Obama energy adviser Jason Grumet talks climate, coal, and transportation policy 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   hapa Posted 7:54 pm
   05 May 2008

   "leadership" = horseshipbecause we would be the ones telling others their place on green tech, why, again?
   
   economy's wrecked, climate's melting, oil's scarce, green's the way out.

   Permalink

2. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 11:10 pm
   05 May 2008

   That quip about 13 billion spent on oil subsidies"disturbing him greatly" sounded like a calculated remark meant to placate two special interest groups with one stone. Does he plan to get rid of it? Well, no, but it disturbs him just the same.
   What motivates people to become a politician?
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:25 am
   06 May 2008

   Profoundly misinformedThis guy talks like a computer.  Reeling off complex language in theory laden terminology.  Photographic memory is wonderful, but it doesn't help one's judgemenmt or understanding.
   Joesph Romm, for instance, does understand the whole scenario of energy, transportation, and ag policy a much better, but no one is as effective at rhetoric about the whole thing than this guy.  
   It's kind of spooky actually.  But he really is misinfomed and is misinforming others when it comes to specifics, outlined in these two excerpts.
   "...and they are: renewables -- wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and the rest; the opportunity to capture and sequester the carbon from hydrocarbons; the possibility of a new and advanced approach to nuclear power that would not have the attendant waste and safety and proliferation issues; the possibility of a bio-based energy effort, not just cellulosic ethanol but the algaes and the rest; and then somewhat more diverse but myriad breakthroughs in energy-efficiency technology -- advances in semiconducting, small breakthroughs in motors and lighting and heating and the rest."
   "...the challenges of getting 30 or 40 or 50 percent of our electric power from renewable resources are also immense. They will require tens and hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in energy distribution. They will require real breakthroughs in battery technology to deal with the intermittency issue. There are going to be human-resource and natural-resource issues we come up against. There is an imagination that distributed energy is somehow easy and friendly, but we've seen, as we try to site what many of us thought would be embraced as small, benign windmills and solar facilities, rather strident opposition from many local communities."
   Is it worth trying to correct these mistaken notions?  These guys will do what they are going to do.  They will not be swayed by the likes of us rank and file bloggers.
   Our only hope is that some of the more responsible, influential bloggers, like Joe and Sean, who do listen to our input, can get around filters like Jason and others, to get the real picture to Barack.
   This would take demonstration of actual technology applied in systems that really work.  Seeing is believing.  Absent real world examples, super-articulate advisors like this will determine the policies.  Period.
   And with the myopic view Jason exhibits, this is a bad sign for we the people and mother earth.  How can a wakeup call get through?  
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

4. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:35 am
   06 May 2008

   BTWAnother great interview by the premier environmental journalist on the planet!  DR.  let's hear it!  Huzzah, huzzah!  
   Embarrassing maybe to DR yes, but true. Who else gets to the real meat of the problem?
   And I think we all help a little bit here by prodding the discussion along.  The feedback-less mass media just doesn't get this kind of information out.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

5. 

   2wheeler Posted 5:46 am
   06 May 2008

   profoundlyI appreciated the interview and the depth of coverage, it is good that the candidate and his campaign are considering these issues and are open to adapting to new information to take necessary actions to address global warming and carbon emissions starting now.
   
   Too many plans and policies I see set their targets more distant than the time horizons in office of those who set the plans in motion.
   
   I see the depth of discussion as good (not afraid to approach the facts and get their heads around them).  If misinformed aspects are evident, let's set them straight.
   Personally I believe it should be relatively easy and not too painful to reduce consumption by 50% through simple conservation measures and lifestyle choices.  The 30% beyond that, may be more difficult, and will probably involve direct green energy production investments that I believe should be possible in wind (urban micro-wind?) and solar PV and solar hot water, not to mention geothermal heating and cooling.  Phase change salt based energy storage also has my interest if it can be used to store energy from season to season effectively.
   What I had a problem with was the guy Jason seems intentionally obtuse, hence he is a spokesflack at a low level not a high level sound-byte worthy level.  We won't see these lines quoted in any attack ads in the fall... I think that is the intent of the campaign at this point in the game.  
   What does encourage me is Obama is not afraid to speak truth to those who need to hear it even when the message may be hard for the listeners to stomach.  I believe that such leadeship, and his ability to connect with and motivate the grassroots, could exactly enable us to make the kinds of changes needed to shift to a sustainable path of recovery during his administration.  
   Read between the lines and the Kentucky coal message keeps him from alienating the state at the primary stage.   If the energy balance of CCS is as tough as it sounds, we won't see much of that any time soon-- nor I would hazard a guess will the nuke option alluded to by Jason be a big element in the solution, as opposed to the last item he mentioned, CONSERVATION.
   Meanwhile, I'll keep on biking, and driving my hybrid (when I have to drive), and buying carbon offsets, and investing in more energy conservation for my home.  And I look forward to businesses and population at large doing more of this as well soon, with the example of enlightened leadership to point the way.
   It is about Change, isn't it.  
   
   Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

   Permalink

6. 

   Dragutin Dimitrijevic Posted 11:52 am
   06 May 2008

   Remember the 'Apollo' moon program?That was essentially a vanity project for the purposes of increasing national prestige and to refine our ICBM technology. It's a pity that the same sense of urgency that we applied to landing a man on the moon is not being applied to cellulosic ethanol technology and self-sufficency in transportation fuel.
   You know what would be cheap and relatively easy? Start planting biomass for cellulosic ethanol production now.
   I live in Clark County, Nevada. In the center of the state there is virtually nothing but uninhabited desert wasteland, much of it under the control of the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management. It's government land in other words. Uncle Sam could provide a grant to one of the agriculture or chemistry or biology departments at a university in the southwest by next week. Start planting sagebrush (genus Salvia) or something similar. That genus thrives with very little water, fertilizer or human attention. It coppices well, comparable to willow which grows in wetter environments in the east and in Europe. Willow has been coppiced and pollarded for wood and fuel for centuries. Sagebrush could be harvested for biomass using the same techniques. The desert interiors of states like Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas are short of water and the soil and climate are poor for raising food crops. Those areas have supported very little food agriculture throughout the history of the United States. A large scale planting of biomass for ethanol production in those areas would not impose on traditonal farmland.
   Pick a ten mile by ten mile area, i.e. 100 square miles, and plant it intensively with sagebrush or some other suitable native species. While all the arguing and dithering and floundering around by committees and study groups is going on we could at least be establishing a biomass plantation. Many more than one would even be better. The plants and plantations could be growing and maturing now while all the tortured decisions are being made. Then they're available for steady harvest in three years or five years or ten years when someone at government level decides to make a full commitment. If for some reason a full commitment is never made, the biomass plantations don't hurt a thing. In fact they improve the desert environment aesthetically and through increasing the water absorption capacity of the land.

   Permalink

7. 

   2wheeler Posted 7:24 am
   07 May 2008

   a better biofuel?I have read some amazing things about biodiesel from algae.  I think it would be a great option to remove excessive N and P from some of the excessively fertilized surface water runoff sources from farm fields in the midwest and from other under-regulated high-nutrient point sources such as factory farms.
   More research in this area is needed by our land-grant ag institutions of higher learning across the nation. Implementation could use high-insolation underutilized land such as in the Dakotas, but could be done in more of a controlled fashion and with less processing than the 100 sq mi plantation of wildfire-friendly sagebrush alluded to above.  
   Monocultures tend to bring on pest infestations, and usually are more chemical intensive compared to the natural resilience of biodiversity in nature.
   Conservation is the real basis for the Phase 1 of an energy based Apollo-type program.  We have barely scraped the surface!!!  Especially in the workplaces.
   
   Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

   Permalink

8. 

   rwkenn Posted 12:05 am
   08 May 2008

   The holed bucketI found both the interview and comments all quite interesting, but believe to a certain extent that the main point of the problem is being overlooked, repeat to a certain extent.
   In my humble opinion it would appear that conservation should be the first step.  As stated by one of my favorite authors Maurizio Pallante in his book "Un futuro senza Luce?" "A future without light" (yes I live abroad and unfortunately this book has not been translated into English):
   Quote
   I have a holed bucket and am trying to fill it with water from a bottle, but to no avail.  What can I do?
   a) replace the bottle with a two-liter bottle
   
   b) replace the bottle with a cup
   
   c) patch the holes in the bucket so that afterwards all I need is a cup to fill it.
   Unquote
   In a nut shell, we have to stop wasting before we will be able to address our energy needs, if not all of our efforts are literally thrown out of the window.  Instead of patching the holes in the bucket the experts concentrate all of their efforts and argue about which source is better suitable to fill the bucket.
   If we are really determined to solve our energy problems then we must first build houses, buildings, cars, etc. that are energy efficient.  We must then produce energy from renewable sources (without putting pressure on the world food supply as is happening with ethanol and the so called "no food" agriculture) such as wind, solar, tides, geothermal, etc.
   Of course, I also understand that these topics are not so attractive during an election campaign.
   Hopefully Obama will have the chance to lead our wonderful country and people into the future!!

   Permalink

9. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 1:10 am
   05 Jul 2008

   Dream onDragutin Dimitrijevic writes:
   Sagebrush could be harvested for biomass using the same techniques. The desert interiors of states like Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas are short of water and the soil and climate are poor for raising food crops. Those areas have supported very little food agriculture throughout the history of the United States. A large scale planting of biomass for ethanol production in those areas would not impose on traditonal farmland.
   If it was economical to plant crops -- sagebrush or otherwise -- on desert lands, it would have been done already, either for fodder or for other uses of biomass. You cannot get high yields of biomass without water!!
   It is precisely this kind of unrealistic dreaming of magic solutions that is distracting people from the real task that confronts us.
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 1:41 am
    05 Jul 2008

    Algae, aquatic overgrowthYes that overgrowth should be used 2wheeler.  Solar heat can dry it and extract the oil.  Then the rest can be turned into biogas and organic fertilizer.
    Run aircraft on the biofuel.  Nano tech methane storage is progressing.  these nano structures are designed for methane molecules, they lock into place and are stored at near liquid density with almost no compression.  Maybe with room temperature liquid methane storage even aircraft won't need oil, even from algae.
    If the weeds and algae are not turned into biogas, they emit methane into the atmosphere as they inevitably decompose.  Adding a 21x GHG (compared to CO2) into the stressed global "weirding" climate system.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 1:56 am
    05 Jul 2008

    180x the methanehttp://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/new-mof-methane.h ...
    These nano-materials have reached a storage density 180x the normal density of methane in air.  With no compression.  
    That's the same density as compressed natural gas as it is now used in vehicles, stored in heavy steel tanks.
    Given this density storage, combined with solid oxide fuel cell/turbofan efficiency, aircraft could fly on biogas.   And offset 20 times the CO2 (coming out of the tailpipe) in the process.
    And of course plugin hybrid cars could get backup power this way too.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink