John McCormick wrote:
Mr. Anderson is correct. The global warming debate is over but the
party continues because the guests will not stop their dancing and
drinking.
That includes the Texas Utility Company singled out in the article as a
total retrograde:
[Not every energy company is planning to curb greenhouse gas emissions
in the near future. TXU Corp. is planning to spend $10 billion to build
11 new coal-fired power plants, which would more than double the
company's carbon dioxide emissions, from 55 million tons to 133 million
tons a year. That increase in emissions is more than the total carbon
dioxide pollution emitted in all of Maryland or by 10 million Cadillac
Escalade sport-utility vehicles.]
But, in fairness to TXU, it is the agent feeding our addiction to
energy demand far in excess of rational thinking or common sense. We
300 million Americans are addicted to everything that depends upon
energy to satisfy our cravings for huge, fast, convenient whatevers.
No utility company ever threatened me if I did not use more of their
product. But, my family and I do just that.
Looking back at my electric bills of 10 years ago (call me a packrat) I
see how my lifestyle has succumbed to the gadget life (count my teenage
son in the mix). I am a part of the global warming problem and my
commitment to reforming means I will have to bring my entire family
along but that is not as easy as it sounds.
For the utilities that are unregulated (about 40% of generating
capacity) and essentially owned by investors on Wall Street, their
choices are similarly complicated because investments in low or zero
carbon electric generation capacity will come at enormous costs both
for the new equipment and retiring the olds and dirties that are the
bread and butter of their bottom line.
Then, the US grid will have to be radically strengthened, expanded and
modernized to accommodate the renewable energy sources the utility
might opt for. Remember, climate stabilization is looked upon in terms
of 60-80% CO2 emission reductions during the next half of this century.
Where will the capital for this stupendous reconstruction, rewiring,
relamping of the American economy be found. The US public and private
debt account is horrendous and getting so bad we will (maybe we are) a
net exporter of our dollars.
Finally, it is evident to the realists that the hydrogen fuel economy
was never meant to be. Now, the ethanol and biodiesel markets are
becoming a direct challenge to the world feed grain markets.
There is more to this story than the willingness of some in the energy
industry to acknowledge there will eventually be federal regulation of
carbon emissions. That unwritten story is about how much we gluttonous
party-loving Americans are going to have to pay to help our children
and grandchildren enjoy even an ounce of our profligate lifestyle.
Power plants are shutdown when demand is reduced and that power is not
needed. End of story.
John L. McCormick
Well said.
Kudos for acknowledging your own culpability :)
What most people seem to ignore is that there are sharp limits to
the utility of consumptive efficiency improvements, and the retrofit to
implement it is a tough sell on the personal level and an even tougher
one on the political level, and a giant project on the physical level,
bigger than the reconstruction of the energy infrastructure by far.
The only area where it's an easy sell is economic. If residential
power cost twice as much, you'd see a large building boom in apartment
blocks and a dying off of single family residential development. The
current abominably stupid land use (with its attendent abominably
stupid waste of energy resources) is not the result of evil developers
and real estate investors, they WANT to build the more sensible high
density, high efficiency developments, they pay better, they are not
PERMITTED to do so due to the zoning laws currently in place.
The other thing that these analyses miss is the simple, inescapable
need for a lot of nuclear plant construction. It's the only tech that
can really solve the GHG problem, and solve it it can. Nuclear
delivers power at a price comparable to that of coal, and can do so in
virtually unlimited quantities. It is almost unlimited in the
quantity of power it can deliver and it's a viable technology today.
with the new development in plug-in-hybrid cars, it could conceivably
go a long ways toward freeing us from the liquid fuel problem as well.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
