Ken Silverstein | Feb 24, 2011

On Global Warming:

In the 'Global Warming Debate' are we cherry picking our evidence? Are we relying on modeling techniques that do not predict near-term future events so how can we rely on them to predict the next twenty years?

Rahmstorf, S. et. al.; ["Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections"; Science vol. 316 May 4, 2007] state that "previous projections ... may in some respects even have underestimated the [global climate] change, in particular for sea level." So models don't fit empirical data according to authors. As John Sununu said "if models can't predict the past how can they be used to predict future". Question: would adjusting models to fit past data provide valid models to predict future?

Industrial Activity from mid 19th century to present has been cited as the cause of so-called Global Warming. Both Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] and American Association for Advancement of Science [AAAS] have stated that humankind industrial activity is responsible for climatic warming - others disagree.

A DOE graphic depicted that CO2, Temperature and Ice Melt/Sea Level Rise occurred 6000 - 7000 years ago. These results were based upon study of ice cores. In fact similar cycles have occurred over many thousands of years in between the several ice ages.

On the other hand, Richard A. Kerr "Pushing the Scary Side of Global Warming" (Science June 8, 2007) states "Greenhouse warming might be more disastrous than the recent international assessment managed to convey, scientists are realizing. But how can they get the word out without seeming alarmist?" Scientists are still trying to strike a balance between their habitual caution and growing concern over uncertain but disastrous greenhouse outcomes.

The current debate between scientists and politicians, although interesting, may not yield a satisfactory resolution i.e. mired in rhetoric and polemics. Heavy industry, e.g. electric power utilities, are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in researching and demonstrating new means to control/reduce carbon emissions. Examples include: Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Smart Meters, Renewable Energy Plants. In my opinion the trend is toward accepting Global Warming and Controlling Green House Gases. This trend, however, comes with increased costs - direct (increased electrical rates) and indirect (subsidies, feed-in-tariffs).

Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering
West Palm Beach, FL

Reference points: http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/02/climate-science-runs-headfirst-business-interests

http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/02/un-shifting-climate-focus

 

On the EU and its Green Targets:

Why is the EU far beyond the United States in renewable energy deployment?

1. The Chernobyl accident that occurred 25 years ago this April sits deep among environmentalists and the general public. There are still areas of Europe with radioactive elk and forest mushrooms. The nuclear industry has concealed hundreds of incidents that should have been reported by law, leaving the question of conscientious operation in doubt. Even the stellar safety record of many reactors is conducive to complacency. As Friends of the Earth in England has noted, nuclear reactors remain safe unless someone does something really silly (see attachment). The recurrence of questionable  nuclear incidents has caused several high-level managers to lose their jobs in Sweden and Germany.

2. Europe has depleted almost all of its domestic fuel reserves and is now faced with choosing between increased import dependency or greater reliance on sun, wind, and wave power. With vast supplies of coal and shale gas, by contrast, the United States perceives less urgency in a renewable energy strategy. 

3. Nuclear power capacities will probably be retained and expanded in Europe. Yet only renewable energies provide broad employment opportunities, securing 340,000 jobs in Germany alone as of 2009 according to a government report: http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/broschuere_erneuerbar_beschaeftigt_en_bf.pdf.

4. CO2-free advanced nuclear generation and CCS coal power plants are proving far more expensive than predecessor designs, while renewable energy technologies benefit from continuing efficiency improvements and increasing mass production for lowering costs. With higher electricity prices, grid parity will be attained sooner in Europe than in the United States unless specific advantages of wider geographic expanses, higher customer demand, and more sunshine are used to accelerate renewable energy deployment. 

5. Germany presently derives 17% of its electricity from renewable sources under a unified national law, which has superseded the individual regulations of its 16 states that were feeble and uncoordinated. There is no visible prospect of 50 US states developing a unified renewables strategy unless they likewise commission Congress with the task. 

Jeff Michel
Hamburg, Germany

Reference Point: http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/02/eu-could-meet-renewable-targets

On Transmission Siting:

If federal officials are going to have more direct control over the siting of interstate transmission lines needed to move renewable power long distances, then Congress is going to have to explicitly say so.

It seems that the oft-cited federal "backstop authority" is not sufficient to pass court challenges that have been brought against a section of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).

That seems apparent after a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers several western states. A previous ruling in the Fourth Circuit also weakened federal authority.
In the recent decision, the Court essentially voided the Department of Energy's 2007 Transmission Congestion Study that had designated national interest electric transmission corridors in mid-Atlantic and Southwestern states. The backstop authority was established in section 216 of EPAct. DOE would have to start the transmission corridor process from scratch.

"Congress created section 216 to confront concerns that states were acting too slowly in siting new transmission lines needed to address growing reliability and congestion problems. In part, section 216 directs the DOE to study transmission congestion in consultation with the states, and designate certain transmission-constrained areas as national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs)," says the Stoel Rives law firm.

"Section 216 also grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority to issue permits to construct transmission facilities in these NIETCs under certain circumstances."
Transmission providers who received a permit in a designated corridor would have been granted the right to acquire rights of way through eminent domain.

The decision, California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, said the DOE failed to properly consult with states in the affected areas in the congestion study and also disregarded federal environmental laws I creating the NIETCs.

As reported here previously, a ruling in 2009 that affected a transmission corridor in eastern states, reversed a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order that had overruled a state's denial of a transmission siting application.
That's two decisions in two jurisdictions, each dealing a blow to different aspects of the backstop authority theory.

Bill Opalka, editor RenewablesBiz

My thanks to you, Tim, Mr. Manicuta and Tom, and all of our readers:

I subscribe to the EnergyBiz column and find that your writing is topnotch. It's a great way to stay on top of energy-related issues.

Tim Snyder
Out of Hand-Editorial
Sandy Hook, CT
tswriter1@gmail.com

 

The EnergyBiz Insider is for us an important source of information about the American energy market evolution.

As you know, we are from Romania and we still faces a crisis period.  We will continue to pay great attention to your very intresting papers.

Thank you again,

Ioan MANICUTA, Mr.
Head of General Secretariat Department, Romania

 

I have enjoyed your writing over the years and really appreciate your perspective on the nuclear industry in particular.

Thomas Heng  P.E.

Copyright © 1996-2010 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energybiz.com