NEWS
ENERGYPULSE
BLOGS
CALENDAR
REFERENCE
JOB CENTER
It's easy to contribute articles, article proposals, commentary and analysis and be published online through Energy Central!
Sound interesting? Contact the editor for more information.
Connecting you to the global power industry
The Impossible Dream? Why Renewables Won't Reduce CO2 Emissions by Much
Posted on May 17, 2012
Posted By: Herbert Inhaber
The solution to looming global warming? Easy. Reduce man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by cutting down on the use of fossil fuels -- coal, petroleum and natural gas. Leave them in the ground. The replacement? Renewables such as solar and wind power. If we phase in natural energy sources quickly enough, we may be able to avert catastrophic climate change.
Or so the story goes. But new research shows that it is not quite so simple. As the proportion of renewable energy penetrating the electricity grid grows, the reduction of CO2 emissions drops sharply. By the time wind power (and, by analogy, solar) reaches about 20 percent of the grid, the savings in CO2 emissions are negligible, of the order of a few percent.
The result seems counter-intuitive -- surely the more renewable energy, the greater the reduction of CO2 emissions, and less threat of global warming. But the reason for this finding can be found on the miles per gallon sticker on the windows of new cars. The mileage for highway driving is always greater than that for city -- stop and go -- driving. When we touch the brake pedal, we change the engine speed. The lower mileage for city driving means less efficiency from the gasoline, and more pollution per mile driven.
For example, the Toyota Camry, the best-selling auto in the U.S. for years, has a highway rate of about 32 miles per gallon, and about 22 for city driving. If we plotted these two numbers on a graph, we would see the mpg gradually decreasing as the proportion of city driving increased. In the upper left-hand corner of the graph would be long-distance haulers, who stay on the interstates and don't stop between fill-ups. At the bottom right-hand corner would be taxis, which rarely venture out of town. There would be a smooth curve connecting the two points.
In the same way, when back-up electricity (mostly natural gas power plants) -- for the times the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine -- is ramped up and down, there are more CO2 emissions compared to when the back-up is running full blast. Result -- much of the emissions savings from using wind power or solar is lost.
In analogy to the Camry graph, when just a few wind turbines or solar collectors are part of the grid, their effect on the grid is close to negligible. Their output displaces fossil fuels on a one-to-one basis, and therefore there are CO2 savings. (There are, of course, CO2 emissions associated with the steel, copper, aluminum, and rare earths needed to build the turbines, but these are relatively small).
As more and more windmills and collectors enter the grid, the curve of CO2 savings resembles the Camry curve. Natural gas turbines - back-up - have to be turned on and off to account for the variability of Mother Nature. This switching generates far more CO2 than having the gas turbines running continually.
So when we draw the curve of CO2 emissions of wind and solar, it resembles the Camry curve I mentioned above. In the upper left-hand corner the grid penetration is very small, indicating few turbines or collectors. CO2 savings are close to 100 percent. The curve of CO2 savings gradually decreases, dropping to a few percent when the grid penetration is around 20 per cent.
Since most of us have not seen a gas turbine turned on and off, let me draw an analogy. Almost all of us have started a power lawn mower. Depending on its condition, we usually see a cloud of smoke - pollution - when it starts up after a few pulls of the cord. Even if we turn off the mower and start again, there will be a smaller cloud.
Why gas and not coal or nuclear as back-up? The latter two take hours to turn on and off, and are designed to run continuously. Depending on their design, gas turbines can be ramped up and down within minutes.
Proponents of renewables sometimes claim that if the wind has ceased in one area, it probably is blowing in a nearby location. In that way, at least theoretically, wind power variability can be averaged out, obviating the need for any back-up. Would that this were true. The German company E.On Netz measured wind power output over the entire country, from the North Sea to Bavaria in the south. They found that output varied by a factor of about a thousand over a day or two, showing that the averaging analogy does not hold much water.
I suppose that when the wind is howling in Oregon and the air is dead still in Manhattan, power in principle could be transported cross-continent. But most of the energy would be lost in the process.
What about energy storage? This could reduce or eliminate wind and solar variability. Electricity has to be supplied instantly and without fail to ratepayers - the goal for utilities for loss of service is one hour a year.
Although the Federal government, over the years, has spent billions on this subject, it has very little to show for it. Batteries, like those used in autos like the Chevrolet Volt, would be far too expensive to handle renewable variability. The cheapest battery per unit energy stored, the lead-acid version, was developed by the Frenchman Planté in the 1880s. So we have made little progress in bringing the price down in over a century.
Pumped storage is used in about 17 places in the U.S. When excess energy is generated from any source, renewable or not, it is used to pump water into a reservoir on top of a hill or mountain. When energy is later needed, the water flows down through a turbine, much like a hydro dam. But this form of energy storage is completely dependent on local geography. No hill and no space for a reservoir, no pumped storage. While data is not completely available, pumped storage supplies only a tiny fraction of potential renewable energy storage.
How about molten salts, another form of energy storage? The technology goes back at least four decades and perhaps farther. The idea is to store heat energy in certain salts, and use that heat to boil water, generate steam and run a turbine, much like a fossil fuel plant. Again, the cost to supply storage this was for millions of consumers is prohibitive, although yet another experiment using salts is planned for Nevada.
Is the graph I have developed based on some abstruse computer models, similar to those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, purporting to predict the world's climate a century from now? In a word, no. There are experimental results from Colorado, Texas, Germany, Ireland, Estonia and other countries bolstering my argument. While there are uncertainties in the data from which I developed the graph described above, the general trend is clear: The more penetration of the grid by renewables, the less CO2 saved.
In a recent article in Bloomberg News, Prof. Severin Borenstein, head of the University of California (Berkeley) Energy Institute, and one of the most prominent academic advocates for renewables, threw overboard all the arguments for renewables except one - saving CO2. More jobs (as envisioned by the President's stimulus package)? Most of the renewables jobs paid for by the stimulus ended up in China. And dare I mention the word Solyn - forget it. Cheaper than fossil fuels? This was based on projections of fossil-fuel fired electricity prices rising year by year. The development of hydraulic fracturing and the drop in natural gas prices put an end to that argument. Prof. Borenstein still clung to the idea that renewables would reduce CO2 emissions and then alleviate global warming. The data is now in, and his last argument fails.
