News Free speech and cap 'n trade troubles

[Andre]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/epa-employees-silenced-criticizing-cap-trade/

Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked as lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in its San Francisco office for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.
...
"Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors," Zabel said in the video. "We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional," he said...

http://video.foxnews.com/11685042/gag-order/?category_id=c985e69916535a2170b2b18ab0ab7eb60401f9bb.

There must be strong feelings on both sides of the dispute or?

 

[mgb_phys]

Isn't this like the Nasa employees that were 'silenced' for mentioning evolution or global warming?

Your employment contract (especially with a federal agency) says you can't make public pronouncements about your work without clearing them with the press office.
So to drum up some publicity you claim to have been silenced by The Man.

 

[WhoWee]

Let's not forget Humana and the CMS/health care debate.

 

[Astronuc]

My personal feeling is that "cap 'n trade" is not much more than a scam (basically a new financial game) to make a few people rich at the expense of the many with little realization of the goal of reducing emissions.

Various utilities are already looking at technologies to reduce or eliminate emissions. They should be rewarded.

We don't need to be giving money to financial middlemen who do nothing except extract a fee while adding to overhead.

 

[turbo]

Cap and trade is a scam, and the loopholes will be exploited to let the dirtiest polluters stay on-line and avoid making upgrades. Already we have seen that major rebuilds in the power industry have been characterized as "routine maintenance" to avoid triggering tighter emissions standards applicable to new equipment. There is no reason to believe that operators of coal-fired power plants will suddenly see the light and start cleaning up their plants.

Thanks to our location down-wind of the mid-west plants, Maine has acidified lakes and ponds, mercury bio-accumulating in our fish and their predators, cadmium and other metals accumulating in the livers of deer and moose, etc. It is high time to start enforcing the pollution standards that we already have, and start tightening them on a reasonable time-line. Rebuilding power-plants and/or fitting them with stack-scrubbers, etc, would create jobs AND give us a cleaner environment. Cap and trade will do neither. It's just a shell-game to keep the bad actors sheltered from their actions. The air and water belong to all of us, yet they are being fouled with the connivance of the power companies, coal companies, their lobbyists, and the Congressional members who can be bought with campaign contributions. Unfortunately, bribery in DC is not illegal - such institutional corruption is regarded as business as usual.

 

[drankin]

It's good to see we have a consensus on both sides of the politcal spectrum on this issue here in the PF.

 

[WhoWee]

My personal feeling is that "cap 'n trade" is not much more than a scam (basically a new financial game) to make a few people rich at the expense of the many with little realization of the goal of reducing emissions.

Various utilities are already looking at technologies to reduce or eliminate emissions. They should be rewarded.

We don't need to be giving money to financial middlemen who do nothing except extract a fee while adding to overhead.

I could not possibly agree more.

 

[lisab]

It's good to see we have a consensus on both sides of the politcal spectrum on this issue here in the PF.

Wow...you mean we finally found our *one* issue? Aaaahhh...let's have a group hug and sing Kumbaya...!

 

[turbo]

Wow...you mean we finally found our *one* issue? Aaaahhh...let's have a group hug and sing Kumbaya...!

Dibs on the Smores!

 

[lisab]

Dibs on the Smores!

Smores? Hmmmm...turbo, I think we might need something a bit stronger to get drankin, WhoWee, and I bet Russ, to join our anti-cap-and-trade love-in, hahaha...

 

[turbo]

Smores? Hmmmm...turbo, I think we might need something a bit stronger to get drankin, WhoWee, and I bet Russ, to join our anti-cap-and-trade love-in, hahaha...

You may be right, basil. It's hard to negotiate with folks that are intent on saying NO as long as they are out of power, though.

 

[drankin]

You may be right, basil. It's hard to negotiate with folks that are intent on saying NO as long as they are out of power, though.

NO to smores...

 

[Al68]

It's hard to negotiate with folks that are intent on saying NO as long as they are out of power, though.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

 

[WhoWee]

NO to smores...

WhoWee is in for the hug.

Cap and trade is just a scam and doesn't fix anything. I'm also in favor of clean air, water, and soil. We have a VERY high incidence of cancer in my area (family not excluded).

