A Few Words on Climate Change
by Lloyd GordonOctober 10th, 2006 at 07:47:09
Reported by David Talbot on www.energybulletin.net
The world’s exploding energy demand–coupled with the growing risk of catastrophic rises in sea levels and climate change driven by greenhouse gases–create a singular challenge that demands urgent policy action, energy experts said at an MIT conference yesterday.
“If we don’t throw everything we have at energy efficiency right now, and start to do things we know how to do right now [in fossil-fuel alternatives], we don’t have a chance” of halting drastic planetary changes,” said Nathan Lewis, a chemist at Caltech whose research interests include new solar-power materials. Lewis spoke yesterday as part of a panel on energy at the Emerging Technologies Conference
Robert Armstrong, an MIT chemical engineer and associate director of the MIT Energy Initiative, said meeting a projected doubling of global energy demand in 50 years, while maintaining greenhouse-gas levels below twice preindustrial levels, would require adding another global energy infrastructure of today’s scale–but with zero carbon-dioxide emissions. Considering that, right now, around 86 percent of energy consumed by humans comes from fossil fuels, “certainly these are grand challenges,” he said.
As a result, the world needs to massively implement conservation and efficiency measures, install renewable power sources, build new nuclear power plants, and sequester carbon dioxide underground, where possible, said Joseph Romm, a former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy and founder of the Center for Energy & Climate Solutions. “Global warming is going to transform the lives of every single person in this room,” he said. “Within 20 years, if not 5 years, it will become the issue, the only issue. It will require a massive redirection of capital.”
From the 9/06 Special Edition of Scientific American
“The huge potential of energy efficiency measures for mitigating the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere attracts little attention when placed alongside the more glamourous alternatives of nuclear, hydrogen or renewable energies. But developing a comprehensive efficiency strategy is the fastest and cheapest thing we can do to reduce carbon emissions. It can also be profitable and astonishingly effective.â€
Thus begins an closer look at one of the options proposed in the September, 2006, Special Edition of Scientific American. This time we are looking at the article written by Eberhard K. Jochem, professor of economics and energy economics at the Swiss Institute of Technology and director of the Center for Energy Policy and Economics there (try ‘Yokum’ as pronunciation). He was educated as a chemical engineer and economist in Germany, post-doctorate fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health during the early ‘70s. He is presently active in formulating energy policy for the EU.
2/3 of primary energy is lost in energy conversion and transport before it becomes usable energy
80% of primary energy comes from carbon-emitting fuels.
Almost 35% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from structures.
His article, “An Efficient Solution†(to global warming) , focuses on structures – homes and buildings. Jochem says structures commonly are designed to minimize the cost of construction rather than minimizing the cost of the building over its lifetime. Jochem points to a demonstration project of six hundred structures in which energy consumption is one sixth of comparable and existing structures in the same area. Same level of comfort, a terrific savings of energy, therefore of cost. In another example, Proctor and Gamble’s factory in Germany increased production by 45% with only a 12% increase in energy consumption.
He traces energy from it’s inception into the system into usable energy and finds that fully 2/3 is lost in the conversion from fossil fuel to what you get out of the socket or furnace. Then all too often substantial percentages of usable energy are lost by faulty windows, inadequate insulation and inefficient appliances – air conditioners, freezers and refrigerators, ill-designed furnaces. He notes that while Europe and much of Asia are focusing on finding ways to reduce the wastage and incorporate the savings into their economies, The United States is not pursuing a similar course.
Quoting the article, “. . . policies – which include energy taxes, financial incentives, professional training, labeling, environmental legislation, greenhouse gas emissions trading and international coordination of regulations for traded products – can make an enormous differenceâ€. In other words, government at the federal, state and local levels need to step up and address the problem, not for the sake of regulation but for the benefit of our pocketbooks, health and safety. This is happening elsewhere, why not here? The health, safety and pocketbook of my family would appreciate a vigorous effort on the part of elected officials…
Do I know what I’m talking about? I bought a new house in California 22 years ago. A few years ago I replaced the heating/cooling unit. I bought the finest available (it included the best air cleaning on the market) at about five times the price of the most economical. At the same time Enron did it’s thing, doubling energy prices in California. My energy bills remained constant because of my new system. With the saving of a few hundred dollars a month I was paying off that new system at a splendid clip, with nothing but profit on the horizon. I could have gone further in energy management, and had I stayed in California probably would have. As an investment it would have paid off handsomely. It that what Jochem is talking about? That is what Jochem is talking about.
