"We choose to go...not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to measure and organize the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."
-John Kennedy in his bid for an American moon landing before the end of 1969

With Al Gore's soaring speech last month calling for an America powered with electricity from 100% renewable sources, a stirring vision comes to mind of a Can Do America, an America that looks at the seemingly impossible and says "why not?"

But as David McClellan wrote the other day in SolveClimate, We need a plan. If why not, then how?

In his post, David laid out in clear, nuts n' bolts terms the daunting task we face transforming America's energy economy. By contrast, the moon-shot of the sixties was easy. A few (thousand) rocket scientists, seven dare-devil pilots with the "right stuff" to ride those rockets, and some smart guys with slide rules to point the rockets in the right direction. Before you know it you're on the moon.

Not to make light of that incredible achievement of 40 years ago, but Gore's call to "repower America" requires not just the best and the brightest, but all Americans, to make it happen.

We'll first need to find a way to break through intractable political grid-lock (starting with a long-term extension of the renewable energy tax credit by Congress) and create a policy framework that addresses in minute detail the technical and economic aspects of Gore's Grand Vision.

Has anyone even proposed creating such a plan?

Take a deep breath.

"So goes San Francisco, so goes California and so goes the nation"

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Tom Schueneman's blog
• 2 comments
• send to friend

A new study called "The Contribution of Chinese Exports to Climate Change" just published in the journal Energy Policy (firewalled) delivers some sobering news.

The recent rapid growth of greenhouse gas emissions in China is largely the result of industrial production of cheap exports for foreign markets. At the same time, households in China were responsible for a decreasing share of the nation's soaring emissions.

In other words, all that shopping at Wal Mart has more to do with China's soaring carbon footprint than the lifestyle of the average Chinese person. Consumption in the developed world -- with the US accounting for the largest share -- is driving both the growth in China's GDP and its emissions at the same explosive rate.

Here are the numbers in the study:

You've heard about Al Gore's challenge to remodel the U.S. electrical industry in 10 years to eliminate all CO2 emissions. Some commentators say the job is too big, some say it isn't, but everyone, including Al, agrees it's a big, big job.

But exactly how big? What are we up against here? How much new wind, solar, geothermal power do we need to replace the CO2 producing plants? What else might be needed to make such a system work?

More than half the residents of New York State -- those who live in the Big Apple -- rely on a fabled watershed for their supply of pure, fresh water. Dotted with reservoirs, the watershed is so well protected that none of the water needs to be filtered -- it just cascades through aqueducts, gigantic underground tunnels, a network of mains and pipes and out of the faucets of the nine million residents in the city. That water supply is now in danger of contamination.

It turns out that a big chunk of something called the Marcellus Shale formation sits underneath the 2000 square mile watershed, and trapped inside the formation is a trillion dollars worth of natural gas. Farmers who used to lease the mineral rights to their land for a dollar an acre saw the price rise to $200 an acre, and then over the last year to $2500 an acre. With permits in hand from the state, energy companies are drilling the first wells in New York.

Thank goodness New York City Councilman James F. Gennaro is raising a ruckus with help from Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A detailed cost comparison of nuclear versus wind energy shows that nuclear energy will soon no longer be cost competitive with wind energy if present trends continue.

While nuclear energy is regarded as one of the cheapest sources of power available -- given the enormous amount of energy released from the splitting of atoms -- and wind is considered relatively expensive, analysis of a number of current projects using publicly available data indicates that wind energy has closed the gap in price per kilowatt.

Furthermore, price trends are much less favorable for nuclear projects -- cost estimates of new nuclear plants have doubled and tripled in some instances in just one or two years. Prices for wind power are also rising, but at more pedestrian rates closer to 10% annually.

This is something well worth considering before welcoming a nuclear renaissance -- as ratepayers may be saddled with unaffordable bills and the nation may also end up with a large, unanticipated bill for the hidden cost of nuclear waste disposal.

I've reached this conclusion by crunching the numbers on one recent contract to build a nuclear plant in South Carolina, two proposed nuclear plants in Florida and new vendor estimates of the cost of nuclear construction going forward. I compared that data with a wind farm that would produce a comparable output of energy, relying on cost data from a Department of Energy report published this year.

The prevailing mantra on America's energy future is "let's keep all options on the table." I put two of them on the table and here's what I found. Put your wonk hat on as I take you through the numbers.