Fred

The greens have indeed have had a lot do with bringing us to this point. Years of chronic underinvestment in the system's maintenance and new generation capacity has resulted in the system reaching its capacity limits in many jurisdictions. This threatens to drive us into a third-world society with its characteristic poor electricity supply reliability.

To make matters worse there is a political desire to migrate the US to a state of independence from imported oil, among other things by replacing oil-based vehicle transportation with electric vehicle technology over time. Can you just imagine the huge demand impact on our electricity industry this would have.

The answer lies in what Fred says - a combined push for much more efficiency and much more generation capacity consisting of nuclear and lots of distributed local generation from renewable sources. And if the renewables eventually become widespread enough on a large scale, we wont need to build as many big expensive central stations either.

We could then sit back and watch them twisting in the wind for a while, or freezing to death in the record cold and snow of this winter, and then see how fast they would then clamor for a more rational and people-friendly approach, including nuclear power.

John.

An Uncertain Future for Europe's Utilities

Feb 26 - Business Week

These are golden days for European utilities. High energy prices and strong industry fundamentals, including ever-increasing demand for electricity, mean power companies across the Continent are posting record results at a time when many others are feeling the chilling effects of the credit squeeze. On Feb. 20, for instance, French giant Electricite de France (EDF.PA) announced 2007 net profits of $6.9 billion, up 10.6%. A day later, Britain's Centrica (CAN.L) reported its own 2007 net profits rose a staggering 40%, to $3.8 billion.

Yet behind the bumper results lie huge challenges that could test European utilities as never before. The quest for regional and global growth is kicking off another round of cross-border mergers just at a time when obtaining financing for big deals has gotten more expensive. Strict European environmental rules requiring 20% of energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 will require billions of investment dollars in sometimes untested new technologies. And European regulators are pushing to break big utilities into separate generation and distribution units.

All in all, tough prospects. "We're seeing a lot of jockeying between national and regional players looking for the best way to move their businesses forward," says Tariq Akbar, senior energy and utilities analyst at market researcher Datamonitor in London.

Lower Prices, Lower Profits The most pressing risk is a drive by the European Commission to increase competition within the sector by forcing utilities to break apart. Spearheaded by fiery Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes of the Netherlands, the plan would require companies like Gaz de France (GAZ.PA) to give up control of profitable distribution networks used to transport energy across the Continent.

The goal is to level the playing field and make it easier for new entrants to take on incumbents such as GDF and Germany's E.ON (EONG.DE). Analysts figure structural separation will help bring down end-user prices by letting new firms compete with former state-owned monopolies. But for the incumbents, lower prices likely will mean lower profits as well.

The proposals from Brussels have been met with staunch opposition from France and Germany. Both countries appear more interested in protecting national champions than in opening up their domestic markets to competition. Yet despite the objections, Brussels announced legislative proposals on Jan. 23 that could lead to the separation of European utilities.

Expensive Environmental Initiatives According to David Buchan, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in Britain, any forced sale of assets would deprive utilities of a stable source of income and leave them open to the cyclical price troughs of the energy market. "The steady, regulated return from a [distribution] network is a useful stabilizer to the roller-coaster returns from the unregulated wholesale energy supply business," he says.

At the same time, utilities are facing stiff environmental rules that could be a major strain on their finances. The European Union is demanding that one-fifth of power generation come from renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, by 2020. To meet the ambitious targets, Europe's big energy companies have unveiled multibillion-dollar initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and switch to new sources.

Ironically, the mass rush to green technologies is prompting record demand -- and lifting prices -- for components such as wind turbines and solar panels. Yet with little choice in the matter, companies are forced to plow ahead, even at the expense of their financial performance.

.......

http://www.dom.com/about/speeches/022308.jsp

Second, the large majority of scientists and policymakers agree that coal is the worst of the worst, from a climate change perspective as well as a traditional pollutant perspective. The conservative District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals just overturned the Bush administration's effort to exempt coal plants from "new source review" rules for mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act. Back to the drawing board and another major hit for new coal plants.

Also, as you may have read, a number of major banks are now refusing to finance new coal plants unless the likely cost of future carbon regulation is fully considered.

Also, coal prices are reaching new records around the world. The US coal market is not entirely reflective of the global market b/c we're a major producer, so prices in the US have not risen as much as they have internationally. But US exports of coal are growing extremely fast in order to take advantage of record coal prices (up 73% in 2007 alone), so this will of course have a big impact on coal prices domestically. At the same time, the capital cost for new coal plants has risen dramatically, up 50% in 2006 alone, according to the Edison Foundation. So coal power is actually now much more expensive than it used to be.

Last, energy efficiency is far cheaper than any power technology and there is vast potential to increase efficiency in the US. At the same time, many renewable energy technologies are competitive today with natural gas power and are becoming increasingly competitive with coal power b/c of the price trends I just outlined. Wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydro and large-scale solar (as a peak resource) are all currently cost-effective in California with natural gas power. We can reasonably expect these technologies to become more cost-effective over time as the fossil fuels continue their upward spirals and non-fuel using technologies like wind and solar have zero volatility and declining capital costs.

I remember when a couple of ignoramuses from Oxford proposed something like deregulating gas, and I circulated some information about the stupidity of this approach. One of the big bosses at Oxford wrote to the department and faculty heads at Uppsala, who duly apologized and bad mouthed my good self. I then proceded to have some information posted at Oxford by a young lady who was one of my students, and among other things informed those two Oxford 'researchers' what they could expect if they made the mistake of attending a conference to which I was invited. That was the last anybody saw of them at an energy conference.

By the way, the Swedish firm Vattenfall didn't make a sound when the Swedish government shut down two reactors. Vattenfall's directors dont know much economics, but they remembered enough from Econ 101 to know that supply down means prices up. Their profits are now at a record level, and they have merrily proceeded down to Germany where they are going to help the environment by exploiting the large deposits of bituminous coal in that country.

Fred

Such structural separation of utilities is a low leverage intervention that doesn’t level the playing field as it was demonstrated in Spain, where incumbents made a lot of distortions. In addition, in such separation, the business critical issue of customer satisfaction is left unaddressed by first generation retailers. I suggest that the European approach needs to change to empower the customer. The separation required is to shed the T&D grid to come up with an integrated T&D transportation grid.

