« How passenger rail was wounded, and how to fix it | Main | Private capital again fails downtown Phoenix »

June 24, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is an extremely important topic. The new U.S. president will need to lead not just the U.S., but the world, on the issue of energy policy. It's also something to consider when one argues for replacement of oil-based fuels with electricity, since the question then arises, which method(s) should be used to generate all of that increased electrical output?

An AP item published today quotes a just-released Energy Information Administration (EIA) report suggesting that "world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades, oil prices could rise to $186 a barrel, and coal will remain the biggest source of electricity, despite its effect on global warming". (The EIA is a statistics and analysis agency of the U.S. Government.)

The report notes that without mandatory international agreements on capping greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide), the annual release of CO2 into the atmosphere will be 50 percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago.

However, it also states that coal-use is expected to jump 2/3 by 2030, and that China will account for about 75 percent of that increase.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUMV8UJoaN5q_kTW2qE60EkyYQZQD91H660O1

That's alarming, if you take the comments of NASA scientist James Hansen seriously. Hansen is director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, and is also known as "the godfather of global warming science".

According to another AP item, Hansen recently testified to Congress that "the world has long passed the dangerous level for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels," adding that "Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises."

Not to put too fine a point upon it, Hansen said that "we're toast if we don't get on a very different path. This is the last chance".

The major culprit in manmade CO2 emissions? Burning fossil fuels (like coal to produce electricity).

Hansen said that "coal-fired plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the U.S. after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030."

The AP item notes that "carbon capture technology is still being developed and is not yet cost-effective for power plants". Well, if it's not cost effective for U.S. plants, it certainly isn't cost-effective for Chinese plants.

Taking these articles together, we see that by 2030 such plants need to be eliminated worldwide; but it's also the year in which world CO2 emissions, led by an expansion in Chinese coal-fired electrical plants, will have increased by more than 50 percent relative to 2005 levels.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_sc/sci_warming_scientist

So, not only will U.S. industry need to be convinced, but the notoriously recalcitrant and polluting Chinese government must also be brought on board via binding international treaties.

That's a tall order for any U.S. president, but the first step is electing a president who understands the issues and is prepared to act upon them -- if that's possible.

This is an issue that transcends market/government dichotomies. Clearly, the world, led by major economic and technological powers like the U.S., needs to invest vast resources, now, in the hope of replacing existing energy sources and production methods with economically viable alternatives.

Personally, living in Arizona, I think ignoring free, nearly year-round sunshine as a possible energy source is a mistake. Not that it's being ignored, exactly, but research and development is vastly insufficient and it isn't being exploited to take advantage of economies of scale.

I imagine vast, uninhabited desert tracts occupied by solar-generating stations, each covering hundreds of square miles. The conversion from a petrochemical to a solar based economy would also generate many new, high-paying technology sector jobs (in both the manufacturing and service sectors), which in turn would also stimulate the economy.

But it can't be done by a lone private company (much less one operating on the fringes of the energy industry), because the energy infrastructure is vast and such a conversion needs careful coordination at the federal level if it is not to founder and undercut itself and the rest of the economy.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz