Category Archives: useless energy use

Cheap Energy Is The Problem – Until we change that more disasters await

Posted on by
Reply

This is an excellent article on why we have had the disaster in Japan.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/03/17/how-much-are-you-willing-pay-nuke-free/

How Much Are You Willing to Pay to be Nuke-Free?

Posted by Robert Rapier on Thursday, March 17, 2011

A Plan to Phase Out “Dirty” Energy

After the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, someone said to me “We have to stop all offshore drilling.” My response was that I could get behind that idea, but I wanted to know what sacrifices the person was willing to make. That turned out to be the end of the conversation, because usually the people campaigning against these sorts of things believe that the consequences will be all good (no more oil spills) with no real downside (like less energy available). I can tell you with absolute certainty that we can live with no offshore drilling, but I can also tell you that the price of your fuel would be greater — and probably far greater — than it is today.

Nuclear power plants fill a need — cheap energy — that consumers demand. Are you willing to give it up?

I believe that the reason we have so much “dirty” energy is that we demand cheap energy. I spoke to a reporter in Japan this week about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant, and he said he couldn’t help but notice that despite some rolling blackouts now, Japan remains very much a country with all of the lights on.

Root Cause: Consumers Demand Cheap, Abundant Energy

This gets right to the heart of why we have nuclear power: We demand cheap energy; energy so cheap that we can afford to leave all of the lights in the house on all day long. Both coal and nuclear-generated electricity are viewed as cheap relative to many other options — admittedly debatable given charges of government subsidies and the occasional environmental calamity — as well as reliable (again, environmental calamities notwithstanding).

My response to the reporter was that I love lobster, but I rarely eat it because it is so expensive. If they served $2 lobster at McDonalds, we would all consume much more lobster and of course the supply of lobsters would be under pressure. If we all demanded cheap lobster and got angry when our lobsters became more expensive, politicians would work to give us what we want lest they be voted out of office. We would see all sorts of lobster-related subsidies designed to bring us all cheap lobsters (which have to be paid through taxes and/or deficit spending). Consequences of our cheap lobster demands — higher deficits and possibly no more lobsters — would be pushed onto another generation.

:}

What he does not say is why we were sold cheap energy. That is sold on the idea instead of sustainability. It’s because resources are seen as free. Buy them, dig them up and sell them. More next week.

:}

Morris and Gann On Energy Policy – Obama bad McCain good

Posted on by
Reply

What a difference the evaporation of 5 $$$ gasoline and 2 years makes. Obama is President and one of the greenest Presidents we have ever had. McCain is not. Gasoline, though rising, is at 3.25 $$$ a gallon. Electric cars have just rolled out of two car companies, one of which Obama saved through a bailout. The electrics are popular and have waiting lists. The new normal for cars is 40 miles to the gallon. Of course I have the advantage of hindsight but I was pointing out that Obama had the superior energy policy back then so I can crow alittle.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_scores_with_offshore_dr.html

June 19, 2008

McCain Scores With Offshore Drilling Proposal

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama’s victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling — and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress – puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain’s argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.

For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.

Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.

The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket.

:}

Just so we are clear here, the Greedy Saudi’s had nothing to do with the gasoline prices, speculators and greedy refinery owners did. But then they are these guys friends so they couldn’t possibly see that. More tomorrow.

:}

Michael Barone And Energy Policy – We are addicted to coal so get over it

Posted on by
Reply

Apparently Mike Barone believes the tautology that we use a lot of coal now, so we always will. He believes that politicians are gutless when it comes to environmental damage. We shall see.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2009/03/25/obama-cap-and-trade-will-meet-coal-fired-energy-political-opposition

Michael Barone

Obama Cap-and-Trade Will Meet Coal-Fired Energy Political Opposition

By Michael Barone

Posted: March 25, 2009

By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Bill Galston at the New Republic‘s blog provides some clear thinking on the prospects for the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade legislation. His conclusion: ain’t gonna happen. Galston notes that national polls show that on the question of balancing economic against environmental considerations, voters have switched and are now more concerned about the economy—as in holding down utility costs—and less concerned about the environment.

And, as Galston points out, a cap-and-trade system would substantially increase the price of electricity produced by coal. Nationally, we get 49 percent of our energy by coal (these are 2006 figures, from the 2009 Statistical Abstract of the United States), but reliance on coal varies widely by state. The following table may help you to understand the political implications. It shows the percentage of electricity produced by coal in each state above the national average and the number of Democratic senators and representatives from each of those states.

% of electricity produced by coal in each state above the national average senators representatives
Alabama 55 0 2
Colorado 71 2 5
Delaware 69 2 0
Georgia 63 0 6
Indiana 95 1 5
Iowa 76 1 3
Kansas 73 0 1
Kentucky 92 0 2
Maryland 60 2 7
Michigan 60 2 8
Minnesota 62 1 5
Missouri 84 1 4
Montana 60 2 0
Nebraska 65 1 0
New Mexico 80 2 3
North Carolina 60 1 8
North Dakota 93 2 1
Ohio 86 1 10
Oklahoma 50 0 1
Pennsylvania 56 1 12
Tennessee 65 0 5
Utah 89 0 1
West Virginia 97 2 2
Wisconsin 65 2 5
Wyoming 94 0 0
TOTAL 26 96

Do the math. That leaves only 32 Democratic senators from less-than-average coal-reliant states and only 157 Democratic House members from less-than-average coal-reliant states. Now I’m not saying that every member from such states will vote against cap-and-trade, but I think an awful lot would. And I don’t think many Republicans are going to vote for cap-and-trade. In his press conference last night, Barack Obama seemed to accept the Senate Budget Committee’s Democrats’ decision to jettison the money for cap-and-trade and expressed a wistful hope that something might be done later. But even in better economic times, the numbers tend to work against any such proposal.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

John Stossel And Energy Policy – He fosters the misuse of the word independence

Posted on by
1

All right wing conservatives have to pick there own facts or their own definitions to win arguments. Winning on the merits is never an issue. Family values of course has nothing to do with modern families. It is only about modern christian families. In this Stossel piece, independence is replaced by dependence on the cheapest source. What he side steps is the idea that a country with a balanced portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal, micro hydro, bio and natural gas energy sources is both its own producer, so it is independent from foriegn manipulation and independent in that it is not overly depended on one source of energy, thus insulated from natural interruptions.

August 20, 2008

The Idiocy of Energy Independence

By John Stossel

It’s amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.

Most every politician and pundit says “energy independence” is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.

To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages.

Trade also saves us money. “We import energy for a reason,” says the Cato Institute’s energy expert, Jerry Taylor, “It’s cheaper than producing it here at home. A governmental war on energy imports will, by definition, raise energy prices”.

Anyway, a “domestic energy only” policy (call it “Drain America First”?) is a fantasy. America’s demand for oil is too great for us to supply ourselves. Electricity we could provide. Not with windmills and solar panels — they are not yet close to providing enough — but coal and nuclear power could produce America’s electricity.

But cars need oil. We don’t have nearly enough.

That doesn’t keep the presidential candidates from preying on the public’s economic ignorance.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project — named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before,” John McCain said. “This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025”.

Barack Obama, promising to “set America on path to energy independence,” is upset that we send millions to other countries. “They get our money because we need their oil”

:}

Wonder who is picking up his tab. More tomorrow.

:}

George Will And Our Energy Future – It’s boatloads of coal

Posted on by
Reply

Can you imagine a world where not only are there oil and natural gas supertankers circling the globe but coal supertankers too? George Will can. Wonder who pays this guys paycheck?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7362049.html

King coal’s staying power now and into the future

By GEORGE F. WILL
Washington Post

Jan. 1, 2011, 4:03PM

Cowlitz County in Washington state is across the Columbia River from Portland, Ore., which promotes mass transit and urban density and is a green reproach to the rest of us. Recently, Cowlitz did something that might make Portland wonder whether shrinking its carbon footprint matters. Cowlitz approved construction of a coal export terminal from which millions of tons of U.S. coal could be shipped to Asia annually.