Governments around the world, from Spain to Germany to the U.S., have poured billions of dollars into subsidizing and requiring renewables. They may have saved some CO2 from the initial introduction of these systems, but the purpose was not to build one or two windmills or solar collectors, but to have them displace most, if not all, fossil fuels. As I demonstrate, the word of the play Man of La Mancha (based on tilting at windmills), it truly was an impossible dream.
Authored By:
Herbert Inhaber is President of Risk Concepts, a consulting firm. He formerly was a Senior Risk Assessment Expert at the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He has been a Principal Scientist at Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, South Carolina, where he performed research on risk and energy. Dr. Inhaber holds a B.Sc. from McGill University, Montreal, Canada; an M. S. from the University of
Other Posts by: Herbert Inhaber
Conservation by Refrigeration - May 08, 2003
The True North Ratifies Kyoto - January 02, 2003
Shell Game - November 12, 2002
Related Posts
Management Perspective Combustion Residues By Richard Goodwin
Which Countries Produce More Energy Waste Than the U.S.?...None of Them By Sarah Battaglia
Clean Coal Could be the Solution to Global Warming By Sarah Battaglia
CO Who? Nations Shift Focus Away From Number One Greenhouse Gas By Jessica Kennedy
Comments
May, 17 2012
Matthew Shapiro says
A couple of comments. First, there are many thousands of MW of new pumped storage potential now proposed in the United States, muchof whichis developable withinreasonable cost parameters. Second, the question of the impact of renewables has to be taken in a larger context of how the grid and its generation base can and should be operated. If we are to seriously consider a major contribution of renewables in the coming decades, we need to consider a different kind of "dispatch order" than has traditionally been the case (baseload, thenintermediate,then peaking, with renewables attached like icing).The new order would reflect greater flexibility and technological advances thanthe old order is based on. Here is a possible "new order" to dispatch that would allow renewables to make their full impact: (1) energy efficiency plus demand response programs; (2) variable and intermittent wind and solar, integrated on a wide area basis to maximize diversity benefit; (3) bulk storage in theform of pumped storage and CAES as a bridge to the lesser flexibility of (4) combined cycle gas, followed by minimal use of (5) gas peakers. Existing hydro would serve as baseload to intermediate generation. New nuclear would notbe needed; coal would likely be completely phased out.
May, 18 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Excellent and very useful article. Unfortunately, however, it will not get the circulation it deserves because the press generally sympathises with people working the other side of the street, who are often liiars and charlatans.
Let's make it clear however that SOME wind and SOME solar might be warranted. Of course the discussion and op-eds in your favorite publications, written by half-educated journalists, is NOT about SOME renewables and alternatives but about a massive and completely uneconomical commitment. But those journalists are not to be blamed. The ladies and gents to be blamed are the ignoramuses who taught them economics in the universities.
So Severin Borenstein has finally had one of those 'road to Damascus' experiences. Let's hear more about this - in fact, let's hear as much as possible - and spread the news far and wide.. I think that the good Matthew Shapiro needs some of his wisdom, because some of the stuff in his comment is fruitcake. Matthew, WE don't need a new order. Before you start talking about a new order, do yourself a favor and learn something about the mechanics of the oild order. The ignorant German prime minister has - ostensibly - sighted what she thinks is a new order in the distance, and so nuclear can go overboard, but that ship is in reality a ship of fools, and as she will find out, the German voters are hip.
Good work, Herbert.
May, 20 2012
Len Gould says
I think at least part of this message has finally gotten through to the government of Ontario, which appears to have slowed down the rate of installation of new wind generation and gotten back behind nuclear, evidence the recent news article that a) Bruce A2 reactor is preparing to start up adding a new 750 MW to the grid from a unit which had formerly been restricted to producing thermal power for heavy water production and b) they've scheduled the re-furbishing of the four 20 yr old units at Darlington totalling 3,500 MW. ,a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-power-generation-inks-600-million-initial-deal-for-nuclear-refurbish-plan/article2355577/">But those in charge of regulating the power-hungry province’s electricity needs say green energy by its nature is extremely unpredictable; it doesn’t look as though the province will be able lessen its reliance on nuclear any time soon."
As usual, anti-nuclear lobby groups are doing everything they can to increase the costs of the project with hopes to discredit nuclear power, but hopefully with less success this time.
May, 20 2012
Len Gould says
Sorry, mistyped the link above.
Ontario Power Generation inks $600-million initial deal for nuclear refurbish plan
May, 22 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
The anti-nuclear people deserve a certain sympathy. They are playing the hand they were dealt, but as usually happens, they listen to liars and charlatans instead of walking away from them.
According to some statistics that came out a few days ago, the Swedish welfare states is now well on its wat into the can. At the same time Swedish politicians are in Chicago hob-nobbing with NATO ignoramuses. Isn't it clear that there is a relation between these things. Similarly, nobody seems to understand that the price of electricity in Japan is going to go into orbit now that they are closing their nuclear facilities, and the same will happen in Sweden and a few other central European countries if the Germans close theirs. All the talk in Germany about wind and solar is hogwash, and designed to obtain votes. The intention in Germany is to buy electricity from the fools who dont know enough to forbid its export.
May, 22 2012
Bryan Leyland says
What a breath of fresh air! Somebody telling it as it is! let us hear more of this sort of thing–stories based on the real world, not an imaginary one.
In New Zealand, we are approaching winter and the demand is high. We have had a cold snap and, for 4 days, there has been virtually no wind generation. As a result, power prices have been extremely high. Wind is 10% of our system demand.
Our hydropower lakes are low and they do not have any spare water to make up for the lack of wind. So our coal-fired station is running flat out.
Pumped storage schemes cost $2000/kW++ and store water for 6 to 10 hours of full load operation. There is no way that pumped storage could cope with the situation we are now experiencing. There is no economic, efficient large-scale technology available for storing large quantities of energy for days and weeks and months. And that is the Achilles heel of unpredictable renewable energy systems.
I do not believe that solar power will ever be economic against grid power because the capacity factor is very low–9% in Europe and 22% in the desert. That means you have to have several thousand MW of wind power to produce the same energy as a conventional power station. And you still need backup stations every night. So, on an equivalent MW basis solar is very expensive indeed.
May, 22 2012
Bryan Leyland says
And I forgot to mention that the world has not warmed substantially for the last 15 years even though carbon dioxide levels have risen steadily. This proves that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming.