At the same time, I'm not in favor of chasing our manufacturing base offshore.

 

[turbo]

At the same time, I'm not in favor of chasing our manufacturing base offshore.

The point is that power-plants cannot be out-sourced. Components could be built elsewhere, but it should be within the capabilities of our regulators to give preferential treatment to companies that source their upgrade equipment, materials, etc from domestic sources. Greening our power-generation facilities should be an engine driving new American jobs. Certainly, there are environmental and health benefits to be gained, and if we can get some heavy industry and construction jobs restored in the process, the benefits will extend to increasing wages, improved state, local, and federal tax revenues, and reduced outlays for unemployment insurance and monetary assistance programs.

US companies have been exporting jobs off-shore, to the detriment of the domestic economy. It is time to look at tax breaks, etc, that these companies enjoy, and reduce or eliminate them if they continue to shift production overseas. We cannot possibly maintain a healthy economy without a robust manufacturing sector. This is a matter of our national security and deserves the attention of our elected representatives in DC.

 

[Astronuc]

According to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the US lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs during the last decade.

The manufacturing was moved to cheaper labor markets overseas. That also means that the technology moves overseas as well. This also coincides with an increase in the trade deficit. The US imports much more manufactured goods than it exports.

There is a problem that the rest of the world can pretty much manufacture everything that the US can, so there is no need to buy from the US, with the possible exception of weapons. I don't think however that the US trade balance should be based on arming the rest of the world.

If one took replaced all the imported oil with domestic energy, the US would still have a trade deficit. Of course, that could be reversed if the US exported energy in the form of liquified natural gas.

 

[Nebula815]

US companies have been exporting jobs off-shore, to the detriment of the domestic economy. It is time to look at tax breaks, etc, that these companies enjoy, and reduce or eliminate them if they continue to shift production overseas. We cannot possibly maintain a healthy economy without a robust manufacturing sector. This is a matter of our national security and deserves the attention of our elected representatives in DC.

On the one hand, I agree to some extent, on the other hand, a private company I think should have every right to shift production to wherever will allow it to make the largest profit. If companies are given a tax break by keeping production within the U.S., but that tax break is revoked if they move production outside, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I would say we could maybe keep certain businesses here by cutting our corporate tax rate, it is one of the highest in the world.

As for manufacturing, the U.S. still manufactures more than any other nation in the world, it's just that the manufacturing has become more automated, so less human workers are needed.

 

[turbo]

I would say we could maybe keep certain businesses here by cutting our corporate tax rate, it is one of the highest in the world.

On paper perhaps. There are so many loop-holes and give-aways written into our tax codes that some huge corporations pay very little in taxes. "Paper" losses can often be carried into the future and be applied to more profitable years to offset profits. There are lots of accounting tricks that can be used to reduce taxes. Before we reduce the corporate tax rate, it would be advisable to start closing loopholes, lest we the taxpayers end up "refunding" money to corporations that have actually paid little or nothing in.

 

[Nebula815]

On paper perhaps. There are so many loop-holes and give-aways written into our tax codes that some huge corporations pay very little in taxes. "Paper" losses can often be carried into the future and be applied to more profitable years to offset profits. There are lots of accounting tricks that can be used to reduce taxes. Before we reduce the corporate tax rate, it would be advisable to start closing loopholes, lest we the taxpayers end up "refunding" money to corporations that have actually paid little or nothing in.

I'm all for closing loopholes and just cut the corporate rate, but is that really politically feasible (getting the loopholes closed)?

I would think that even with loopholes, it still may cost less for a company to simply have a lower corporate rate because we have seen certain companies re-locate overseas to places like Switzerland that have a much lower corporate tax rate. It probably costs more money to exploit all the loopholes as opposed to just pay a lower rate from the get-go.

 

[turbo]

The US could save a whole bunch of money, improve revenues, and reduce waste and overhead by simplifying the tax code for everybody. Individuals, small business, corporations, etc. Who is going to scream the loudest if this happens? Corporations. They are the only entities with enough money and power to get beneficial loop-holes written into the tax codes. Neither you nor I have that kind of leverage.