Both Oregon and Washington are curtailing the coal-fired generation of electricity, but the future looks to greens as black as coal. The future looks a lot like the past.

Historian William Rosen (The Most Powerful Idea in the World, about the invention of the steam engine) says coal was Europe’s answer to the 12th-century “wood crisis” when Christians leveled much forestation in order to destroy sanctuaries for pagan worship, and to open farmland. Population increase meant more wooden carts, houses and ships, so wood became an expensive way to heat dwellings or cook. By 1230, England had felled so many trees it was importing most of its timber and was turning to coal.

“It was not until the 1600s,” Rosen writes, “that English miners found their way down to the level of the water table and started needing a means to get at the coal below it.” In time, steam engines were invented to pump out water and lift out coal. The engines were fired by coal.

Today, about half of America’s and the world’s electricity is generated by coal, the substance which, since it fueled the Industrial Revolution, has been a crucial source of energy. Over the last eight years, it has been the world’s fastest-growing fuel. The New York Times recently reported (“Booming China Is Buying Up World’s Coal,” Nov. 22) about China’s ravenous appetite for coal, which is one reason coal’s price has doubled in five years

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

More Top Stories From The Energy World From 2010

Posted on by
Reply

This one gets it pretty much right I think. I think the BP oil spew was maybe the story of the Decade. I also think that the third world led by China as an ever thirstier consumer of liquid carbon fuels has been over played. But first I found them at Peak Oil, that ever depressing, in a rogue sort of way, website. So have a Happy New Year folks:

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/robert-rapier-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

But it is a repost from this Blog so Happy New Year to you too.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/12/28/my-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

My Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2010

Posted by Robert Rapier on Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Here are my choices for the Top 10 energy related stories of 2010. I can’t remember having such a difficult time squeezing this list down to 10 stories, because there were many important energy stories for 2010. It was hard to cut some of them from the Top 10; so hard that I almost did a Top 15. But I made some difficult choices, and offer my views on the 10 most important energy stories of 2010. Previously I listed a link to Platt’s survey of the Top 10 oil stories of 2010, but my list covers more than just oil.

Reviewing my list of Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2009, I see that I made three predictions. Those predictions were:

  • China’s moves are going to continue to make waves
  • There will be more delays (and excuses) from those attempting to produce fuel from algae and cellulose
  • There will be little relief from oil prices.

Given that total energy demand from China surpassed that of the U.S. in 2010 (five years earlier than expected), the EPA twice rolled back cellulosic ethanol mandates (and there are still no functioning commercial plants), and we are closing the year with oil above $90 per barrel, I would say I nailed all of those.

For this year’s list, don’t get too hung up on the relative rankings. They are mostly subjective, but I think we would have fairly broad agreement on the top story.

1. Deepwater Horizon Accident

On April 20, 2010 the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 men working on the rig and injuring 17 others. Because of the depth of the rig, there was no easy way to cap it and it gushed oil until it was finally capped three months later on July 15th. In the interim, the leak released almost 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. In fact, not only was this my top energy story of the year, according to a poll of AP writers and editors it was the top news story period.

2. The Deepwater Horizon Fallout

While the accident itself was the biggest story, there was much fallout from the incident that will continue to be felt for years. Just three weeks before the incident, President Obama had proposed to open up vast new areas off the Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska. Governor Schwarzeneggar was pushing for offshore oil drilling near Santa Barbara County. There was a great deal of momentum that promised to greatly expand the areas available for offshore production. In the wake of the disaster, the debate shifted sharply. President Obama canceled a planned August offshore drilling lease sale in the Western Gulf and off the coast of Virginia, citing that his “eyes had been opened” to the risks of offshore drilling. The administration also put a temporary deepwater drilling ban in place until additional safety reviews could take place. Governor Schwarzeneggar dropped his plans, citing the spill as evidence that offshore drilling still poses too great a risk.