So the whole basis of pushing new renewable energy technologies–that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous warming–is nonsense.
Let us abandon this nonsense forthwith. The world has huge resources of fossil fuels and, if the regulators were more rational, nuclear power would be even better, safer and cheaper.
May, 22 2012
J Wu says
"http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html "
"http://lmbcorporation.com/"
May, 22 2012
Fred Linn says
Well then, I guess you'll all just have to figure out how to use less electricity, or do without.
May, 22 2012
Mark Richardson says
No argument in overall premise regarding CO2. However, real CO2 savings may occur in future years as clean tech advances?? Don't know and not relevant to the economics of wind from high average wind speed resource locations:
1) We've been pouring billions also into the oil and gas industry in subsidies since 1916 and nuclear can't be built without loan guarantees and the government covering liabilities if disaster occurs. If such a good deal, why can't nuclear get financing an insurance without gov't help? Check out the non-partisan Congressional Research Service or the Joint Committee on Taxation data on "tax expenditure" or subsidies. You'll see ALL forms of energy have their hand in the till.
2) New wind is coming in at under 3 cents kWhr to the utility, for 20 years. With 2.2 cent PTC that makes total cost 5 cents. Are other forms of NEW generation able to guarantee 5 cents for 20 years?
3) If gas is going to be cheap, just use simple cycle gas turbines (jet engines on the ground). They are also cheap to build and can be ramped up in minutes to handle variances in renewables. I have heard several speak to the lack of need to do anything but gas since gas will stay cheap for the foreseeable future. However, none to my knowledge are selling in the gas futures market.
May, 22 2012
bill payne says
Suspicions mount that large-scale solar generation of electricity may be a scam.
Data requested not forthcoming.
http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/pnmrider.htm#pnmset3
http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/pics/apodaca/glickdeny.pdf
Wind generation of electriicty may have problems too becaase cost of isystem, iistallion, maintenance, ane safe removal at end of llife time may exceed revenue from electricty sold?
http://www.prosefights.org/wind/highlonesome/audio/mike.mp3
Electronic and mechanical replacment parts may be a problem too?
We continue to investigate.
May, 22 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Over a decade and more there have been a number of people who have said it doesn't look as if there is a solution to the CO2 problem. Join this small club Herbert Inhaber.
I called the Kyoto Protocol a fraud from the outset and actually hoped someone would successfully take me to task. I don't know how many times I have posted the increase in coal usage or annual CO2 emissions since the base year of 1990.It's been such a fool's exercise. Suffice it to say that rather than reduce CO2 emissions they have gone up steadily, about doubled. How inane to keep talking about reduction when we cannot even reduce the rate of emission increase. The last coal figures, 2011, set a new all-time record.
Articles like the present one are not popular with people who join organizations to save something: forests, waterways, glaciers, spotted owls, snail darters, dunes, wetlands, Sandhill cranes, etc.
These good folks have something in common. The don't do arithmetic. In fact many have degrees in such as Art History, social work, theory of education, criminal justice, journalism just to avoid science and math. But these are the folks who get jobs in the media. They prefer to write warm optimistic stories without bothersome math or scientific facts. For years we could read a solution to the energy problem de jour.
May, 22 2012
Fred Linn says
So Don----whatcha doin' to plan for your survival in a world with no coal or nuclear power?
Coal and nuclear power plants are no good without fuel to keep them running.
May, 22 2012
Malcolm Rawlingson says
Sorry to burst your bubble Fred (Linn) but there is enough Uranium to last several hundred years and that is without nuclear fuel recycling which will make it last indefinitely. With fast breeder reactors make that forever. Malcolm
May, 22 2012
Malcolm Rawlingson says
Len, Not sure where you got the idea that Bruce A only produced steam for the heavy water plants. That is pure baloney. The 4 units at Bruce A have always produced 750 MW electrical each for years IN ADDITION to the steam for the heavy water plant.
The units there will all be on-line this year after amazing work to refurbish them to operate for another 30 years...and all done without government funds. It is a great credit to TransCanada and the other investors for taking on the job and seeing it through to completion although I doubt you will read anything on that in the newspapers. I encourage you to go to the Bruce Power website to brush up on your facts about this facility and its history.
Malcolm
May, 22 2012
Don Hirschberg says
We frequently see articles and comments optimistically showing how we can get to 2020, or 2050, even 2100.
This is analogous to those in a life boat catching a fish which will prolong their lives for x days. But the people in the life boat don't consider that fish as sustainability. Sustainability for them is getting picked up by a passing ship or landfall where they are rescued.
How can we be joyous about survival to some future date with a population of ten billion and all our cards having been played?
May, 22 2012
Malcolm Rawlingson says
Don, Your best post yet. Right on the money. How can we even talk about decreasing the CO2 levels when we cannot even stop or even slow the rate of increase. A similar picture emerges for oil and gas. We are using more now then ever before. Kyoto was and is a farce. There is only one way to reduce coal oil and gas consumption in any meaningful way and it is called nuclear power. Windmills and solar are not even close to being able to meet the demand and that is assuming there was unlimited access to the rare earth metals such as neodymium that are required for their construction (windmills) and silver for solar panels. But throughout my career I have witnessed that those who cannot add go into the media which is exactly why you see nutcase stories written about how diffuse sources of energy producing a megawatt or two (when the wind decides to blow) are going to replace 1000MW power plants that produce power all the time.
Most member of the media do not know the difference between a milliwatt and a megawatt so no wonder they think you can power the world on a few solar panels.
Thinking about it there is another way to do without oil coal and gas. Shut off all the lights and see how long solar panels and windmills will keep society going. Not long but you'll be ok on windy days.
Malcolm
May, 22 2012
Malcolm Rawlingson says
Mark, In your highly litigious nation I have no doubt that raising finance for a nuclear power new build is problematic. However as I noted above in response to Len Gould Bruce Power - all privately financed - is now about to become the largest nuclear generator on earth. So it can and is being done. The US can do it too but you need to train more engineers than lawyers.
Regarding your option on using natural gas because it is going to be cheap for the foreseeable future - you may need to rethink that premise. Natural gas is ONLY cheap in North America where it sells for a fraction of the world price due to the vast amounts of it that are being liberated from the Marcelles and Bakken shales. However the only reasons for that is low demand, lack of available storage capacity and lack of LNG export facilities. However all that is about to change and billions of Cubic metres of gas will be sold via LNG terminals from the USA into world markets. So I would not hang your hat on nat gas prices being this low for very much longer. Nuclear costs by comparison are very predictable and remain stable for the life of the plant since fuel is such a small component of operating costs.
