----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
>
>
> Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > Given these facts our European list members might perhaps understand why
> > many Americans, myself and Easterbrook included, feel that European
> > critiques of the American environmental record have far more to do with
> > knee-jerk anti-Americanism than any actual empirical basis.
> >
>
> I agree that our record on the environment is a good one, and though I
think
> that there are mitigating factors (such as the ancient sewage systems in
many
> European cities), we don't have anything to be ashamed of. In the matter
of
> global warming, a predicament that affects every part of the globe, we
have
> not taken the position of leadership that our position would dictate.
> Particularly disturbing is the trend towards even more wastefulness over
the
> last several years.
>
> So while agree with you that _some_ of the criticism is anti-Americanism,
I do
> believe that it is incumbent upon us to take the bull by the horns when it
> comes to global warming. Personally, I don't believe that it would hurt
the
> economy to cut back on consumption. In the face of a crisis the people of
> California cut back 11% on electricity consumption in a very short period
of
> time.
Well, I'd like to see the basis of that. It sounds too good to be true if
based just on conservation. Was this in the face of the threat of a rolling
blackout? Was this an apples to apples comparison over a several weeks span
(i.e. was the temperature the same). Or was it a variation with temperature
or a seasonal variation?
We could easily cut automobile emissions by requiring a larger
> percentage of the automobiles sold to be high mileage vehicles and by
> penalizing ostentatious consumption (read luxury SUVs). And we should
reward
a move towards renewables. In California, 11% of our energy comes from
> renewable sources
First, the national average is 7%. Second, I calculated from information at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/html/calif_energy_facts.html
that 11% breaks down as:
wood+waste 1.9%
hydro 4.8%
geothermal 3.3%
wind 0.8%
solar 0.2%
A few things stand out here. First, that wood and waste are renewable, but
not necessarily the most environmentally friendly sources of energy. Wood
usage as fuel cannot be increased much without denuding the forests. Waste
has the problems of putting pollutants in the air. It is probable that can
be increased some, but it is not an easy source of abundant energy.
Hydro use seems to be in line or slightly less than the national average.
The use of geothermal energy is much higher than the national average, due
to the unusually high thermal gradients found in parts of California. These
gradients are several sigma outside of the norm...and geothermal wells are
not practical outside of these narrow areas.
Wind and solar combine for 1%, with solar at 0.2%. I read, I think in one
of the references you gave, that part of California's difficulty with
electricity is that they were tied into high priced contracts with
experimental renewable energy sources like wind or solar. While I can
understand the desirability of subsidizing potential new sources, expanding
their use will require a substantial increase in the average cost of
electricity.
One other point: if you subtract the geothermal energy that is fairly unique
to California, California is roughly in line with the US.
>and we have a goal to raise it to 20% by 2010.
To do this, you will have to greatly increase the use of wind and solar
energy. If a 1% contributor to total energy usage has an impact on average
price, think of what a 10% usage will.
This is at the heart of the problem. The easy thermal gradients are already
tapped. The hydro power locations are already used. So, if California is to
go to 20% renewable usage, these expensive sources will have to be expanded
by close to a factor of 10. That will greatly increase the true cost of
energy in California. (This is different from an energy tax that discourages
consumption
>If the rest of the country follows suit, it's only a matter of time before
we cut our
> greenhouse emissions to acceptable levels.
>
Well, the rest of the country cannot obtain the same fraction of its energy
from the geothermal gradient. So, that's a unique ability of California.
As for the 10 year goal: forgive me for sounding cynical but setting a goal
doesn't do anything except help one win an election.
Dan M.
