Category: Energy

Trump Nominees’ Climate Playbook

Fossil Fuel Advancement Playbook Employs the “Climate Change is Real” Admission

In the current week of Senate hearings for Trump’s nominations to head  the EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Energy, we have heard variations on a seemingly surprising theme, to wit: Climate Change is real and human activity has something to do with it. Surprising coming from them anyway—Scott Pruitt (EPA), Ryan Zinke (Interior), and Rick Perry (Energy)—all of whom had not so long ago belonged to the Climate Change Denial faction of the Republican Party.

The three are following the same playbook, a series of moves that lead us from the concern that fossil fuels might be messing up our climate, to the conclusion that fossil fuels are the remedy for the potential ills of climate change.  Something along the lines of fighting fire with fire, a kind of global homeopathy. Here’s the play:

(1) Admit Climate Change science is not a hoax,

(2) Acknowledge Climate Change may actually be occurring.

(3) Acknowledge, that human activity might contribute in some way to Climate Change.

(4) Question whether the change is happening as quickly as most climate scientists fear.

(5) Question whether, even if it is happening quickly, is it all that dire.

– here between (5) and (6) is the move from hypotheses into policy –

(6) (a) if it is not dire, then other priorities such as economic development with fossil fuels should take precedence over costly efforts to minimize emissions; or (b) if it is dire, then we should move forward on adaptation, for which we will need the economic development made possible by fossil fuels.

Continue reading “Trump Nominees’ Climate Playbook”

A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science

Yesterday, I heard repeated for the umpteenth time the fact that, on average, Climate Change deniers know more science than believers. (I haven’t seen the polls, but this news came on NPR so I’m inclined to believe it.)

It’s really not so surprising. The history of science is littered with wacky contrarian claims—such as, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is wrong. (Let’s be clear: modifications of Einstein’s theory are in the works by many researchers, but the core of the theory is undisputed by the vast majority of physicists.)  By and large these claims are made by people who are highly science-literate, but who grasp at straws of evidence that are either misleading, misinterpreted, or outright bogus. Their partial knowledge seduces them to believe in their competence to chop away at the basic foundations of modern science.  For variations on the attack on General Relativity, see http://www.crank.net/

Continue reading “A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science”

What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)

Here’s the bottom line of this post, for those who don’t want to wade into the weeds: major reliance on wind and solar electricity generation demands a lot of electrical energy storage—many times what is currently available. For reasons why, we look at “load following” in California in the summer of 2016.

California’s Energy Program

The state of California is pushing ahead rapidly to achieve a goal of 50% renewable electricity power production  by 2030.

This makes sense in California, since its terrain and climate are highly adaptable to both wind and solar generation.  In-state conventional hydroelectric—which in many places currently accounts for the largest fraction of renewable generation— is not included in California’s ambitious program. That also makes good sense, since worsening and recurring droughts make hydroelectric an iffy proposition in the state.

However, the 50% goal will only make sense with abundant energy storage capacity, little of which is currently available. The reason is the intermittency of wind and solar. Solar, obviously, does not generate power at night, and not much in cloudy conditions, and wind power depends on weather.

Continue reading “What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)”

Reasons to Cheer for Natural Gas

First off, since fracking has gotten an often deservedly bad rap for environmental damage, the case for natural gas must address fracking. Yes, fracking is bad in many places where it’s been done—places of high environmental and geological sensitivity. Fracking needs stricter and more vigilant regulation, and harsher penalties for malfeasance. In particular, the injection of waste fluids into underground wells. But we need natural gas for electricity generation as a bridge to a renewable energy future—not to mention its already widespread use for heating, where it is more efficient than electricity (and you have to think what generates your electricity), far cleaner than oil, and still farther cleaner than coal.

Continue reading “Reasons to Cheer for Natural Gas”

Carbon Debt from Biomass Burning

Burning “biomass”—trees, grasses, and other plant matter—to generate electricity has been considered a “clean” technology in some quarters. Currently, European countries do not count carbon dioxide emitted from biomass burning as part of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is curious, given that burning biomass does emit carbon dioxide, as well as a small amount of methane.  How renewable is biomass burning? Does it leave a “carbon debt” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Continue reading “Carbon Debt from Biomass Burning”