That is why licences have been issued for four new plants in the USA in recent weeks.
Malcolm
May, 22 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Fred Linn, I'm touched, but don't worry about my sustainability. I was born into a world of sustainability. World population had not quite reached 2 billion. What little oil production there was in the world was in the US. What cars there were were mostly model T Fords.
I regret that I will not live to see the denouement of much more of the energy crisis. As to my sustainability I have more money than needed unless there is complete anarchy.
May, 23 2012
Fred Linn says
What four new plants----I only find reference to two reactors in Georgia being issued licenses. And those are expansions of an existing plant, not new construction. Completion is not expected to be until 2017---IF everything goes on schedule and within budget. Something for which the nuclear industry has a pretty dismal track record.
In the meantime----the rest of the nuclear power industry is operating a fleet of reactors that range from a minimum of 33 years to over 50 years of age. Some of these plants I'm told are spending more in yearly maintenance than they originally cost to build.
So----if you plan to just continue the use of nuclear power----you are going to have to invest more than the cost of building new reactors----for which there is no precedent, only the estimate on license application for 2 new reactors. $7 billion each. $7Billion X 104 = $728 Billion over 5 years = $146 Billion/yr for construction---assuming no delays, accidents, cost overruns, etc. If you build new plants----you will need to dismantle and decommission the old plants, at a cost of $6 to $10 Billion each. Taking the lowest estimate, $6Bln X 104 = $624 Billion over 5 years = $121 Billion/yr.
Well, lets see, $146 Bln + $121 Bln + $80 Bln/yrzz(combined budgets of agencies needed to make it all operational--NRC, EPA, USCG, FEMA, NOAA, and many others, guesstimate.) = $347 billion/yr. Just to stay in exactly the same place. Not even getting one new kilowatt of power.
I'd say such numbers dwarf anything and everything aggregate spent on all forms of renewable energy over the last twenty years.
May, 23 2012
Fred Linn says
-------" As to my sustainability I have more money than needed unless there is complete anarchy."--------
Yeah, Czar Nicholas II used to say the same thing.
May, 23 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
I wont bother to comment on Fred Linn's mathematics. Instead I suggest that he should do what I did when I was expelled from engineering school for failing math (and) physics twice: visit a good book store and steal a good book.
As for the cost of nuclear elecric generation, it is lower than wind, solar, coal, natural gas and oil. Where the rest of them are concerned I dont know nor care. Of course anyone thinking otherwise will almost certainly be welcome to a forum at Uppsala or Stockholm University. Just tell them than you have a hankering to make a fool of Fred Banks, and they might send a chopper or a limo for you.
May, 23 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Bryan, the first time I worked in Australia, some people at Harvard were running around saying that the natural gas in New Zealand would last forever. Later they talked about how wonderful electric deregulation in New Zealand was.
May, 23 2012
dennis baker says
This will prove you wrong .
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg 7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&... Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions. http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
Dennis Baker 106-998 Creston Avenue Penticton BC V2A1P9 cell phone 250-462-3796 Phone / Fax 778-476-2633 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com @dennisearlbaker
May, 23 2012
Len Gould says
Malcolm. Agreed. Bruce A2 always generated electricity, but not enough due to the undersized turbine originally installed which allowed for thermal energy re-direction to heavy water production, no longer Sorryrequired. I understand they are now replacing that turbine-generator with a full-sized one as part of the re-furbishment. Sorry for the incorrect information.
May, 23 2012
Jim Beyer says
I find this article slick and disingenuous.
First of all, no one thinks the reduction in CO2 emissions will be "easy". No one. It's a very hard problem.
Secondly, it will take a very long time for wind/solar to make up 20% of the grid input. A very long time. Such a long time that technical changes could very well re-phrase this discussion entirely. This could include, for example, high efficiency vanadium flow-batteries.
Third, the author has no data to back up his primary assertion that gas turbines act like lawnmowers. I'm sure that's true to some extent, but data is needed to adequately bound the severity of this problem.
Fourth, solar is not like wind, because the highest usage days for the grid are inevitably hot summar days when people need their air conditioning. On these days (at least during the day) solar panels will likely be outputting lots of power. This completely counters the basis of the author's argument.
And fifth, sheddable demand (in the form of real-time pricing or other methods; IMEUC), will likely increase the ability of wind/solar to penetrate the grid by a few more percent. Perhaps even 10 percent more. That extends the date of penetration by these sources that much further.
Finally, although reducing CO2 emissions are a laudable goal, solar/wind also provide the ability to develop a sustainable energy grid. Natural gas and even coal are not sustainable energy source over even the moderate term (20-50 years).
As to nuclear, it obviously has its place, and hopefully we can do more of it. Costs are a concern to me. Google had the laudable goal (which it failed at) to try to develop renewable energy at a price lower than coal. They called this their RE
May, 23 2012
Jim Beyer says
Html stole my "less-than" signs. Last two sentences should be:
Google had the laudable goal (which it failed at) to try to develop renewable energy at a price lower than coal. They called this their RE-is-less-than-C Initiative. While I'm not sure that can be readily achieved, I'm not at all sure we cannot achieve RE-is-less-than-U235.
May, 23 2012
Greg Tinfow says
Not sure where Bryan is getting his information that "the world has not warmed substantially for the past 15 years" but according to NASA ""9 of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record (since 1880) have occurred since the year 2000."
There may come a time when it becomes a clear imperative that we accelerate the retirement of fossil fuel generating plants. We should hedge our bets. My guess is that it's unlikely that renewables alone could support such an accelerated retirement. We should be looking at all the options while we have the chance. There are a lot of promising technologies that didn't make the cut in decades past because they lacked the right political champion or did not further the goals of helping to subsidize the military's own programs. We can't afford to make that mistake again.
I would like to see the original research that indicates that renewables will have no impact on CO2. That seems to be a case of shopping for research that supports a belief that someone already holds. I would suggest that the majority of peer-reviewed research indicates otherwise.
May, 23 2012
Bryan Leyland says
Greg: The statement that the world is warmer than it has been for a while does not conflict with the fact that the world has not warmed significantly for the last 15 years. The two tell us is that we are on the crest of the wave and, probably, heading for more or less severe cooling.