This is a typical statement of a utility that need to have separated the grid for good to level the playing field, leaving the utility enterprise open to competition and separated also from its generating assets. From the Remarks of Thomas F. Farrell II, Chairman, President & CEO Dominion at the Clean Energy Task Force, National Governors Association, Washington, D.C., February 23, 2008, I selected as a representative message: “As promising as renewable sources may be, they are not a panacea. Nor can we realistically rely on conservation alone as our path to greater energy security. . . For that, we need more baseload generation. . . That is why Dominion is pursuing construction of an advanced clean-coal facility in the coalfields of southwestern Virginia… and why we have filed an application to build and operate a possible third nuclear reactor at our North Anna Power Station in central Virginia. . . The bottom line is this: it will take a ‘one-two punch’ to achieve the low-carbon future these new proposals would require: environmental regulation and technological innovation.”

As a global issue, environmental regulation needs to be drawn by multilateral institutions, the sooner the better, to reduce ongoing environmental uncertainty. Technological innovation should be understood to come more from the communications side, fueled by the third industrial revolution, than from the energy side of the second industrial revolution.

Customers not only need to become aware of the systemic looming energy crisis, they should be empowered to make timely decisions that regulator and utilities cannot do for them in a timely and cost effective manner. They need to get involved as soon as possible to enable demand integration to power system planning, operation and control. The growth of the power industry should be centered in the increase of the communications assets intensity to reduce the energy assets intensity.

Tam is right that “energy efficiency is far cheaper than any power technology and there is vast potential to increase efficiency in the US. . .” and elsewhere. But a cost efficient implementation cannot be done by regulatory mandates; it requires a high leverage restructuring of the power sector introducing Second Generation Retailer - 2GR to develop The Sixth Disruptive Technology “To do a better job of managing our dwindling energy resources…”

To enable such leverage it is necessary Shrinking the Regulator’s Jobs. Today´s reality can be understood by a general agreement that "There are massive problems to be solved in the electric industry, costing massive amounts of money, and with very little time to do it," that is giving rise to the Global Citizens' Call to Arms to perform the shrinking.

David Bush: That speech you reference makes all the right noises up until the following -

"We at Dominion are not climatologists, but we follow the debate closely. We expect to see Congressional action – if not during this election year then most likely in 2009 or 2010.

Dominion supports an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that includes a meaningful cost containment mechanism that achieves the desired environmental results at a pace American consumers can afford. Other provisions that should be in a federal bill include:

1) An allocation of emissions credits to the sectors of the economy that need them most;

2) A realistic baseline year and compliance schedule that first slows the growth of greenhouse gases in the near term, stops them, and then reduces them over the long term;

3) Investment incentives for the development of carbon capture and storage and other emerging technologies;

4) And a safety valve, or cost containment mechanism, to protect consumers – and the economy – from drastic rate increases while reducing emissions. "

----------------------------

Cap and Trade to control GHG emissions is simply another anti-competitive ploy of the large incumbents (coal gen, central gas gen) against disruptive upstarts (distributed micro-CHP gas, micro solar thermal, etc.), as well as a big free lunch for traders. A simple flat tax on CO2 emissions is much fairer.

I think Len has a huge point. Consider what you wrote....

"Tam is right that “energy efficiency is far cheaper than any power technology and there is vast potential to increase efficiency in the US. . .” and elsewhere. But a cost efficient implementation cannot be done by regulatory mandates"

In your proposed EWPC marketing structure, investing in CONSUMER energy efficiencies and conservation technologies will never be a profitable activity for an energy retailer, since by definition consumer energy efficiency and conservation enable consumers to use LESS energy. The competition between retailers you are proposing may perhaps encourage investment in themselves and in generation and distribution but only to maximize their own efficiencies, with the result being minimized lower energy prices for consumers. While this may be a respectable goal for the electricity industry interests, lower energy prices many will argue will encourage some consumers to use MORE energy, not less.

The same argument applies to investing in distributed local generators that are owned by consumers or private interests. If I as a consumer want to build or purchase a solar thermal system or solar PV system to install and operate on my property, and then expect to sell any excess generation capacity back onto the grid in competition with retailers, it is ridiculous to think that retailers or anyone else in the electricity industry will be business motivated to invest in the equipment to commercialize this to consumers. Anyone who suggests they would be motivated is probably dreaming.

There are compelling reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuels, including adverse affects on health and environment, economics and insuring future energy supplies for our children. However, CO2 emissions are not a reason to panic and launch into ill-conceived programs that only serve to inflict unnecessary hardship while lining the pockets of special interest groups. Examples in the US: 1. Requiring the use of Ethanol. Ethanol costs the consumer more than filling-up with gasoline; the lower price (already subsidized) does not offset the reduced gas mileage. Further, ethanol has doubled the price of corn and actually significantly increases CO2 emissions. 2. Requiring the use Renewable Energy: Wind energy only works well in limited locations where the breezes are reliable. Solar power only works well in strong daylight. Both significantly increase electric bills. Undaunted, the politicians are determined to give wind/solar generators subsidizes, apparently forever. 3. Taxing CO2 emissions. We are already heavily taxed and providing the politicians with even more money is economically counterproductive and particularly inane considering the uncertainty of the causes of the planet’s ever changing climate.

The above all have a common thread; the many are forced to send money to the few. A democratic approach relies on limited public support for private sector research and development while letting the profit-driven market place (not the politicians) ultimately select the winners and losers.

Environmental extremists have stymied energy independence since the 1970’s oil crisis and now we are being “rope-a-doped” by the religion of global warming. The developing economic catastrophe is energy, not CO2. Solve this coming disaster and CO2 emissions will take care of themselves through more efficient use of energy.

Technology and human ingenuity can solve the energy crisis, but only if we approach the issues rationally and not get sidetracked by those with hidden agendas.

PS Anybody notice the EnergyCentral news today that Texas narrowly avoided rolling blackouts when several thousand megawatts of wind power dropped away due to a sudden loss of wind? Putting too many eggs in one basket.

I will take issue with your argument on the disadvantages of cap & trade. While you are correct that it will benefit the large polluters the most, a key advantage of a cap-and-trade system compared with other emission reduction strategies is that it gives companies flexibility in the manner in which they may achieve their emission targets. Another advantage is that it sets a clear limit on emissions. Traditional approaches often focus on emission rates or require the best available technology, but do not always require that specific environmental goals be met. For example, an emissions tax penalizes polluters but does not guarantee the degree to which the environment will benefit, because some companies might find it easier to pay the tax instead of reducing emissions.