The right-wing in the US loves capitalism as long as it applies to the poor and the working-class, and favors socialism when it applies to the wealthy and to corporations. It's a very perverse philosophy that bears no resemblance to real conservatism.

 

[Nebula815]

The US could save a whole bunch of money, improve revenues, and reduce waste and overhead by simplifying the tax code for everybody.

I agree.

Individuals, small business, corporations, etc. Who is going to scream the loudest if this happens? Corporations. They are the only entities with enough money and power to get beneficial loop-holes written into the tax codes. Neither you nor I have that kind of leverage.

You mean Big Business I am assuming, because not all corporations are big. However, I'd think it's more the tax attorneys and big accounting firms that would scream the loudest, not the big corporations.

The right-wing in the US loves capitalism as long as it applies to the poor and the working-class, and favors socialism when it applies to the wealthy and to corporations. It's a very perverse philosophy that bears no resemblance to real conservatism.

Depends on which aspect of the "right-wing" you are talking about. The Reagan conservatives and libertarians certainly do not favor any socialism for Big Business. They are pro-free market, not pro-Big Business.

The blue-blood, elitist, establishment, country-club, Big Business Republicans are the kind you are referring to I'd think, and they are not exactly right-wing (they are also a world of difference from the strict free-market, blue-collar Republicans). They tend to be pretty okay with spending lots of money on social issues/programs (as we saw when they had the Presidency (Bush) and the Congress), just not to the degree of the Democrats. Deficits, instead of being a bad thing, it became about keeping a 'manageable sized deficit." And they have no problem with helping their Big Business friends via tariffs or subsidies (not always, but oftentimes).

Someone said not too long ago, the Republicans and Democrats in Washington don't differ over whether government should be big or small, they just differ over the type of big government the nation should have.

 

[turbo]

Depends on which aspect of the "right-wing" you are talking about. The Reagan conservatives and libertarians certainly do not favor any socialism for Big Business. They are pro-free market, not pro-Big Business.

I would have to disagree here. The Neo-cons and their cheerleaders in the media are all for taxing the public to give favors to businesses. Socialism for businesses is alive and well. There are lots of businesses that we taxpayers have bailed out that did not deserve our efforts, and there are plenty of those that are paying bonuses to the same crews of creeps that drove our economy into the ditch.

 

[Al68]

The right-wing in the US loves capitalism as long as it applies to the poor and the working-class, and favors socialism when it applies to the wealthy and to corporations.

What are you even talking about? It's the left wing that wants to apply "socialism" to the wealthy and corporations, along with the rest of us. Attempts to stop that are called "right wing" or "conservative" by everyone but you.

Using your own undisclosed definitions for the terms you use is not conducive to honest debate, it's just hateful nonsense.

 

[Nebula815]

I would have to disagree here. The Neo-cons and their cheerleaders in the media are all for taxing the public to give favors to businesses.

Which cheerleaders...? I don't know of any news outlets that could be defined as "right-wing" that support bailouts for Big Business or taxing the public to pay for said bailouts...?

Socialism for businesses is alive and well. There are lots of businesses that we taxpayers have bailed out that did not deserve our efforts, and there are plenty of those that are paying bonuses to the same crews of creeps that drove our economy into the ditch.

Well the bailouts for the auto industry most on the right would agree were wrong, but that was more a bailout of the United Auto Workers Union by the Obama administration, not the auto industry itself, I'd say.

As for the financial firms, most on the hard right were against the bailout; those who supported the bailout on the grounds of just to prevent the financial system, and hence the economy, from collapsing, did so very reluctantly.

Most on the right that I have seen fully agree about there being socialism for these big Wall Street financial firms however, as they are literally too big to be allowed to fail.

Because they are too big to be allowed to fail, they are smug knowing that in the end, the government will always bail them out. This is bad, and these firms need to either be regulated to a much more extreme degree than the rest of the banking and financial sector (the firms that are allowed to fail) OR they need to be broken up I think, as this is not free-market capitalism.

The financial system is a form of utility, and as such there needs to be a limit on how large some of these firms can get. That, or much more stringent oversight for the big firms since they are quasi-socialist (i.e. the safety net of the taxpayer).

That is what created the Fannie-Freddie disasters. They were supposedly backed up by the government, but exempt from even the most basic SEC reporting requirements (!).

Those banks and financial firms not big enough to need any bailout, that are permitted to fail, would not be subject to such extreme regulation as the big firms. The extra regulation would be the price of the taxpayer safety net.

 

[Al68]

That is what created the Fannie-Freddie disasters. They were supposedly backed up by the government, but exempt from even the most basic SEC reporting requirements (!).

What caused the Fannie-Freddie problems was their government created mandate to buy bad mortgages, and their requirement that bad mortgages be bundled with good ones. This artificial demand for bad mortgages was 100% created by government.

The banks (like mine) that refused to issue bad mortgages for Fannie and Freddie were accused of "not caring about poor people", etc., but these banks are doing just fine with no bailouts.

The banks that went along with the insanity, well you know how they did.

 

[WhoWee]

This thread has drifted off topic.

 

[Jasongreat]

Well the cap and trade part was settled by the third or fourth post, so it seems everyone is now just concentrating on their right to say what they want(free speech).

 

[drankin]

do we all still agree that C&T = PC BS?

 

[russ_watters]

Smores? Hmmmm...turbo, I think we might need something a bit stronger to get drankin, WhoWee, and I bet Russ, to join our anti-cap-and-trade love-in, hahaha...

I agree that cap and trade is dumb.

It sounds like you are letting the market do the work so you can pretend to care about capitalism while fixing pollution, but the reality is that it allows you to completely ignore how both the markets and the science work and set arbitrary limits for the government to profit. It is a revenue stream, not a solution to the pollution problem.

If the government wants to control CO2 production, it needs to take an active hand in going after coal power plants and promoting nuclear power rather than pretending the issue will fix itself with this economic parlor trick.

What will happen (is happening) is that coal power will get more expensive, which will promote the use of alternatives. But since nuclear plants aren't being built yet and take at least a decade to come on line and wind and solar (etc) can't provide anywhere near the capacity needed, the power companies simply pass the cap and trade penalty on to the consumers in the form of higher energy costs.

 

[turbo]

I heard an interesting presentation by a University of Maine professor on PBS the other day. He was talking about renewable sources of power (like wind, but tidal generation could as easily have been included) and he posited that improvements in electric vehicles (and increasing sales of same) could provide a great way to use power generated at off-peak times. People go home at night and plug in their electric vehicles for recharging, and the batteries would provide a bulk storage capacity for power produced off-peak, without the need to massively upgrade our infrastructure to transmit the excess power out-of-state. Maine could still be a net exporter of electrical power, as we are today, but if wind-generated power gets attractively priced and the price of electric-powered vehicles drops, we would have a nice confluence of events.

There are some details to iron out, but what if electricity consumed during off-peak consumption hours was metered at a much lower rate than during peak hours? Folks could set their car-charger to run at 10, 11 or 12 in the evening for instance and shut off whenever charging was complete. That would flatten consumption rates so that load-switching would be minimal.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are some details to iron out, but what if electricity consumed during off-peak consumption hours was metered at a much lower rate than during peak hours?

It already is in europe, in the uk with economy7 you pay less than a third as much for electricity from about midnight to 7:00am. Most people with electric heating have oil storage heaters that only run at night, you also generally have hot water storage tanks with electric immersion heaters.

Some other countries (holland/denmark?) are trialling systems where certain appliances are plugged into unreliable supplies. where the power company can disconnect them for a certain % of the time in return for a discount rate. So your freezer/dryer might turn off for 10mins during a peak in demand.
There are a few companies looking at smart grids where the appliance can check the price in advance an so your dishwasher would decide the best time to run overnight to get the lowest rate.
This allows the power companies to keep a balance load without needing to start natural gas fired power stations.

 

[Jasongreat]

I heard an interesting presentation by a University of Maine professor on PBS the other day. He was talking about renewable sources of power (like wind, but tidal generation could as easily have been included) and he posited that improvements in electric vehicles (and increasing sales of same) could provide a great way to use power generated at off-peak times. People go home at night and plug in their electric vehicles for recharging, and the batteries would provide a bulk storage capacity for power produced off-peak, without the need to massively upgrade our infrastructure to transmit the excess power out-of-state. Maine could still be a net exporter of electrical power, as we are today, but if wind-generated power gets attractively priced and the price of electric-powered vehicles drops, we would have a nice confluence of events.