But there were far-reaching impacts in other areas. BP began to sell off assets, raising $10 billion to pay claims of those impacted by the spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward — after a series of gaffes — stepped down from the helm of BP. Around the area affected by the spill, people lost jobs, particularly in the fishing and tourism industries. The long-term environmental impact remains uncertain, with some groups claiming the area has recovered, and others stating that it will be years before the full environmental impact can be determined.

3. China Becomes World’s Top Energy Consumer

For more than a century, the United States has been the world’s top consumer of energy. In 2010, China surpassed the U.S. in total energy consumption. If not for the Deepwater Horizon accident, this would have easily been my #1 story. As I said last year, I believe that China will be the single-biggest driver of oil prices over at least the next 5-10 years.

:}

Personally I do not see Matt Simmons’ death as a huge energy story, but this guy knew him so I can understand the inclusion. More next week.

:}

Energy Saving Myths – Well not exactly

Posted on by
Reply

What this person is arguing is that the biggest ways to save energy are the most costly thus the least likely. However, anytime you save energy you save money. Same with water, same with food and the same with transportation. Collectively those savings can pay for the bigger ticket efforts.

http://environment.change.org/blog/view/the_biggest_energy_saving_myth

The Biggest Energy Saving Myth

by Jess Leber August 16, 2010

Lots of households have experienced their own turning point on energy. That moment when one more backbreaking utility bill or that 38th sweltering summer day transforms a run-of-the-mill conscientious mother, spouse, or roommate into a certified member of the energy Gestapo. Not a stone, or a light, or a thermostat will henceforth be left unturned as the rest of the household sweats-out what they hope is a passing phase.

Yet according to a new survey, when it comes to saving energy, even the most well-intentioned of watt pinchers often get it wrong.

As The Daily Climate reports, most Americans (40 percent of survey respondents) mistakenly believe the best way to save energy is to turn off the lights or raise the thermostat. Essentially, people think the best option is to change their behavior and cut the waste from their lives. But while these actions may indeed be the easiest and cheapest way to save energy, they are certainly not the most effective. Experts have long-known that it’s long-term investments in energy efficiency — whether in home insulation, washing machines or cars — that best do the trick. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent of survey respondents identified such measures as the single most effective action they could take.

There’s one big barrier to these huge energy-savings: the upfront cost. A homeowner must take a fairly long-term view to realize the payoff of home weatherization investments, for example. In the realm of home mortgages, car loans, and college degrees, people are used to the idea of delayed gratification. But for saving energy? It seems not quite yet.

:}

Go read the rest of the article and sign the petitions to the right. It is well worth your time. More tomorrow.

:}

Household Energy Consumption – Wikipedia blows it totally

Posted on by
Reply

Wikipedia, the fount of all knowledge on Earth, doesn’t do so well with some energy issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_energy_consumption

Domestic energy consumption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
  • It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since October 2008.
  • Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Tagged since February 2009.
  • It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Tagged since February 2008.

Domestic energy consumption is the amount of energy that is spent on the different appliances used within housing. The amount of energy used per household varies widely depending on the standard of living of the country, climate, and the age and type of residence. In an average household in a temperate climate the yearly use of household energy can be composed as follows:

Average domestic energy consumption per household in temperate climates
Heating 12000 kW·h/yr (1400 watts)
Hot water 3000 kW·h/yr (340 watts)
Cooling/refrigeration 1200 kW·h/yr (140 watts)
Lighting 1200 kW·h/yr (140 watts)
Washing and drying 1000 kW·h/yr (110 watts)
Cooking 1000 kW·h/yr (110 watts)
Miscellaneous electric load 600 kW·h/yr (70 watts)

Note that for households in the developing world these overview data are incorrect (area heating almost reduced to zero, and less and different consumption of energy).[clarification needed]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] External links

:}

A paragraph and a graph. I am bowled over. More tomorrow.