The cap & trade is not without precedence in the United States. The first cap-and-trade system was for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This system has proven to be such an environmental and economic success—reducing SO2 emissions at a fraction of the expected costs. The European Union borrowed directly from it to design its cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions, which went into effect earlier this year.

There are cases in which other emission reduction approaches are preferable to cap-and-trade. For example, less flexible regulations are more appropriate when the negative impact of pollution is direct and localized (as with asthma) rather than indirect and global (as with climate change). Cap-and-trade systems are also not very beneficial if the polluters have identical costs for reducing emissions, or if policy makers prefer to be more certain about how much the program will cost rather than how much the environment will benefit.

Cap-and-trade systems do, however, exert constant pressure on polluters to reduce emissions while allowing flexibility in the process. This encourages companies to meet (or exceed) their emission targets in the most innovative and cost-effective way possible. If we are to enact a system today to reduce CO2 emissions the path of least resistance will be a cap-and-trade system.

As for the European Union, the less said about those parasites the better. For instance, the ignorant head of the EU's Energy Directorate referred to the peak-oil hypothesis as a theory and nothing more.

And incidentally, the present arrangement for reducing CO2 - whatever that is - has not reduced CO2 in either a stock or flow sense; and in case you are interested, the remark by Len Gould about cap-and-trade just being a free lunch for traders is exactly correct. If you dont think that it is, try examining some of the finance literature - for instance the publication 'Risk'.

Fred

Wind power is cheaper than natural gas electricity and cheaper than wholesale electricity prices in all parts of the country - particularly as costs for natural gas continue to shoot up ($9.50/MMbtu and counting). Coal costs are rising at a similar pace, as I noted in an above post. And nuclear costs are also rising dramatically as capital costs and fuel costs break all records.

Capital costs have also risen for renewables, but b/c there are no fuel costs there is no volatility for renewables and the cost escalation of fossil fuels has very limited impact on the total cost of power from renewables.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Add this to Mr. Dixon's article about the same thing happening in California during the 2006 heat wave:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/a....cfm?a_id=1332

We shouldn't forget E,On's Boxing Day becalming where 4 GW of wind generation went away in less than 24 hours. Sorry, but they pulled the report off their website.

I would offer one point to Mr. Caruba's article and that is that we don't do brownouts in California anymore. Instead of a grid-wide voltage reduction, we do rolling blackouts were specific geographic areas are cutoff. Of course, everyone wants to be an exception.

As to opposition to new nukes, I would add that I helped write the first new application in 30 years to go to the USNRC. Within TWO DAYS, suits were filed in court to stop it.

Wind can not compete with existing coal, natural gas or nuclear. I live in Kansas (it is pretty windy here) and wind generators can not beat the existing generators. It’s not even a contest. While the "regulators" here in Kansas try to mandate renewable, the legislature insists on "lowest cost". That’s why wind farms remain relative rare here, although we have lots of wind. It’s also why a new coal plant will be built in Western Kansas; the Governor’s objections are being overridden as I type this.

Can entrepreneurs make money on wind here in Kansas by selling power into the open market? Maybe, but they need to be careful where they put the machines.

In a market "jump ball" with no government mandates/subsidies and considering new plants (in the Midwest), coal plants have the lowest all-in net cost of power, followed by natural gas combined-cycle (until the price heads toward +$10/mmBTU) at which point nuclear power starts to look better.

It's really not an apples-and-apples exercise to compare base load and intermittent power supplies. Ultimately, wind can help (if it's put in the right spot) but it simply can not cover the load all the time. Physics and the laws of nature make it impossible.

I can not speak to what makes economic sense in California other than note it is the left coast.

PS Putin's people are right on the money. Could it be they've been completely transformed into capitalists? ... doubtful, but they've certainly figured out the scam.

Since wind is very unreliable, standby generation must be available to cover a sudden decrease in wind output. If the penetration of wind is low, spinning reserves should be adequate but as market share increases, complete generators must be built. Ergo, one can not offer much in the way of capacity payments to a wind mill.

Since installed generation must be built and maintained in any case, the correct accounting for wind production is for the offset fuel costs and maybe a tad for O&M cost not incurred by the standby units. If the standby fuel is coal, that's a pretty low value but it is more when the reserve is simple gas turbines fueled with natural gas.

The World Shouldn’t be Running Out of Electricity By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.

Systemic Consultant: Electricity

Copyright © 2008 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Bob,

Thank you for your comment, as it gives the opportunity to prove that Len’s opinion (not Len!) about 2GRs is wrong once again. As you see below the incentives to 2GRs are not well widely understood yet in business strategy practice, but nonetheless have been in used for quite some time by many organizations implementing third industrial revolution technologies. But first, I agree with him regarding the anticompetitive ploy. In fact, under Rafael’s article I suggested “that as a global issue, this might be a trade matter closer to WTO tariff agreements on CO2 [change that GHG] "exports" to the global commons by a given user.”

Your “definition [that] consumer energy efficiency and conservation enable consumers to use LESS energy . . . will never be a profitable activity for an energy retailer” applies to the perverse incentives that today’s utilities have and maybe first generation retailers to “encourage investment in themselves and in generation and distribution but only to maximize their own efficiencies, with the result being minimized lower energy prices for consumers.” 2GRs will be centered on a total customer solutions strategy, instead of the traditional best product strategies of low costs and differentiation mindset.

2GRs do not have those perverse incentives as they offer customers no just low costs, but even more so, high value propositions to stay in business by developing information intensive business model innovations. The whole point is that customers will be able to invest in long term projects in coordination with the long term development of the power system, while 2GRs integrate demand to power system planning, operations and control, as well as compete among themselves and generators in the wholesale market by aggregating their retail portfolios.

I repeat that “"Tam is right that ‘energy efficiency is far cheaper than any power technology and there is vast potential to increase efficiency in the US. . .” and elsewhere. But a cost efficient implementation cannot be done by regulatory mandates’… ” since client’s energy businesses costs and value requirement and opportunities vary widely. This last explanatory phrase stresses the need for Shrinking the Regulator’s Jobs as soon as possible. This is how 2GRs will help a world that might be running out of electricity.