If you want to look at all the actual temperature records, go to climate4you.com
There is heaps of research indicating that renewables have virtually no impact on carbon dioxide. Just go and search for it.
http://www.adamsmith.org/research/reports/renewable-energy-vision-or-mirage
Ferdinand: we would probably still have ample gas resources if we hadn't wasted it on an idiotic gas to gasoline plant and if our crazy government had encouraged, rather than discouraged, gas exploration when it was obvious that the Maui field was running down. New Zealand's electricity market is fatally flawed and has cost the consumers billions of dollars. I have been fighting against it for 15 years.
May, 23 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Jim Beyer, others. In defense of the present article I thought I had carefully pointed out in a comment above that there have been other articles over the years that reached the same conclusion as Inhaber using different reasoning and scenarios.
In my comments about the Kyoto fiasco I did not include three things I will briefly mention them now. 1) We, the world, were told that the CO2 emissions at 1990 levels had doomed us to runaway warming. The die had been cast and if we did not immediately reduce CO2 below those levels we were irretrievably doomed. This was the word of “all competent scientists in the pertinent fields.” Every year CO2 emissions have gone up, not by a little but greatly. The US was held up as a pariah by merely recognizing that the Kyoto goals were not attainable.
In all the years since I have not heard one of those "unanimous" scientists adjust his conclusions or come close to apologizing. I find that alone quite venal. Even for those who were metaphysically convinced of their conclusions at some time could have said, “here is where my calculations went wrong.” But I just happen to think few of them ever made calculations but just climbed on board the movement. I don't think there was any denial of CO2 being a green house gas – it could be observed, of all places, in green houses! But we heard scientists say Manhattan will be under 20 feet of water..Some of these very same scientists had only a few years earlier given grave warnings about an impending little Ice Age with evidence that looked better than the warming evidence. And about that time the public heard endless stories from computer scientists that year 2000 would bring computers to cause planes to crash generating plants to fail, banks to shut down , trains to collide etc.
2)Seems every time I see CO2 discussed I see percentages cited, not quantities. Why would one think that reducing the percentage of electricity generated by coal means less CO2 emitted or that doubling the percentage of electricity generated by wind necessarily decreases CO2 emissions by one iota. That's sophistry. Is anyone ever brought to task? 3) In the Kyoto base year, 1990, world population was about 5.2 billion. Today it is about 7.1 billion and we use far more energy and generate and emit far more CO2. If we assume population growth at 1.4% for 22 years we get what we experienced. 1.014^22 x 5.2 = 7.06. How about projecting from 2012 to 2050? 1.014^38 x 7.06 = 12 billion in 2050. What if we take the period 1930 to 2050 @ 1.4%. 1.014^120 x 2 = 10.6 billion in 2050, a surprisingly good ;match using an exponent of 120! Reducing CO2 emissions from now on is much, much more daunting now.
May, 23 2012
Roger Arnold says
Don, I find Jim's comments to be spot on. Yours, OTOH...
The issue of variability of renewables is well-plowed ground, both here and elsewhere. I wrote a sequence of three articles about it for this forum in late 2006, here, here, and here. Surprisingly little has changed in the past five and a half years. Same mechanisms available for supply management, load management, and energy storage. Some new options for energy storage, but very little built. Fossil fuels continue to be the overwhelmingly dominant form of "energy storage", because it's the cheapest. The inconvenience of slow warmup and cooldown times continue to bedevil life for TSOs, but they continue to manage.
The thesis of this article that renewables don't reduce CO2 emissions is new. I'll give it that much. But that's about all I can give it. It's 90% nonsense. The "city mileage / highway mileage" analogy is bogus. The dispatchable resources that take a long time to warm up or shut down are never switched casually. They're almost always allowed to run for at least a day after being dispatched. If demand drops, other generation that has been up for some time will be dropped first. And while it's true that power turbines do have a higher fuel rate during transitions, but it's not that much higher.
There is a germ of truth in the thesis, in that in a regional balancing area with high penetration by intermittent resources there is likely to be more reliance on backup generators and peaking units that can be dispatched on very short notice. Those units tend to have lousy heat rates, but it's inherent in their designs, not a direct consequence of frequent starting, stopping, or throttling. They'd have pretty much the same lousy heat rate if they were run stadily for days on end.
Even at that, the problem is economic and institutional, not technical. Definitely not fundamental. There's no shortage of ways to deal with intermittency that don't involve reliance on ineffefficient backup and peaking units. But they're more costly, and there's no incentive for utilities to embrace them. That's a policy failure, and if that's what you want to criticize, I'll join the chorus. Just don't tar renewables sector with a charge it doesn't deserve.
It's got enough real problems to worry about.
May, 23 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Fred Linn, I didn't understand why you associated me with Nicholas II. So maybe to understand a bit more I reviewed history a little.
Granted, there have been some exceedingly unpleasant tzars. But Nicholas II seems to have been quite a decent and likable sort. He could not cope with the explosive situation (not of his making) in Russia. Perhaps nobody could have coped.
Like me he had a Danish mother. Like me he was short with very blue eyes. Like me he liked Wagner 's music and judging from the picture on Wikipedia he looked more like me than my own brother. But you could not have known all this – could you? Does it bother you that I have provided that no relative or friend or government will need pay a dime at my demise.
He and his family was slaughtered. He was succeeded by a regime that murdered infinitely more people than all his ancestors combined.
So please tell me why do you connect me to Nicholas II?
May, 24 2012
Don Hirschberg says
“Don, I find Jim's comments to be spot on. Yours, OTOH...” I'm back from learning what OTOH means. IDLCA. That is, I don't like chasing acronyms. “OTOH dot dot dot” is a bit snide.
Please tell me, Roger, just what sentence(s) in my comment you find in error. Maybe I need to correct them.
I neither endorsed nor rejected any detail of Inhaber's reasoning or methodology. I didn't address them. I only endorsed his conclusion, arrived at by other means, that substantially reducing CO2 is not likely possible.
May, 24 2012
Jim Beyer says
Don & Roger,
I don't know what TSO means. Presumably it's not the Trans-Siberian Orchestra....
Always great to get a thumbs up from Roger. Thanks!
Don, I think the premise of the article was that using renewables would not impact CO2 emissions. It was a little different than your assertion that practically reducing them is very difficult. FWIW (For what it's worth), I agree with you, but I don't think that means we aren't supposed to try.
