA Not Happy Being Waystation for Coal Bound for China
| October 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
Here’s an NPR spot on Bellingham, WA and their new rail terminal that will facilitate the shipment of enormous quantities of coal from Montana and Wyoming to China. Understandably, locals are not happy. Though some folks are salivating over the jobs that will be directly associated with building and operating the terminal, others fear a loss of tourism, as this historically pristine and eco-conscious spot loses its charm and becomes a temporary home to trains of coal cars, each one over a mile long, running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Proponents assure community activists that all sorts of high technology will be deployed to minimize the coal dust that would otherwise coat the landscape and nearby Puget Sound. But most Bellinghamians aren’t thrilled to see their town become noisier, and associated with the dirtiest of all forms of energy.
It certainly does seem a shame that mankind can’t find a better way to conduct itself than mining coal out of the middle of the United States, shipping it by rail to Bellingham, and putting it on barges bound for China, where it will be burned in plants that belch forth their deadly fumes.
Energy Videos for Newcomers
| October 13, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I’ve been preparing to make a few videos for newcomers to the subject of clean energy that answer basic questions on renewable energy, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and the energy-related challenges we face. I’ll be recording a series of short talks, aided by graphics, that point out that all our energy sources go back to the Big Bang, and come forward through time to us as follows:
Solar power is nuclear, of course, as all that hydrogen that became our sun billions of years ago undergoes fusion and emits enormous amounts of energy. That which we accumulated over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels (ancient biomass) we extract and burn as oil, coal, and natural gas. That which we receive right now, or in the very recent past, we have the potential to harvest as renewables: photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, new biomass, run-of-river hydro, ocean current, and wave. Read More
Talking Renewable Energy on “Getting Your Money’s Worth”
| October 12, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Many years ago I donated 90% or so of my neckties to charity as I almost never wear one anymore. But I’m glad I didn’t get rid of them all, as here I had a rare opportunity a couple of weeks ago when I was in New York City and taped an episode of “Getting Your Money’s Worth,” in which I discuss renewable energy with show host Judith West. (The video displays better on Internet Explorer than other browsers.)
It was actually quite a rocket ride, where Judith asked about solar, wind, fossil fuels, electric transportation, and a range of other subjects concerning the politics of clean energy.
Electric Transportation, Fossil Fuels, and "Internalizing the Externalities"
| September 1, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
Do you have a clean energy story that you’d like to tell the world?
One day each month, I shoot a series of short television shows called the “2GreenEnergy Video Report” in which I interview folks with interesting stories to tell at a television studio. The shows air throughout the month on a local channel here in Southern California — but, perhaps more important, we host the videos on YouTube and this website where they get some really good, longer-term exposure.
If you’re interested in being a part of this process, please check out the sample below, and let me know if you’d like to participate. Read More
2GreenEnergy – May’s Survey on the Migration to Clean Energy
| May 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
May I ask a quick favor? Do you mind spending a few minutes on this month’s 2GreenEnergy survey?
Like the rest of the world, I’m trying to make sense of a very important issue: Why is the migration away from fossil fuels so painfully slow? Of course, this is a complicated question. In fact, there are lots of reasons that come into play – and in varying amounts. But some are more important than others, and I’d love to get your input on the matter.
If you’re willing to help me out, please click the link; you’ll find that it’s self-explanatory. Thanks in advance.
Environmental Law Institute Reports on Subsidies for Energy Companies
| April 20, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
During a slow period at the Electric Drive Transportation Association conference this afternoon, I walked a couple of miles across town to interview spokespeople for the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) – Senior Attorneys Jay Pendergrass and Lisa Goldman. We talked largely about the subsidies that our US federal government provides to energy companies, insofar as ELI recently completed a comprehensive, independent study on the subject. “This is by far the most widely distributed report we’ve ever created,” Jay told me. “It’s been downloaded over 18,000 times.”
ELI painstakingly pulled together information on every form of expenditures or forbearance (e.g., a tax break) that is given to fossil fuels, carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol, and what it calls “traditional renewables” like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
The results are in the report linked above: fossil fuels get about $5.50 for every $1 going to renewables.
My main question, of course, is why our government is doing this. The role of subsidies is to promote things that are in the public interest. All the $70.2 billion that is going to traditional fossil fuels is accomplishing is creating “a transfer of wealth from the public to the shareholders of oil, coal, and gas companies,” as Jay explained. Here’s $70 billion that could (should??) be going to promote things that actually are in the public interest: an end to our addiction to oil, to our empowering our enemies, to our poisoning our planet and everything living on it.
Interesting discussion, to be sure.
Now I’m off to the welcome party. I’ll try to turn down my cynicism and enjoy myself.
Bringing Fairness to the Discussion on Energy
| December 28, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
I was going through some old blog posts here at 2GreenEnergy in an effort to make sure that we’re emphasizing the most important elements of the discussion on renewables. One theme that is central to the conversation, of course, is the need to understand and account for the externalities of our current system of generating energy, based, as it is, more than 80% on fossil fuels. For those looking for a solid but fairly high-level treatment of the subject, check out this marvelous summary: What’s The Real Cost of Fossil Fuels?
I understand the frustrations of those who say we’re about a million miles from a world that forces these costs onto the energy industry, but I point out that we may be closer that many people believe.
When I interviewed James Woolsey (Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency from February 5, 1993 until January 10, 1995) for my book, he called my attention to Boyden Gray’s piece in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, putting the cost in damage to peoples’ health and medical costs total at approximately $250 billion a year from the aromatics. It’s only a matter of time in this data-rich world in which we live before the we have complete quantification of each of the major externalities, forcing even the most unreasonable people to demand fairness here. Read More
[The Vector] Nanotechnology – A Disappointment? (Part Two)
| December 17, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Energy Storage |
(continued from an earlier article)
Down in the Quantum World
Nano particles are less than 100 nanomicrons in width, meaning that a human hair is approximately 80,000nm wide. Down at the molecular level, materials behave differently to the way they behave in larger volumes. Because so little is known about material behaviour at nano level at the International Forum on Chemical Safety at Dakar in 2008, 71 governments and 12 international organizations recommended the application of the Precautionary Principle to it. The principle states that anyone proposing a new initiative in a risky area must prove their initiative is safe before they carry it out.
Yet, according to the Friends of the Earth report, regulatory systems in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries treat all particles the same; that is, they do not recognise that nanoparticles of familiar substances may have novel properties and novel risks. Carbon nanotubes for use in electronics, energy applications and vehicle parts may be associated with the cancer mesothelioma, for example. Although many nanomaterials now in commercial use pose greater toxicity risks than the same materials in larger particle form, if a substance has been approved in bulk form, it remains legal to sell it in nano form. Read More
'Tis the Season … for Bashing Electric Vehicles
| December 16, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I have to say that I’m befuddled by all the electric vehicle bashing. Here’s an article from the Washington Post that really lays it on with a trowel. While author Charles Lane admits “the administration’s objectives – reducing carbon emissions and U.S. dependence on foreign oil – are legitimate,” he quickly goes back to the main theme: “But $5 billion wasted on electrics is $5 billion that cannot be used to meet these goals.”
The article quotes experts who agree, but (what a surprise) scrupulously avoids those that don’t.
Every time I see something like this, I think: Well, this most certainly could be more propaganda from the extremely powerful interests, i.e., the traditional energy world, who want to see electrics fail – make that “who desperately need to see electrics fail.” But the part of me that is not so cynical honestly tries to make sense of this. Read More