There are some details to iron out, but what if electricity consumed during off-peak consumption hours was metered at a much lower rate than during peak hours? Folks could set their car-charger to run at 10, 11 or 12 in the evening for instance and shut off whenever charging was complete. That would flatten consumption rates so that load-switching would be minimal.

As soon as enough people start plugging in electric vehicles at night there will be no such thing as off peak hours. Simple case of supply and demand.

 

[WhoWee]

There are several electro-plating companies and other heavy users in W. PA that operate mainly on night shift to take advantage of lower rates.

 

[russ_watters]

I heard an interesting presentation by a University of Maine professor on PBS the other day. He was talking about renewable sources of power (like wind, but tidal generation could as easily have been included) and he posited that improvements in electric vehicles (and increasing sales of same) could provide a great way to use power generated at off-peak times. People go home at night and plug in their electric vehicles for recharging, and the batteries would provide a bulk storage capacity for power produced off-peak, without the need to massively upgrade our infrastructure to transmit the excess power out-of-state. Maine could still be a net exporter of electrical power, as we are today, but if wind-generated power gets attractively priced and the price of electric-powered vehicles drops, we would have a nice confluence of events.

There are some details to iron out, but what if electricity consumed during off-peak consumption hours was metered at a much lower rate than during peak hours? Folks could set their car-charger to run at 10, 11 or 12 in the evening for instance and shut off whenever charging was complete. That would flatten consumption rates so that load-switching would be minimal.

None of that is even remotely new...

First, power is already metered differently at night than during the day for commercial use (and, as noted, as the usage at night rises, the off peak rates will go away...and for residential they will simply never be implimented).
Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

 

[mheslep]

Isn't this like the Nasa employees that were 'silenced' for mentioning evolution or global warming?

Your employment contract (especially with a federal agency) says you can't make public pronouncements about your work without clearing them with the press office.
So to drum up some publicity you claim to have been silenced by The Man.

I don't believe any were silenced

 

[mheslep]

...Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

Wind power exists at night, as does some forms of heat storing concentrated solar.

 

[russ_watters]

There are several electro-plating companies and other heavy users in W. PA that operate mainly on night shift to take advantage of lower rates.

My dad is a utility cost consultant and 15 years ago he had a company that uses induction furnaces fire them up a half hour earlier to avoid hitting a peak demand during on peak hours, saving them thousands of dollars a month. Then he got them to install a demand monitor with a big display on it in their shop to show them when they are about to set a new peak demand, which helped them modify their behavior to keep their demand down, saving them additional thousands per month.

 

[russ_watters]

Wind power exists at night...

I'm having more trouble finding supporting documentation about this than I expected, but as far as I know, the wind is much stronger during the day than at night due to the fact that wind is created by solar heating.

Here's one:

Even the most casual observer knows that wind near the ground is generally stronger in the daytime than at night.

This fact is illusrated by the data analyzed for Figure 1. They show the frequency of occurrence of wind speeds less than 10.5 mph (9.1 knots) at different times of day as measured at the Lansing, MI, airport, averaged for five July months, 1949-54. During the night, from sunset to sunrise, the observed speeds averaged less than 10.5 mph about 90% of the time. After sunrise the frequencies decreased to nearly 50 % by midday, then increased back to about 90 % after sunset.

http://www.windwisdom.net/

I know the graph has an unusual way of presenting the data - it is intended for balloonists - but the message is clear enough. [edit] Oh, there's better graphs lower on the page. Figure 6 implies to me that you get perhaps 1/4 as much wind power at night as during the day.

This, though, I didn't know:

A few hundred feet above the surface the average diurnal pattern of wind speed is just the opposite of that near the ground. Lower speeds occur during the day and higher speeds during the night.

Something that just occurred to me: wind power is being touted as a large part of the solution to global warming. But isn't it illogical to base the solution to climate change on a technique that relies on the climate for its operation? Ie, if the climate changes as drastically as we are told to expect, how do we know that the locations we have chosen for our wind farms will continue to be the correct locations?