I think, however expensive it might be to shift from fossil fuels (which we have to eventually do anyway), it is less expensive than facing the onslaught of a full-court press of global warming. Maybe we can't get it back to 350 ppm, but 450 or 500 is still better than 650 or 700 ppm.
I think Fred's comment was that Tsar Nick II thought his position would protect him from the chaos, but it did not.
I can see how the pragmatist might think it's silly to even try to address CO2 levels. I would agree, except that much of the stuff needed to do that we probably should be doing anyway. That being said, the pragmatist in me says the effects of peak oil will affect us far sooner (they are affecting us now...) than climate change issues.
May, 24 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
What about telling it like it is. Solar and wind are the worst possible options for central Europe and further north, because that part of Europe is filled with ignoramuses who believe that nuclear should be totally dumped and replaced by solar and wind, and if you give them a meter they will want a mile. That's what they want and they won't settle for less, so why should those of us who know what we are talking about treat them like they are intelligent people.
The same udoubtedly applies to a part of North America.
May, 24 2012
Fred Linn says
Don..............
-------" As to my sustainability I have more money than needed unless there is complete anarchy."-------- Yeah, Czar Nicholas II used to say the same thing.
Yes, sometimes there is complete anarchy.(as you point out)-----and no, I was not insulting you---Czar Nicholas II was indeed a very likable sort, as was his whole family.
--------" I think Fred's comment was that Tsar Nick II thought his position would protect him from the chaos, but it did not."------------
Jim caught the meaning of my thoughts pretty well.
I also think the best means of preventing the tsunami events from devolving into anarchy is to act to remove the causative factors before the tidal wave forms. To change before the chain of events becomes unstoppable.
Jim Beyer-------------" I can see how the pragmatist might think it's silly to even try to address CO2 levels. I would agree, except that much of the stuff needed to do that we probably should be doing anyway. That being said, the pragmatist in me says the effects of peak oil will affect us far sooner (they are affecting us now...) than climate change issues."---------------
I agree.
-------" Do what you can, from where you are, with what you have."---------Theodore Roosevelt.
May, 24 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Interesting comments but what I had in mind isn't anything at all like the Russian Revolution or tsumani.. I meant sustaining my present two person household under anarchic practices we see in our cities daily. Since I am old I don't have to figure on providing “sustainability” over decades. I was actually being a bit pompous – it's rather a new use for the word and I do see it used pompously. My comment was dumb. Sorry.
May, 24 2012
Fred Linn says
It is perfectly natural to feel comfortable with living the way you've always lived in the past.
To effect change---it is necessary to find ways to make people WANT to change.
It is just a bit more challenging to me think of that might make you WANT to change the way things are done.
Even old dogs can learn new tricks------especially if you happen to pull out the right treats.
LOL.
All change is not bad-----and any change is not necessarily good.
Keep in mind Don--------a lot of the things that I support are not change at all, they amount to going back to places we started out from-----and working our way back up using better choices. In which case-----old farts who were around to use the old ideas and know they work just fine can be useful to have around. Kids today think if it isn't an app on a Droid phone----it can't possibly work.
May, 24 2012
Fred Linn says
Don-----little explanation about myself----besides working most of my life in the medical field(technology background)
I've also been a professional working dog trainer both as business and hobby for over 35 years. (When I say you CAN teach old dogs new tricks---I mean it quite literally)
I am also a historian by interest and avocation----some of my favorite hobbies have been historical re-enactment and the evaluation of the how's and why's of how we got to be where we are today. In my opinion---it isn't always because we've taken the best choices of ways to go.
In dog training you keep a log book, just like a ship's captain. If you have a failure in training or performance-----you check your logs to find out what and where things went wrong. Then you back up to that point, and restart using a better choice of method to avoid repeating the problem you want to fix.
This does very well when working with the dogs. I think it can also work work if we use the same idea and methods on other problems we have.
May, 25 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Well Fred Linn, now I understand. You are the kind of person who knows a little about everything, but not much about anything - except possibly training dogs.
Well that won't do it where this subject is concerned, and that's the problem. We don't need your kind of knowledge where oil, gas and nuclear are concerned, and if you really knew any history you would know that miracles were carried out in the US industrial sector during WW2, and as a result I choose to think that the construction of a viable/ economical nuclear sector is a piece of cake.
What is going on in Germany with Angela Merkel's ignorant commitment to dump nuclear is typical of the dishonesty that prevails at the present time, and prevails EVERYWHERE. She wants more years in the German parliament, and she and her foot soldiers are willing to tell any lie to obtain them. Now, my knowledge of wind and solar is ____ poor - pathetic. But some very smart people keep saying that wind and solar are not going to live up to the fantasies of half-baked scribblers and I believe them.
Some fool on another site said that Obama has lied about energy - and specifically oil. Mr Obama has NEVER lied about energy, because he doesn't know a damned thing about the subject, and the people who advise him are probably in the same sad position. But in historical time it doesn't make any difference. In a few years Obama will be standing in front of a classroom on the South Side of Chicago, telling admiring students how he brought freedom and democracy to Libya and Afghanistan, while people as smart as some - and perhaps many - of us on this site will apply some conventional and constructive logic to the American energy sector.
May, 25 2012
Fred Linn says
-------"..... I choose to think that the construction of a viable/ economical nuclear sector is a piece of cake."------------
Yeah? Well, the ice cream has all melted while everyone was waiting for the cake.
May, 25 2012
Ervin Priem says
why not use sunlight to drive turbines directly,using heated refrigerants.i do 30+ MW yes MW / acre. put this directly into the grid. use oil platforms put 5000 around the world 10 acre platforms could produce 1000MW each .the system would reqire no storage,as the rotation would put new plants online continually as one went offline one would come online.this is not a pipe dream , as the corrision problem has been solved.ever seen a rusty potato chip bag?.this could be done for $500,000,000,to 1 trillion dollars. seems like a lot ,but this could power the world for the next 500 years.it might just be worth a thought.it can be done.
May, 25 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Fred Linn wrote,“It is perfectly natural to feel comfortable with living the way you've always lived in the past.To effect change---it is necessary to find ways to make people WANT to change.”
I don't want to be rude but I not only don't understand these sentences I don't know to what they refer? Changing people? Living the way you've always lived? Impossible. Since I just might have provoked this comment I feel I ought to make some kind of response – or perhaps I am just being corrected and lectured to?