In a recent white paper, the American Public Power Association finds this “a time of increasing peril for electricity consumers – both in present costs and future reliable service…” and “wants … to contribute to a constructive dialogue to develop sorely needed reforms … [of] electricity markets …” and suggests that “all industry participants need to work together to design a regulatory system for electricity markets that truly benefits consumers, businesses and the environment.” Such a regulatory system has already emerged and is the above mentioned EWPC market architecture and design.

Reference and context:

America is Running Out of Electricity, by Alan Caruba, CEO, The Caruba Organization.

Consumers in Peril: Why RTO-Run Electricity Markets Fail to Produce Just and Reasonable Electricity Rates, by American Public Power Association, February 2008.

Your statement "The whole point is that customers will be able to invest in long term projects in coordination with the long term development of the power system" is baffling. Consumers will no doubt appreciate lower electricity costs from open competition amongst 2GR's, but do you really believe for a minute that consumers will "invest" their money in the power system over and above what they spend on their energy bills without some kind of return on their investment ? What kind of financial return on investment would your EWPC system offer average consumers ?

Well, anybody could guess the outcome of that encounter, only anybody - to include my good self - would have been wrong. The two academic types took a beating. It wasn't a bad beating, but it soon became clear to me that those two gentlemen were prepared to suffer fools gladly.

Which leads me to ask...WHY?

Thank you for your inquiry. A shift to a new paradigm is difficult even for my own mindset related to EWPC. I think what is baffling you may be in the meaning of demand integration to power system planning, operation and control, which under EWPC make customers investments power system investments.

Today’s average (key issue) customers are investing blindfolded all over the world in energy efficiency, and renewables, etc. pushed by governments on average customers without any coordination with power system development. Most of those investments for the average customers are not close (some way off above or below in the long run) to the best deals in terms of ROI.

You are right that customers will need a good ROI, but that is the subject of negotiations on the open market by widely diverging (key issue - not average) customers with 2GRs. Even without a tariff on GHG, Tam is right that investments in energy efficiency can produce good ROI for many customers. With the tariff the worldwide market segment just increases. That is what the second phase of competition 2GRs vs 2Grs is all about, for which they need to develop business model innovations. The first phase of market vs market competition is what I was concerned for EWPC.

Tam, as usual I can DISAGREE with much of what you say, starting with your ignorance concerning the word insure. Of course a well-educated person such as yourself would know that the words insure and ensure come from the same root, enseurer and in fact dictionary.com has this as the example of the definition of ensure: To make sure or certain; insure

"Major banks" aren't financing coal plants because they're busy losing their a$$es on sub prime mortgages, but for some time now, "investment banks" such as Blackstone have been financing and building them. Wind turbines have gone up by a factor of FOUR, so natural gas would have to rise accordingly by your logic, what there is of it.

Bottom line on commodities pricing, the US dollar is depreciating so rapidly that all commodities purchased with it are going up in comparison. Realize if you priced oil or natural gas in ounces GOLD, it would actually be cheaper today, not more expensive.

The dollar is worth so little because the politicians likewise are worth so little, for sale to the highest bidder, not who Len thinks, the entrenched business interests, but the greens, labor, and fringe elements who are far more active. The business interests are too busy trying to keep the lights on, the lunatic fringe crowd thinks electric lights are magic, and will magically stay lit, even if the bills aren't being paid, or if they pass insane legislation that mandates it must be produced from renewable sources (ala Washington state), even though 60% was ALREADY renewable there via hydro power (hydro doesn't count as renewable in their bizarre calculus).

Quoting Dr. Fred Banks from the other EnergyCentral article "Iraq: It Really Is All About the Oil"....

"And by the way, the price of oil isn't increasing because the value of the dollar is falling. That's another of those fantasies whose purpose is to suggest to the TV audience that when the dollar strengthens, we won't have to worry about the oil price any more."

I will be attending a March 2-4 Conference on Climate Change in New York, surrounded by 500 fellow global warming skeptics. They are scientists, economists, and policy makers. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, it will be interesting to see how much and what kind of media coverage it receives, given the endless blather about global warming, the need to reduce CO2 emissions (even if no other nation does), etc.

The markets are complex beasts, not to be trifled with, and while Len doesn't believe they follow our laws of physics (neither does climate), they DO follow laws, it is just that our understanding of those laws is weak at best. Since many of you aren't subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, I don't know that I can post the front page articles here and have you read them, but here's the editor of THIS SITE discussing the same thing. You have in Canada experienced the inverse of this effect as you've watched your purchasing power INCREASE some 25% in the past 3 years. If it hasn't made it to your pocketbook, blame your 'progressive' government "sharing the wealth", (yours included) with those less fortunate, or simply less willing to work. :)

About the markets. Most people miss on those. It's called the efficient markets hypothesis, meaning that the markets are too efficient to allow the rank and file to register profits. Tell your friend Bob that, because unless he is a Buffet or Templeton it will catch up to him in the long run. Of course, I didn't make any money on gold because I'm not only dumb and have a serious attitude problem, but I'm also lazy. Fortunately I didn't mention that or any of my other shortcomings in the finance book I published a few years ago. It's best to follow John Kenneth Galbraiths advice here: financial genius is a rising market!

Speaking of shortcomings, I'm not planning to attend Alan's climate warming skepticse hoe-down in the Apple. Scientists, economists and policy makers he says. I've heard from a few of those over the years, and while a few of them make sense, most of them are just sounding off for the h___ of it..

Fred

All that said, as the front page of the WSJ stated last week, the highest paid trader on Wall Street, bringing home a cool quarter BILLION dollars, has bet heavily on oil futures, so naturally others are jumping on that rather attractive bandwagon, particularly those greedy souls who inhabit the environs of Wall Street USA. If the link doesn't work, sorry, parts of WSJ are still a pay site.

I understand many coal plant projects have been/are being cancelled because of uncertainty around carbon taxes/penalties of one form or another. I also understand the health toll coal generation takes, and have understood since reading "The Environmental Impact of Not Going Nuclear" (I think that was the title) in the late eighties, in which the author claimed 50,000 deaths a year attibutable to particulate pollution from coal plants.

What I wonder is, leaving CO2 sequestration aside, can't coal plants be built with pollution abatement technology to reasonably remove their contribution to respiratory illness? I want to ignore the mercury, arsenic, radiation products in the ash piles. The bulk of deaths attributed to coal plants are because of respiratory illness as I understand it. Can't that be significantly and economically reduced?