 

[Astronuc]

We used to live in a service territory of a utility that charged less for electricity used between 0000 and 0600, so we used to do laundry between midnight at 6 am. I think they charged less on weekends as well.

The wind site that Russ posted is interesting. At about 300 ft above the ground, the average wind speed is more or less constant. The other data suggest seasonal variations as well as diurnal and altitude variations.


As for Cap 'n Trade, a major, and perhaps most significant problem, is the appropriate pricing of the offsets or credits. The middlemen have a vested interest in buying at a discount and selling at a premium, and not necessarily getting the best deal for the consumer.

Obviously the utilities have a vested interest in reducing cost, e.g. replacing old plants with new more efficient plants, as Duke Energy is doing at Evansport or Cliffside:

Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Station http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/igcc.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/igcc-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/coal-fired/edwardsport.asp (old units)
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/edwardsport-overview.asp

The proposed 630-megawatt IGCC facility will be one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in the world. It will emit less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates than the plant it replaces – while providing more than 10 times the power of the existing plant.

Cliffside Steam Station Modernization
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/cliffside.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/coal-fired/cliffside.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/cliffside-overview.asp

Once Cliffside Unit 6 comes on line in 2012, and units 1-4 are retired, the facility will generate more than double the electricity available for customers than the current units, with significantly lower emissions. Duke has committed to retiring 800 additional megawatts of older coal-fired generation, making Unit 6 carbon neutral by 2018.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/another-approach-to-low-carbon-coal/


Duke Generation also invests heavily in wind.
http://www.de-gs.com/projects-renewable.asp

 

[turbo]

None of that is even remotely new...

First, power is already metered differently at night than during the day for commercial use (and, as noted, as the usage at night rises, the off peak rates will go away...and for residential they will simply never be implimented).
Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

The "new" part is that as electric vehicles come into widespread use, they can serve as a distributed "battery" to consume electricity produced by wind-farms during the night, and save us the expense of upgrading the transmission infrastructure to transport the power out-of-state.

I am well-aware of differential pricing for commercial users. It has never been implemented for residential users here, despite the fact that Maine is a net exporter of electrical power, and our power is overwhelmingly generated by hydro-dams. We pay 9cents/KWH for electricity currently. The creation of off-shore wind farms might change that, as the power companies look for ways to encourage off-peak usage in order to avoid the costs associated with infrastructure expansion or load-dumping.

 

[russ_watters]

The wind site that Russ posted is interesting. At about 300 ft above the ground, the average wind speed is more or less constant.

Yes, I noticed that. Perhaps we'll start seeing wind turbines on 600' tall towers?

Obviously the utilities have a vested interest in reducing cost, e.g. replacing old plants with new more efficient plants, as Duke Energy is doing at Evansport or Cliffside...

You'll notice that nowhere in any of that does it mention carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary waste product of good combustion and thermodynamics (ie, efficiency) hasn't changed much in decades, so none of that has anything to do global warming.

The sulfur dioxide and nitrus oxides are products of poor fuel and combustion and getting rid of them was essentially a quality control exercise. The clean air act and related measures resulted in five to fifty-fold reductions in such pollutants from cars and power plants since the 1970s. It wasn't difficult: we just decided to do it. Carbon dioxide doesn't work that way.

Some car emissions standards over time: http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm
Coal plant emissions reductions over time: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11599

From the second link:

America’s improving air quality is an untold success story. Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, air quality had been improving for decades.[1] And since 1970, the six so-called criteria pollutants have declined significantly, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent.

[ii] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen oxides [NOx], ground-level ozone, and particulate matter [PM]. They are called “criteria” pollutants because the EPA sets the criteria for permissible levels. [iii]) Total SO2 emissions from coal-fired plants were reduced by about 40 percent between 1970 and 2006, and NOx emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent between 1980 and 2006. On an output basis, the percent reduction is even greater, with SO2 emissions (in pounds per megawatt-hour) almost 80 percent lower, and NOx emissions 70 percent lower.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, I noticed that. Perhaps we'll start seeing wind turbines on 600' tall towers?
You'll notice that nowhere in any of that does it mention carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary waste product of good combustion and thermodynamics (ie, efficiency) hasn't changed much in decades, so none of that has anything to do global warming.

The sulfur dioxide and nitrus oxides are products of poor combustion and getting rid of them was essentially a quality control exercise. The clean air act and related measures resulted in more than a ten-fold reduction in such pollutants from cars and power plants since the 1970s. It wasn't difficult: we just decided to do it. Carbon dioxide doesn't work that way.

In the description of the Evansport plant one will find the statement "Potential for the capture and geologic storage of carbon dioxide". The links I cited do not explicitly address Duke's program in reducing CO₂.

Like other utilities, Duke Energy has a carbon reduction/offset program. I believe the Evansport and Cliffside plants are designed to be carbon neutral, partly by producing more electrical energy while using less fuel (e.g., IGCC's can be up to ~60% efficient vs ~40% for advanced superheat coal plants). In addition, they are looking for economical ways to employ carbon sequestration.

I believe utilities are hoping that an alternative to carbon storage, e.g., pumping CO₂ underground, or a more economical storage technology, will be developed. An alternative might involve biofuel production.

In any event, I was trying to provide an example of what utilities are doing without the need for Cap 'n Trade. Utilities already have an economic incentive to reduce coal consumption, and where they can, they are introducing non-fuel (renewable) energy production technology, e.g. wind.


And if people feel strongly about it - write one's Senators and congresspersons - and indicate Cap 'n Trade is a bad idea, and give examples of what utilities are doing to reduce or eliminate emissions of CO₂.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't believe any were silenced

I meant that the story of an employee being told not to talk about a report until it was cleared for publication gets turned into a "scientists silenced" story in the media.

 

[Jasongreat]

Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

I was watching a show the other night on the green channel and it showed a new design of wind foil. It was a cylinder shape and had three s-shaped channel that had a slight helix twist to them. He said the design would turn in very low winds and could never over speed due to high winds because of the design as it only captures the amount of wind it needs to operate no matter how much is available(assumes some wind). I have been unable to find other info on it though. He was making them originally for use in the city on top of skyscrapers, since they can't be seen from the ground because of their low profile, it sounds to me like it will be a major advancement in our quest for feasible alternative power. I really liked your point in a later post about the logic or lack thereof of relying on the changing climate to fix the climate. Maybe this new design might help make it a more logical choice because of the wide operating range.

Edit: It looked like http://www.aerotechture.com/products_520h.html" but if it is this one I saw I must of mis heard since the brochure states it needs winds of at least 15mph but it won't overspeed. I was under the impression that it had a constant power output regardless of wind speed, as long as there was some wind, however if the link I provided is the one I saw on the show I was very wrong.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are a few designs of vertical axis turbine. They easier to build because you can put all the works at the base, and they can run in a range of wind speeds without needing variable pitch blades. But it's difficult to support the top bearing.

Also wind power increase with height above the ground so a regular prop on a tower is more efficient.

 

[mheslep]

I'm having more trouble finding supporting documentation about this than I expected, but as far as I know, the wind is much stronger during the day than at night due to the fact that wind is created by solar heating.

Here's one:
http://www.windwisdom.net/

I know the graph has an unusual way of presenting the data - it is intended for balloonists - but the message is clear enough. [edit] Oh, there's better graphs lower on the page. Figure 6 implies to me that you get perhaps 1/4 as much wind power at night as during the day.

This, though, I didn't know:

I'd read about night time wind production in passing several times, particularly when there was a EV angle since the idea was to charge the EV's a night. Perhaps night time wind is the exception and not the rule, but there definitely are examples. Minn:

[...]Xcel currently has an aggregate wind plant within its control area of about 280 MW capacity located at Lake Benton, Minnesota. Annual capacity factor of the wind plant is about 30%, with a seasonal high value of 40% for spring and a low value of 15% for summer. Historical data of the wind energy production shows a modest diurnal pattern with slightly higher production at night.

http://www.uwig.org/opimpactspaper.pdf
Of course the damming part of the above is the low summer production, something I didn't know - that production drops to half for an entire season meaning the backup baseload has to be there.

Something that just occurred to me: wind power is being touted as a large part of the solution to global warming. But isn't it illogical to base the solution to climate change on a technique that relies on the climate for its operation? Ie, if the climate changes as drastically as we are told to expect, how do we know that the locations we have chosen for our wind farms will continue to be the correct locations?