As to change I look about me I can hardly find anything I had or even knew about as a young child. After looking about I have found two surviving items, a glass and a no.2 yellow pencil Literally hundreds of items in my view are “new.” Wash-and-wear shirts changed my life. It was not necessary to find ways to make people WANT commercial AM radio which alone made profound changes in almost all American lives. Farmers listened to Ed Wynn, Amos and Andy, Jack Benny, the World Series even if they had to put a small wind mill on their roof to charge their A and B radio batteries. If you are talking about changing the nature of people themselves I have witnessed great unWANTED change, a degradation.
In four years at my HS of 1600+ students I did not know of a single student pregnancy. Abortion was a felony. There was no “pill.” There were perhaps a dozen obese students. (And remember there were no diet drinks or a selection of low-cal foods. We cooked with lard. Seems there was self-discipline. Today there would likely be 500 or so obese. I didn't know of a single classmate accused of a felony. There was essentially no hookey. Any unexcused absence required a re-admit process with a parent's presence. I heard of marijuana, but always 3rd hand and never saw it used.(Mine was a better than average public HS in a better than average white suburb.)
I would bet that those in my HS class who chose rigorous courses (by far the majority) were better educated at graduation than many people getting college degrees today.
The state of education today is so bad that it is taboo to cite the facts. Here are a few up-to-date facts: Blacks who are still in school as HS seniors test no better than whites completing 8th grade in the same school system. This is the same result as a wide study of a few years ago. Alas, anyone who cites facts such as these is ipso facto a racist. Those who don't even make it to being HS seniors constitute a crime culture. Daly we can read about their stunts – what I call anarchy. The military won't take anyone without a HS diploma ( GED usually not acceptable) and a minimum AFQT score would probably reject most in this group even without a felony conviction.
For many decades the mantra was fix the schools, and education is the answer. (Another taboo, don't criticize the educationalist academe.) The quality of school is mostly determined by the quality of the student and the quality of a student is determined by the quality of the parents (plural). Most Blacks are innocently doubly damned by both their DNA and their parent(s), We simply don't know how to fix this. It appears that the more enlightened the programs tried the more profound the failure.
May, 25 2012
Fred Linn says
-----------" We simply don't know how to fix this. It appears that the more enlightened the programs tried the more profound the failure."----------
What are you doing about it?
May, 26 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Don, your remark about the military is interesting. What is happening in the US is a major deterioration in morals and intelligence among large portions of the young people, while as compared to our US army - yours and mine - the quality of the present army seems to be on the rise.
I could tell that just by looking at lousy CNN presentations, and paying close attention to the stance of American soldiers and marines, and the way they hold their weapons. What has happened is that they have finally learned how to turn American boys into competent soldiers, while American governments have not figured out how to turn American boys and girls into thinking citizens, and if they have figured it out they have not bothered to apply it.
Moreover, what you see as genetic faults among students actually have to do with the ignorance and stupidity of the decision makers. You say that the quality of the schools is determined by the quality of the student, but that belief is alien to my thinking. Ignorant Bush and Obama, and their ignorant flunkies, should be thinking about American Schools instead of the antics taking place thousands of miles away. The solution is easy: the many faults of American society should have no place in the schools.
May, 26 2012
Don Hirschberg says
Professor, There really was no connection between between the school and “government” back when we had much better education. In a School Law text book the first chapter was devoted to “Education is a local function.” The notion of an Education Department would have been regarded as something in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Communist USSR, not here. School Districts reported statistics to a State Department of Education and advised of laws passed by the state. Local school boards pretty much made the decisions and hired the school management. The money came from local property taxes.
In Illinois we were exposed to Lincoln, Texans more about their unique history under five flags. There was a different mind set: We frequently heard “these” United States rather than “the” United States. If there was a federal employee in my city I never heard of him. In fact to this day I have never known a single federal employee except my mailman and childhood girl friend who had a career as a geologist with the USGA.
My teachers were educated when Communism was stylish among academe and most were to some degree pink if not communists.
My Korean Army was made up of WWII retreads and mostly draftees. Today the Army can winnow before enlistment. Then, the main winnowing started with the testing and washing-out of people in Basic early to reduce the amount of money spent on those who would never be judged combat ready. The army wanted the best and the brightest in the so-called combat branches: Infantry, Artillery, Armor (Cavalry). The Signal Corps wanted high IQ and those with high code aptitude. The army could make good cooks and bakers, truck drivers, quarter masters out of men with physical and mental and emotional problems not wanted in, say, a rife squad.
I was not there early in the war when the the surprise invasion of the Red Armies nearly pushed the ROK and US Army into the sea. But overall our Army did very well. As usual, we had a very lopsided superior kill ratio over the enemy. My experience with the army was very favorable. Our dead numbered only about 38,000. The enemy has not reported their losses but they are estimated at between 1 and 2 million, a humiliating ratio. for perspective in our many wars in 236 years our battle field dead have totaled about 600,000.
May, 27 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Don. the testing and washing-out of people in basic training that you referred to did not happen for the most part before, during and after the Korean war. There was however a big improvement in basic training after the Korean War, and the army initially sent to Vietnam - which had been trained to fight the Russians - might have been the best in US history. Note the word INITIALLY.
But that's past history. The most important thing about American War from WW2 until now are the technological developments that substitute so brilliantly for shortages in combat efficiency, willingness, brainpower and all the rest of it. The best American soldiers (and marines) are the best in the world, but numerically they are inadequate. I can also note that when I went to Germany I was inexplicably transferred from the infantry to the artillery - probably due to my math grade on the military educational test - and during the final 15 months of my army career had it made clear to me that if WW3 had broken out, it would have been a nuclear clash, because I saw precious few enlisted men AND officers in the kaserne where I was stationed near Stuttgart who knew what the ___ they were doing.
Which is why I say and will continue to say that the most important thing in the US today is a complete reform of the educational system. A reform that focuses on shielding children and young people in the US from the degenerate influences that are ruining that country, by which I mean shielding them during the school day, and in addition teaching (or force feeding) them enough math to compete with our Asian friends. And like this business with nuclear energy which is so difficult for Fred Linn to comprehend, because he has forgotten how to add and subtract, what we are dealing with is a piece of cake. Parents want their children to be educated, and intelligent politicians - if there are any of those around - realize that it is best for them and THEIR families if they live in a civilized country rather than some of the places that the American government is so concerned with at the present time, and on which tens of billions of dollars are being squandered.