In general, I think (only) gassifier-based coal burning plants do an acceptable job of removing most airborne pollutants, but they're expensive to build and run, and their internal design changes (pure oxygen-blown gassifiers) depending on whether CO2 capture is required, hence prior knowledge of CO2 emissions tax/ burden.

Like anything else, there are risks associated with coal powered generation. I was wondering about the relative costs of removing the majority/significant portion of the afforementioned pollutants. If deaths due to respiratory impact of coal plants could be lowered to 10,000, for an increase in the price of electricity from coal plants of 20%, it might be acceptable.

What's the death rate vs cost associated with driving at 60 mph instead of 50? Or allowing fire departments to operate with only 3 FF's per vehicle instead of 4? Or having the staffing levels of paramedics and ambulances in service that they do in cities across North America.

Society already has established "acceptable costs per individual death." All we have to do is quantify and then apply to our energy supplies.

I'll try a very rough calculation. EPA estimates ~25,000 annual deaths from coal, which generates ~2 trillion kW-hrs per year of electricity. Thus, there is one death per 80,000 MW-hrs (~100 annual deaths for each 1000 MW coal plant). From what I've heard, IGCC costs at least one cent per kW-hr more than conventional coal, but emits only ~20% as much pollution. Multiplying one cent per kW-hr (i.e., $10 per MW-hr) by 80,000 MW-hrs, yields a cost of ~$800,000 per life saved.

Thus, choosing IGCC over conventional coal for new generation would represent spending ~$800,000 per life saved. This is quite reasonable (low). I think stated govt. policy is to spend somewhere between one and ten million dollars per life saved on public safety. Replacing an existing coal plant with an IGCC plant represents a greater incremental expense (per kW-hr), so the cost per life saved will be higher.

Also, I should note a weakness in my analysis, which is that many of the ~25,000 annual deaths are due to old, "grandfathered" coal plants which emit more pollution than any new conventional coal plant that would be allowed to be built today. I don't know how much lower the deaths/kW-hr figure would be (vs. the current USA coal average value) for a new conventional plant. The cost per life saved for choosing IGCC would scale inversely with the deaths/kW-hr for a new conventional coal plant.

I've heard many people/studies say that the biggest bang for the buck by far in terms of public safety spending is for emergency response/medical services (e.g., ambulances and paramedics, etc...). And of course, the real question is why the nuclear power industry is required to spend thousands to millions of times as many dollars per life saved than the fossil industry (or any other industry for that matter). Imagine if we spent all that money on emergency response services......

Mercury: SCPC ~ 90 pound/year, IGCC ~ 45 pounds/year SO2: SCPC ~ 4200 tons/year, IGCC ~ 1500 tons/year Particulates: SCPC ~ 700 tons/year. IGCC ~ 350 tons/year NOx: SCPC ~ 2800 tons/year, IGCC ~ 1300 tons/year. CO: SCPC ~4200 tons/year, IGCC ~800 tons/year CO2 emissions are very similar, at about 6 million tons per year.

The IGCC plant would need to sell power at about $65/mWh while SCPC price would be around $57/mWh to earn 12% on the investment. Is the roughly 15% higher cost (roughly $46 million/year more for our hypothetical output) of IGCC worth the somewhat lower emissions? Maybe not. However, both IGCC and SCPC are pretty much hung up on the barbed wire due to the uncertainty of CO2 emissions.

Conventional nuclear plants would be a way to go if the only consideration was health effects of coal. However the 12% return target translates into about $90/mWh sell price (~$190 million/year more a year relative to coal plant).

A gas fired plant would drastically reduce emissions, but at today’s gas prices, additional cost is approaching that of the nuclear unit.

Alan starts off by calling whole parts of our society names (i.e. Greens), and then makes statements that prove he obviously 1) doesn't have a clue and 2) is not interested in listening to anyone except who he agrees with.

And it goes down hill from there.

Get a life people. You remind me of Calvin and Hobbes trying to play in the sandbox together.

(Why am I even wasting my time??????)

Hard to decide which he lacks more, analytical ability or introspection.

As for dismissing "environmentalists" as a group, I plead guilty. They have no idea how the Earth or the real world functions.

My commentary was about the fact that the United States is moving toward a point in time where there will be insufficient electricity to meet its needs. This is a serious issue that requires more than a lot of number-crunching about coal emissions versus highway deaths.

Apparently no one draws a line between the fact that coal generates over 50% of our electricity today and Americans now enjoy the longest life expectancy ever. So people are not dropping dead from the use of coal. But my point is that coal-fired plants are being delayed or plans are being shelved while the need for sufficient electrical power continues to rise.

It does not take an engineer or scientist to figure out that there is a serious problem looming. THAT'S what I wrote about. I also noted that government policies are contributing to this. Life is full of choices. Having electricity is something most people would choose over living in the dark.

Perhaps you should arrange to live a few years of your life just downwind of some of the smokers built along the Ohio River, and let us know what you think of the air quality, soil quality, water quality, etc. There's a lot of really cheap property you could get, for a song, and build yourself a little palace...

There is no such thing as "Clean Coal", and I now see the industry is littering the landscape with this new "Big Lie", trying to con the public into backing their existence for another few decades.

People, number one, want responsible choices, made by a responsible government, when the individual alone, does not, or cannot have all the information necessary to make an informed decision. This particular industry, in general, has proven it cannot be responsible, for the past thirty years at least, as they have fought tooth and nail, every environmental regulation that has been aimed in their direction.

Thankfully, this seems to be changing, a lttle, at the highest levels within the utliity and banking organization, in spite of the pretend-to-be-worried hand wringers such as yourself.

THAT's a pretty broad brush. Anyone concerned about the environment should be "dismissed"? I certainly fit there, but also back up any position I take with hard defensible science. 'Course sublty never was your hallmark.

A completely foolish position.

Life does not come without risks. We rely on informed and reasonably intelligent people to evaluate them and make decisions.

Making decisions on the basis of a flawed and discredited theory of global warming is criminal.

What in God's name are you reading, or perhaps I should ask what you are smoking?

For every "scientist" who claims that anthropogenic global warming is "wrong" there are a hundred who claim it is "right". Without going through the whole argument for the thousandth time, Alan, we have added 100ppm CO2 to the atmosphere in the past century, and are now adding it at a rate of 4-5ppm per year. The world can't take that much longer, and neither can we.