Well the theory is to use renewables like wind before drastic changes to climate would occur. Of course if the Sun or something else turns out to be responsible wind turbines et al won't help.

 

[russ_watters]

In the description of the Evansport plant one will find the statement "Potential for the capture and geologic storage of carbon dioxide".

Sorry, I guess I missed that. That technology is still on the drawing board, though...

...to bring us back to the idea of cap and trade, the lack of ability to develop technology that is still on the drawing board is one of the major flaws of the concept of cap and trade.

I believe utilities are hoping that an alternative to carbon storage, e.g., pumping CO₂ underground, or a more economical storage technology, will be developed. An alternative might involve biofuel production.

While "hope" appears to be a major qualification for President these days, it is not an implimentable technology for pollution control. And that's a huge problem and huge flaw in our current energy strategy. If people really are serious about CO2 being a problem, we should be reducing our CO2 output, not hoping we can reduce it in the future.

In any event, I was trying to provide an example of what utilities are doing without the need for Cap 'n Trade. Utilities already have an economic incentive to reduce coal consumption, and where they can, they are introducing non-fuel (renewable) energy production technology, e.g. wind.

Ok...well, while such normal economic pressures exist and matter a little, the true, vast reductions in pollution we've seen over the past few decades happened because they were mandated by law. Real, substantive CO2 reduction can only happen that way as well.

...and that's also assuming I believe what you posted there, Astronuc. I've been seeing/hearing the most rediculous commercials for propane, oil, even natural gas heat on TV and radio recently (apparently, they are all the best and getting better!). Utility companies are putting out a large amount of effort to convince people that they are trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions. But I am not convinced they are actually trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions. Until I see something real (such as cancelling a coal plant and building a nuclear plant instead), I'll continue to be skeptical of what they say they are trying to do.

And if people feel strongly about it - write one's Senators and congresspersons - and indicate Cap 'n Trade is a bad idea, and give examples of what utilities are doing to reduce or eliminate emissions of CO₂.

If I were inclined to write my congressman, it wouldn't be to tell him about what the power company hopes. That really is useless. I would instead tell him what to make the power company do.

This is a situation where Yoda was right: there is no "try" here. If one wants to reduce CO2 emissions, they should just do it.

 

[russ_watters]

Edit: It looked like http://www.aerotechture.com/products_520h.html" but if it is this one I saw I must of mis heard since the brochure states it needs winds of at least 15mph but it won't overspeed. I was under the impression that it had a constant power output regardless of wind speed, as long as there was some wind, however if the link I provided is the one I saw on the show I was very wrong.

I don't know how they work, but I know they must follow the law of conservation of energy: they can't pull more energy out of the wind than there is in the wind. And because of that, they certainly must pull more energy (9x more!) out of a 15mph wind than a 5mph wind, otherwise, they'd never be able to keep up with a conventional turbine.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd read about night time wind production in passing several times, particularly when there was a EV angle since the idea was to charge the EV's a night. Perhaps night time wind is the exception and not the rule, but there definitely are examples. Minn:


http://www.uwig.org/opimpactspaper.pdf
Of course the damming part of the above is the low summer production, something I didn't know - that production drops to half for an entire season meaning the backup baseload has to be there.

I don't know, then. Maybe varies a lot from one region to another. Another factor for that paper, though: Is "night" sunset to sunrise? Since the wind is stronger in the winter and the days are much shorter, that could tip the total production to favor the night even if the average wind speed is higher during the day.

 

[mgb_phys]

I've been seeing/hearing the most rediculous commercials for propane, oil, even natural gas heat on TV and radio recently

Natural gas domestic heating is about the best option. At least if you have natural gas fields and can pipe it direct to houses, it burns cleanly (after you've removed the sulfur) and is a lot more efficent than using it to generate electricity and then having electric heating.

Utility companies are putting out a large amount of effort to convince people that they are trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions.

Funniest one so far was one claiming that, since methane has a much higher greenhouse gas effect than CO2, by burning the natural gas in their power station they are doing their part to reduce global warming!