May, 27 2012
Don Hirschberg says
A car goes around a one mile track in 2 minutes. How fast must the car go on a second time around to raise the average speed to 60 mph? (Remembered from childhood.)
Many otherwise sane and competent people assume problems and answers are created in corresponding sets, like the problems in an arithmetic text with answers printed in the back of the book We need only be clever enough to find the answer. Although the Patent Office long ago stopped considering perpetual motion machines they are being invented every day. Look how long it took to quell the “hydrogen society” proposals?
The statement of a real life problem seldom stipulates “starting from existing conditions.” When the wise men formulated the Kyoto Protocol did they figure that they were in a world where the population was growing at 1.4% per year and fossil fuel usage was growing at an even greater rate. Yet we were not to increase CO2 emissions over the level of 1990 because we were already at the tipping point, the point of no return, abandon all hope.. (See the problem above.)
We are reassured that the percentage of electricity generated by coal is going down, So? That the use of coal is at all-time record (150% of 1990) and is still going up is not heard.
As to the education problem until we face facts there will be little or no progress. The civil righter had to win. Segregation is unconstitutional. (So was an income tax, so we changed the Constitution.) All this testing business dates from WWI. We had no army and needed a large one quickly. Testing was born lest we waste both huge amounts of money and time training people who had little aptitude through no fault of their own. We do the same thing today. Does anyone think those to be trained as, say, officers and pilots should be chosen fairly – except our enemy? The testing has had a hundred years of refinement.
It was hoped that the spread between white and Black scholastic achievement would narrow and disappear. So schooling was dumbed down to give the miracle a better chance. All that happened is that whites got dumber and everyone's behavior deteriorated. The spread has stayed the same as people who knew the facts predicted from the start.
The terrible truth is that the average Black American has an IQ of about 85 vs about 100 for western European stock. (But 85 is far better than 70 average for sub-Saharan Africans who didn't get enslaved.) Black Americans have about 25% Caucasian DNA, and 300 years living in a better culture with better nutrition - if these make a difference. Given the constraints of this aptitude difference and our enlightened devotion to “race is only skin deep” and the dogma of “all men are created equal” how do we improve schools? Much like the CO2 reduction problem it looks as if we can't do much.
May, 28 2012
Ferdinand E. Banks says
Don, facing facts for me means that there is no SHORT-RUN solution of the problem you are discussing. And of course, if the American people want presidents like George W. and Bush, it is hopeless in the long run too.
In so far as improving schools is concerned, what you do NOT do is to ask the voters if they want schools improved, and regardless of what they want or think, you never consider for a fraction of a second asking them how should you go about it. Instead the money that is wasted in stupid wars is used to construct a decent future for all Americans, whether they want it or not, because the issue reduces to the future of Number One, and Number One is better off if dumbing down, vulgarity, gross and minor stupidity and all the rest of it is kept to a minimum.
Where the dumbing down of schools is concerned, I went to the faculty of electrical engineering at a Sydney (Australia) university to see a friend, and there were a crowd of students in front of the building waiting to get exam results or something like that. Every one of them was an Asian. The same day I went to the bookstore for the used book sale, and the only non-Asians in the place were behind the counter. So you see, it's more than a black-white thing. What it increasingly happens to be all about is competing with the countries and peoples of Asia. Personally, I think that this can be done, but I definitely am not going to go into details.
May, 29 2012
Jim Beyer says
How come so many of these threads devolve into the parting shots from "The Closing of the American Mind" - Allan Bloom ? :)
Much of the social malaise is due to Gen Xers and Yers and Milleniums wisely noting that their prospects are limited and thus pseudo-giving up. Same goes for urban centers. The smart ones try their hand are dealing drugs; much as the smart sub-urban types try their hand at dealing credit default swaps on Wall Street. One could argue they are equally deleterious.
Without getting into skin color, I will note that both education and medicine are largely (though not exclusively) information rich professions. Given we are in an information age, the cost of providing these services should be dropping, not rising. Yet today, (unlike the time of Don and Fred) a young person has to look at the prospect that they must need to spend $70K-$100K just to "buy" a job in this world (via the required college education). Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, I don't think either of you had to do that. Probably had a GI-bill to help you out. So, with respect, give the youth in this country (whatever their color) a break. It's not so easy for them.
May, 29 2012
Len Gould says
The problem with the likes of Mrs. Merkel (and incidentally, almost every other modern politician I can think of) is that they're just smart enough to know that they can tell any lie to get elected PROVIDED that lie cannot be absolutely proven a lie before the election. Shut down all reactors? Sure, in the next ten years. Bring every one of you into the top 1% of income earners? Sure, just let me have a couple of terms in office first. And BTW, lower taxes for the wealthy will sure help you then! (and all my real financial backers now LOL).
June, 04 2012
Tam Hunt says
As is, this article amounts to nothing more than the author's opinions. No studies are cited and no quantitative analysis is offered. Ergo: without more, this author's conclusions can be rejected.
The fact is that there are many ways to reach high penetrations of renewables without relying on natural gas backup. And NG plants are getting more efficient over time anyway, so even if NG is used for backup the clear trend is to reducing CO2 emissions in this sector also.
May, 10 2013
aldrichdevon vigorda says
What to Look for in a Hard Drive That You Are Purchasing? When you are going to buy laptop hard drive, it is extremely important to look for one that is going to be fast and large enough to accommodate all of your files and data needs. It
Yeah, it's just what I need, I'm about to have a new one
I always use Dell Hard Disk Drives, what about you, guys?
Gateway!!!lol
Yeah, it's just what I need, I'm about to have a new one
I always use Dell Hard Disk Drives, what about you, guys?
Gateway!!!lol
May, 10 2013
aldrichdevon vigorda says
Find out what to look for when you are shopping for a hard drive
- I&C Technician / Sr Solar Field Technician-1301037
- Variable Generation Analyst 2013-46
- Apprentice Substation Apparatus Technician - IRC9529
- Senior Manager, Internal Audit
- O&M Supervisor- Logan
- Gas Distribution Engg, Supvr-Exempt
- Sr. Accounting/Financial Analyst Job
- Intern
- Gas Transmission Product Manager, Senior
- Meter Engineer
Contribute Your Work
Sponsored Content
Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc.