"1000 ppm or bust!" That's Alan's motto!

However, there are all kinds of other options, which we should be exploring and exploiting now, so that we create and use energy wisely, not just EASILY.

Love Canal and similar situation occur because individuals or small groups of individuals manage to persist in profitable yet destructive behaviors until their damage is so overwhelming that the situation can no longer be ignored. There are intensely local versions of such abuse, and there are more generally widespread and dilute instances. Anthropogenic global warming falls into the second category. Alan suggest that we continue in like manner, because there is not obvious disaster yet...

Beyond that, the history of the IPCC reports, based on flawed computer models, is that it has had to be revised continually to avoid being deemed the complete fraud that it is. Many of the men and women who have contributed to it--only to have their data ignored--have protested its failures for years.

Environmentalists, beyond ordinary people who like myself do want clean air and water, have been responsible for some horrendous decisions such as the banning of DDT which has contributed to the deaths from malaria of several million people every year. Even the World Health Organization has called for a removal of the ban.

The consistent attack on all corporations seeking to provide energy to a world in need of it suggests that the rosy view of environmentalists needs revision.

This article if full of pollution. Mind pollution.

The truth is, we need to try and achieve both. However, with respect to our energy needs, the fact of the matter is that the argument is moot--the cheapest way to produce more electricity is also the best way of reducing greenhouse gases-- is the Atmospheric Vortex Engine, a concept introduced here on Energy Pulse by Louis.M. Michaud several years ago.

A vortex engine attached to the cooling system of any thermal plant, be that coal, nuclear or natural gas can increase its output by 30-40% without burning an ounce more of fuel.

Attached as the "bottoming cycle" to solar or geothermal plants, the AVE can more than double their output with relatively little additional capital expense.

See www.vortexengine.ca and click on Business Case.

For those interested in the AGW debate, the best discussion, IMO, is available at www.realclimate.org where the scientific knowledge of "real" climate scientists comes to the fore.

This is an insipid response.

Lacking any real science to support the global warming hoax, it is the ultimate fallback position to discredit anyone who does.

And to Mr. Insipid above, whatever you do, don't go to Activist Cash to find out just what an unfair fight it is between the utilities and oil companies and their supposed shills, and the environmental movement and their OBVIOUS shills. Hundreds of MILLION$ spent by the Sierra Club and their ilk, versus hundreds of THOUSAND$ spent on this by all the oilcos and utilities COMBINED! This isn't a fair fight; never was, never will be, the only reason the AGW crowd is getting ANY traction is BECAUSE it isn't a fair fight, they have all the press and all the greens in their corner, and the wisdom crowd is forever playing catch-up and dodging ad hominem attacks thrown by the AGW acolytes.

Remember, there's a GOOD reason the oilcos are NOT fighting this AGW nonsense. In fact they are planning to PROFIT from it, as seen on today's front page Wall Street Journal article.

Gee, Jeff. What a matta wit the poor oil companies, not got enough money to support their position against the hugely financed AGW crowd, is it? Where do we send the donations?

Or is it your complaint that it's really tough for the 1% of active and publishing climate scientists who are anti-AGW to sustain their argument against the 99% who see the reality?

This is all about the money, and you're a fool if you believe anything else. No matter WHAT humanity does, we don't amount to a pimple on the flea on the backside of the dog that is the earth. Those oil companies are jumping on the AGW bandwagon as we speak, they are looking at an economist making hundreds of millions of dollars and recognize they can make hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars as this idiocy plays out. You bemoan the poor consumer in 90% of your posts, bemoan that consumer even more as he is the provider of those selfsame billions. All in the name of something that is a THEORY with NO BASIS IN FACT. There, I can't repeat THAT axiom enough, can't counter the lies of AGW alone, but can perhaps reach some reasonable person someplace..

Needless to say, I know YOU haven't clicked on the link to Climate Audit, realizing you've been played for a fool all these years would likely cause you to have a nervous breakdown, much worse than the cognitive dissonance I was worried about for you before. Don't read it and weep, better not to read it at all eh?

We need a bill to ban importing other people's nuclear waste?

I've been half-following this story, and I can't tell if it's a tempest in a teapot, or the real thing. Today Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon, the chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, introduced legislation to ban the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from allowing us to import foreign-generated nuclear waste.

“No other country in the world is accepting nuclear waste from other countries,” said Gordon. “By doing so, the United States is putting itself in position to become the world’s nuclear dumping ground.”

According to the terms of the bill, the president can grant specific exemptions if an application shows importing said waste would serve a national or international policy goal, such as a research purpose.

In February, Utah-based EnergySolutions applied for an NRC license to import 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste (that means no glowing rods) from decommissioned nuclear reactors in Italy. The waste would be ultimately disposed of at a site in Clive, Utah. “The United States has only a finite amount of space available for disposal of nuclear waste,” said Gordon.

Jeff, you are also wrong. The oil companies looked at this economist and thought they saw me making hundreds of millions of dollars, when actually I was making hundreds of dollars - in a good week of course.

Did you gentlemen and others read my latest on global warming? I hope so, because the message - which I forgot to put in it - is that the smart guys in this forum have got to concentrate on this energy thing. Better to leave the warming to Mr Gore and Ms Thurman.

And by the way, Jeff, Goebbels was an amateur as compared with some of the dudes running firms and governments these days.

Fred

Sorry it isn't you making those hundreds of millions either, (was Sandor if you clicked on the link) but then we wouldn't be blessed by your amusing diatribes here (diatribe is a bit harsh, but they ARE amusing - and then some).

You're right Goebbels was an amateur compared to some of the folks out there today, but he was the teacher and the students have learned their lesson VERY well. That lesson being that you simply repeat a lie ad nauseum and the fools out there will come to believe it is the truth. Speaking of ad nauseum, we've also had the scientists argument before, and there are two slices of occam's razor to destroy it. Number one, it ain't the majority the AGW crowd claims and #2, science ain't a democracy anyway. There were all sorts of hair brained schemes to describe the way things work, and they were almost unanimously approved by the scientists of their day, but of course they were completely bunkum. Hence we don't try to describe chemical processes using the phlogiston theory and we aren't concerned with the luminiferous aether either. If those links feel like deja vu, they well should, as I said, we've had this discussion before and my points then were as unassailable then as they are now.