:}

I Just Had An Unexpected Experience With An Astro Turf Group

Posted on by
Reply

You won’t believe this, what with Google’s image as Mr. Clean and Green. BUT when you type in the simple phrase “household energy usage” into their search engine, the first hit you get is Energy Citizen. This is the astroturf  nonprofit front group sponsored by the Koch Brothers, Don Blankenship and Peabody Coal that wants the Federal Government out of the mining business. They want safety laws repealed and they detest global warming and Cap and Trade policies. Massey Energy is up for sale by the way so Blankenship may not be able to play with the big boys much longer…Ahhh poor baby.

http://energycitizens.org/jobs-red/default.aspx?utm_campaign=Q4_2010&utm_source=EyeTraffic&utm_medium=SEM&utm_content=ENERGY&utm_term=Domestic-Energy&gclid=CIWdkNbLt6UCFcms7QodoA00Gw

:}

Not only that but they land you write on the “To Join” page without even a chance to be repelled. How repelling is that?

Help Keep Our Recovery Going … Join Energy Citizens.

Businesses can thrive and create new jobs when energy is affordable and available. But when lawmakers hinder energy development, we all lose.

We need YOU to help Washington hear our message: American families and communities need sensible energy policies that power our economy and create jobs. Become part of our movement today — join Energy Citizens and let Congress hear your concerns about American energy and American jobs.

We need solutions that increase access to all reliable domestic energy: wind, solar, nuclear, and — yes — oil and natural gas. Our nation has ample energy reserves that can contribute to our economy for decades to come.

The tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico underscores the risks involved in energy development — and the need for improved safety. But this tragedy should not make us forget that our economy and way of life depend on affordable energy. We must not allow opponents to use the tragedy to stop domestic oil and natural gas development. Even with increased conservation, our nation’s energy needs are growing.

You can make a difference by joining our citizens’ movement for sensible energy policies. Help us win a national energy plan that creates jobs, promotes economic growth, and increases our security. Please join us TODAY — and tell Congress where you stand

:}

Instead of here, where at least you can reject the party line if you want to.

http://energycitizens.org/ec/advocacy/default.aspx

:}

Google should be ashamed of themselves. More tomorrow.

:}

Steet Lights Are A Total Waste Of Time – Turn them off

Posted on by
Reply

OK. So I can see leaving a few on but one of the biggest office buildings for the State of Illinois in Springfield is the Stratton Building and it can NOT turn its lights off at night.

That is right night after night after night. But then the rest of the world looks like this:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-city-lights-space

hentziapalarum.jpgWritten by Michele Collet

The Greatest Cities on Earth Shining into Space

Nile River Delta at Night

Photo: NASA

Not only stars light up the sky at night; these incredible photographs taken from the space stations show earth in a whole new light.

The Nile Delta is illuminated above and shows the incredible distribution of the population. NASA describes it as a flower, with Cairo being a particularly bright spot at the base. Almost all of the people live along the life-giving river, while Tel Aviv, Israel is another bright spot, as is Amman in Jordan.

City Lights at Night along the France-Italy Border

Photo: NASA

A stunning image of the city lights along the border of France and Italy. With the alps separating the two countries, you can clearly make out the centers of Lyon, Marseilles and Torino. The island of Corsica is just behind the brightly lit moon.

Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio city lights seen be STS-62

Photo: NASA

This image was taken by space shuttle Columbia and shows Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. The three bright lights in the center are Springfield, Daytona and Cincinnati, with Indianapolis in the lower left. Lake Erie, Cleveland and Akron are in the upper left, and Lexington is at the center right edge. The white light at the top is a phenomenon called “airglow”

:}