It is time to vote in the Oregon elections once again. Consider that both taxes and regulation are part of Jochem’s solution. One of our two major political parties might embrace some if not all of Jochem’s proposals. The other party can be expected to oppose them as being contrary to their political philosophy. We have building codes now. What is under discussion is to expand them to take energy efficiency under consideration and impose sufficient energy taxes to persuade the reluctant and the recalcitrant. Who we choose as leaders will be a determining factor in whether we shall attempt to protect ourselves.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:41 am
In a recent Oregonian article (”Hot issue in state race: global warming”, by Jeff Mapes, Sept. 20, 2006), both gubernatorial candidates made it clear which candidate will work at the state level to combat global warming and promote clean, homegrown renewable energy, and which candidate will sit on his hands and wait for someone else to do the work.
Ron Saxton has made it clear he’ll simply wait for the feds to do something about climate change. But the folks in Washington D.C. have shown us that we can’t count on them to tackle this critical issue, so it’s up to us at the state level to take matters into our own hands and enact a range of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote a cleaner, cooler and healthier future for ourselves and our children. Governor Ted Kulongoski is committed to doing just that by joining California and other proactive states in addressing global warming at the state level in the absence of any federal action. This November, let’s stand up and support Governor Kulongoski, a clean energy future, and the policies that will actually get us there.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:40 am
Ron Saxton has pledged “No New Taxes”, which leaves him out of the race in terms of Jochem’s proposals. The “No New Taxes” pledge was authored by Grover Norquist, sidekick of Jack Abramoff and host of the :Wednesday Meeting”, in which right wing activists (talk show hosts, think tanks, etc) and politicians do their weekly strategy meetings, and to which the President and the Vice President each sent a representative Whether the Norquist organization got a witnessed written pledge or not I do not know. But the majority of GOP Senators and Congressman have signed the pledge, and signatures have been sought at the state level.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:52 am
I am amazed at the apparent need to invent energy alternatives. There is one now in place in Carthage Mo. That is processing turkey offal into oil. This process can turn ANY carbon based material into the same fuel we buy from the middle east and produce in Alaska or the lower forty eight. Any garbage dump in the world can produce clean fuel, and without any toxic by products. Toxic waste such as dioxin could br banished forever. Turned into clean fuel for consumtion. Mad cow prions cleaned up with the body of the infected animal. No longer a threat to future generations as it is now. This is the only known process to remove it. There are bacteria that are not denatured any other way. Dirty coal can be converted to the same c lean fuel. the equipment we have in place can use this fuel without any changes.The process has been in place for over ten years. It works! Investigate this for yourself at http://www.changingworldtech.com We have the opportunity to clean up the worst carbon based messes. We are drowning in gabage and thirsting for oil. There is a way to fix it. W. P.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Re: Winnie Powell and processing waste into liquid fuel. I’m for anything that doesn’t require additional uses of fossil fuel. That’s been a problem with many proposals. Until the Energy Profit Ratio has been established, I’m not sure how useful somethng might be. I’ve seen a number ofpropsals that require more fossil fuel to produce than the product delivers in energy. Which all sounds very well, but the products tend to be more expensive because of the underlying cost of petroleum or natural gas. I’m thinking of an alternate ‘green’ fuel now available in my town. Costs a pretty good extra permium. The product has been found, at least arguably, to require more petroleum to produce that you can possibly get out of it.
If, one the other hand, methane is captured from waste, hooray. All you need to do is let biology do its think and collect the product.