But Fred, I have tremendous respect for you because in these selfsame forums you fessed up that your REAL motivation for believing in AGW (to the extent you do, which I suspect is considerably less than most of the zealots posting here) is because you felt that it would logically push our glorious leaders (see Goebbels statement above) to logically push for nuclear energy, solving the CO2 problem and alleviating the energy problem in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, in that belief you are sadly mistaken, because politicians attempting to garner favor by trotting out their "green" CO2 credentials won't even DREAM of saying the "N" word, hence we will have the worst of all possibly scenarios, no nukes AND insufficient energy to take us out of the crisis we are facing here, to wit, and to quote Alan, "America is Running Out of Electricity". BTW, it won't just be America, and it won't just be electricity either...

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/

http://www.co2science.org

http://www.worldclimatereport.com

and

http://www.friendsofscience.org

Sites Al Gores mother warned him about: ;>)

The latest update on the status of global warming is found on this site:

The Sun Also Sets

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Another congressional investigation is in order.

Thank you for the references, Scott--I hope this turns out to be a "balanced" list as opposed to a set giving the "pure skeptic" point of view, but I will find out in due time.

Regardless of that, the main point of my original posting, is that the argument is unnecessary or moot. A much cheaper method of producing electricity when it is most needed is the Atmospheric Vortex Engine, which doesn't depend on fossil fuels and therefore doesn't emit CO2 or other pollutants. Dr. Nilton Renno, a respected atmospheric scientist and vortex expert calls the science behind the concept "solid" (NYT, Toronto Star). Before wasting more time and effort in the continuation of this argument that, due to the nature of language and politics, can have no absolute winner, let's support the development of the AVE, which, due to its simplicity, can be proven in a large demonstration plant in less than two years and for well under 50 mm$--a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of nuclear or "clean coal": technology.

Of course, we cannot depend on those with "vested interests" to support this transformative idea--they will fight it with every resource they have. Please visit the website: www.vortexengine.ca and educate yourselves about it--especially the Business Case and the FAQ sections. Then, tell your friends, acquaintances and colleagues about the idea.

Having said what is most important, and, at the risk of "stepping on" the above message yet again, I have an opinion to pass along regarding the AGW controversy and "dueling websites" with respect to whether Climate Change is caused by man or is natural:

Both the tems Global Warming and Global Climate Change give the impression that its effects will be felt everywhere by everyone by the same degree at the same time, That would be a relatively poor description of the actual situation. What we commonly refer to as Global Warming is not really global because of the stark differences in the land-sea ratio in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) vs the SH. Further, weather patterns, and to a lesser extent, ocean currents in the NH facilitate transport of heat toward the poles more easily than they do in the SH.

These differences are further accentuated by the modifications of both the atmosphere and landscape in the NH by human actifvity. If you follow storm tracks, you will find that hurricanes that form in the tropics in the NH frequently cross over from the tropics into temperate regions, and sometimes reach rather high latitues, transporting vast amounts of heat and humidity with them toward the poles. This is virtually non-existent in the SH where hurricanes die while still in tropical latitudes.

Second, what is referred to climatalogically as "warming" is actually a process that occurs in two phases--first comes a period which primarily consists of melting, followed by a period in which "warming" becomes more evident to the senses. We are still largely in the first stage with respect to climate change.

It's not qualitatively different that what occurs to a drink filled with ice sitting on a table in a warm room. After a period of time passes and the glass is still more than half-full of ice, the imbiber will still feel the drink "cold and refreshing" (albeit a bit diluted) when he/she takes a sip. After more than half (say 3/4) of the ice has melted, it will still seem cool but not so much as for the earlier sip. Finally, when the ice is on the verge of completely melting, the sense will be that a substantial warming of the drink has taken place.

For them, the problem can be partially fixed by adding more ice as well as the "main ingredient". for the earth, it will already be too late, at least as far as 90% its pre-existing inhabitants are concerned.

A further problem in "framing" the is due to the way in which maps of the phenomenon are made and projected onto a flat plane. Usually the equator is given as a horizontal line through the center, with northern (and southern) areas greatly expanded as compared to their actual areas.

OTOH, if "polar" projections used, with "meridian splitting" for areas south of the 60th parallel were used to more accurately convey their total area, it would become more obvious that the artic is a relatively small area compared to temperate and tropical regions. Futher, with it being an zone of "convergence" having heat being transported to it from all "other" directions, and having no mechanism to dispose of it "except" radiation to space, it would tend to accumulate heat produced in the rest of the globe.

Continuing--while the term "climate change" more accurately describes the total effect, this too is not without problems. For resons discussed above, temperature changes due to changes in the earth's energy budged are amplifiied in arctic regions, but few people live there to experience them, nor are their problems widely reported.

What most (non-arctic) people will experience are episodes of "severe weather", as manifestations of climate change, which are harder to quantify and tend to be more anecdotal in nature. Who has that long or that precise a memory?

I suspect that the recent F-2 tornado that just ripped through the center of Atlanta on Friday may have been amplified by the "urban heat island" effect, but this is just speculative on my part and, in any event a local phenomenon. Had it passed through on a Sunday, for example, it might not have been quite as ferocious.

But I digress--people can argue till the cows come home about whether this or that temperature whas higher or lower than that temperature and when.. in the final analysis, only two things really matter to me:

1) is CO2 a green house gas capable of absorbing long-wave radiation emitted by the earth's surface and the atmosphere (yes), and does additng more of it to the atmopshere alter the current energy budget of the earth (again yes, but only logarithmically due to effects *approaching* saturation at lower altitudes).

A reminder that CO2 absorbs and emits long-wave radiation at all levels in the atmosphere, and that the higher up it is emitted, the more likely a photon is going to wind up leaving the planet. To deny the above is equivalent to denying that CO2 has any greenhouse effect whatsoever--tantamount to saying that the earth would maintain its current temperature, even if the CO2 level in the atmosphere were somehow suddenly cut in half or even reduced by ninety percent.

2) What are the observations of people who actually live and work in arctic regions where the effects of "NH melting" are most evident? Having lived and worked in Alaska I can tell you that evidence of "Local Melting and Warming" are everywhere, from the bark-beetle infestation to the melting and retreat of Portage Glacier, to the tribulations of indigenous people living on the shores of the Arctic Ocean or the Bering Strait.

And it's not only confined to the US or Canada. Go to:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html

To not believe the stories of people who have lived there for decades about melting, warming or climate change would be equivalent, IMO, to suggesting that those interviewed were just "GD liars paid off to say these things by Al Gore and his accolytes".

Bottom line is that the minutia of the Internet Wars over global warming or whatever you wish to call it don't concern me in the slightest. I suggested RealClimate.org becaused it satisfied me in terms of the "big picture" it gives.

I am not responsible for any of the policies they have concerning "posting rights" but, if any of you, Including Jeff Presley, would give me permission to cross-post your complaint there to see what kind of response they give, I would be happy to do so.

Meanwhile--may the (AVE) Force be with you.

Also re: "we don't amount to a pimple on the flea on the backside of the dog that is the earth.", to help your (obvious lack of) math a bit, the US has AT LEAST 30 units of (legal) human population per sq. km total area, so I'll assume you're only speaking for yourself.

The following quote, from a staff writer for the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Waste not want less:

, if read correctly and in co-ordination with other articles I've seen lamenting the shortage of CO2 needed for Enhanced Oil Recovery in older fields, provides an interesting new (for me) perspective on the incentive for a) Ethanol promotion (CO2 main byproduct) and b) IGCC coal-burners (again, CO2 main byproduct). c) moving the FutureGen project from Illinois to Texas. ??? {QUOTE} "It is estimated in the Permian Basin alone, a little over seven to almost 11 billion barrels of oil is still potentially recoverable using CO2," he said. "Keep in mind we've only made 32 billion barrels so far in the Permian Basin."

The amount of CO2 necessary to realize those figures is huge though, Melzer said, and thanks to oil prices, well beyond what is available locally.

"With all this growth we are running out of CO2 in the Permian Basin. It's not cheap to go find another source of CO2. And we've got to find a lot of it. By some estimates done by some people that ought to know, by next year we're going to be 600 million cubic feet a day short of CO2. And that's about 40 percent of what we use today of new CO2," he said noting that the shortages of the gas for EOR currently also exist in Wyoming, South Dakota and Mississippi.

Capturing CO2 produced as a by-product from coal to hydrocarbon liquification projects and ethanol production are two potentially viable sources for efficiently collecting CO2. {/QUOTE}

I've also seen articles lamenting the cost of producing (from drilled wells) and shipping CO2 by pipeline from the Rockies out to the plains for use in EOR. I wonder what the REAL CO2 content of an average barrel of oil today is?

Eventually the bugs would start eating the ethanol, creating even more gas to pressurize the reservoir.

Item 2, CO2 in oil production. At NTP (normal temp & pressure), CO2 is immiscible, meaning it doesn't mix, therefore it is an ideal driver to push the oil out of the formation. Currently industrial CO2 is produced from natural gas, which is a sub optimal source. The DOE projects that EOR (enhanced oil recovery) using CO2 could push the US oil production up substantially, the CO2 (like natural gas) in the formation goes into all the nooks and crannies and pushes the oil out. The report linked to above also talks about making the CO2 miscible with the oil formation through supercritical fluid techniques. At a sufficiently high temp and / or pressure, this may be feasible, but it would be very energy intensive (to sufficiently pressurize the CO2) and expensive (CO2 as an industrial gas is running about $2.50 / cubic foot - can't find a current source for that Airgas says to call them for a quote).

When an oil well first comes in, there is an estimate called OOIP or original oil in place, and for any number of reasons, mostly related to autogenous drive, the actual output of that well may be only 10-30% of the OOIP. EOR techniques, which include water and steam flooding and now CO2 injection can push that number to 50% or more. At present, especially where thermal isn't needed CO2 is the ideal EOR producer especially given that no one (yet) worries about hydrocarbon contaminated CO2, the way they worry about oil contaminated water for instance. Given CO2's cost and ability to be recycled, I doubt it would be left in the formation, they'd probably want to use on that next formation down the road...

By "CO2 content" i didn't mean only carbon actually contained in a barrel of oil, but the total CO2 emissions incurred in it's production and use, particularly re. CO2 used and vented for EOR.

I think there is a huge market for CO2, in fact I got the $2.50 / ft^3 price from an older business plan someone had given me. The problem of course is separating CO2 from hot flue gases, such as in a power plant. The futuregen project was unfortunately going to lose about 40% of the generated power (efficiency wise) just to cool and capture the CO2. Combined cycle plants are already only about 50% efficient, so losing another 40% isn't a pretty picture. Here is a report that talks about natural CO2 deposits. I've visited one of them in Carbon County, Utah. They ship the CO2 via pipeline all the way to Texas, although there are local uses for it in Uintah county. When doing EOR production, it is simply too expensive and valuable to just "vent it". To the extent possible, CO2 is recycled and reused.

From, "Fueling the Future" by Heintzman and Solomon, "1894 After two unsuccessful efforts by members of the Geographical Survey of Canada to drill for gas near the Athabasca River, they move locations to a site near the Pelican River. At 250 meters, the drillers strike an enormous reservoir of natural gas, which will blow wild for the next 21 years."

We'll never know just how much of that natural gas also contained native CO2, but they are commonly together. The science of the day couldn't deal with the vast pressure they had discovered. Old timers talked about the great roaring sound day and night. If I believed in AGW, I could blame the Canadians for causing it, but I don't so I won't. ;)

Facts: 382ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, presently 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure 3963 mile radius of the earth (a tad less than 4000 miles)

Total weight of the atmosphere: 14.7 psi times surface area of the earth in sq. inches

4 x pi x R^2 is surface area formula, so…

4 x 3.14 x ( 3963 x (5280 x 12))^2 = 7.92 x 10^17 sq inches

Metric tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere:

((14.7 x 7.92 x 10^17)/2205) x 0.000382 = 2.02 trillion metric tones

How much is being created each year due to energy production?

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/images/enlarged_globalco2.jpg

25 billion tonnes per year...and that is expected to increase to 37 billion by 2030.

We are increasing the current levels at a rate of 4-5ppm per year, as we add 1.3% more CO2 to the atmospheric inventory each year. Exacerbating the increase are the effects of deforestation and release of other even more harmful greenhouse gases, such as methane and SF6.

Opinion, based on the above facts: A fossil-carbon-based energy system is not viable for the future energy needs of humanity, and we really do need to get OFF of that system as quickly as possible...50 years would be none too soon.