Comments DarthPetrol has made

OK, then what about Van Jones support for convicted cop killer Wesley Cook (aka Mumia Abu-Jamal)?  Every day it looks more and more like Jones is a resident of crazy town. 

Shouldn't all of this have come up at his confirmation hearing . . . oh, nevermind.

Good thing that President Obama still has some sane voices left in his administration like, John P. Holdren . . . he wrote, what???  . . . nevermind again.

Then stop breathing

If CO2 is a pollutant then so is water. If such decisions hold then you could be required to get a permit to breath. On State illegally approves new coal-fired power plant posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Good idea

I don't have an issue with webcams. It would be pretty boring watching nothing happen. All offshore rigs are required to have booms and oil spill response equiupment. Also companies share regional spill response centers that have even more equipment.

If drilling is so bad, environmentally, then surely there must be an example somewhere you can point to.  On Conservative arguments to the contrary are intellectually bankrupt posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Hey thanks for the link

FPSOs are NOT tankers. FPSOs are permanently moored to one spot and just swivel around with the wind and waves. Other than Alaska, no crude oil in the OCS is transported by tankers.

That Stacey is pretty lucky that she got to go out onto an offshore rig. My dad was in insurance - boring. I had to wait until I was 30 to go out on my first rig.  

Another practice which could be reduced by more domestic production is lightering.  Ultra large crude carriers (2 million barrels or more) are too big to dock onshore. So smaller tankers come several hundred miles out and pull alongside and fill up. This manuever is completely safe, but there is always the chance of an accident.  On How greens and Democrats can win the energy debate posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Duh

Mary Anastasia O'Grady makes an excellent point today on why it is OK for Petrobras to drill offshore for oil but it isn't for privately owned companies to do so.  

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357636070876033.html?m ...

She says that environmentalists don't seem to mind state owned profits, but they abhor private profits.  The silence from Grist readers and posters over the Tupi field development is deafening.  Don't Brazilian beaches deserve the same protection as California beaches?  

It would seem that both the Republican and Democrat plans would provide money for alternative energy investments the only thing that differs is where the money comes from.  (Oh and that the US would be following the Brazilian example to drill their way out of the problem.)  Neither plan would have us reach energy independence, but adding more conventional gas should help to alleviate prices.
On Republicans exanding their drill base, at least to other Republicans posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

It's all about punishment

Another good post Sean. But the environmental movement isn't about saving the planet, it is all about socialism, or more specifically destroying succesful capitalists.  Here is my litmus test for so called environmentalists.  

In January 2009 Dick Cheney leaves the Vice President's office.  Let's imagine that he becomes the CEO of ExxonMobil.  Shortly after he takes over, ExxonMobil discovers a low-cost way to sequester CO2, essentially solving the global climate problem, stabilizing CO2 at 350ppm, exceeding the wildest dreams of Joseph Romm and Al Gore. The discovery increases the value of ExxonMobil many times over and makes Dick Cheney the richest man on earth.  

So is this scenario acceptable?  Isn't the argument all about saving the planet?  (BTW - I know that ExxonMobil is actually working on something very interesting which might do what I just said.)  On The goal of climate policy is not high GHG prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 69 Responses

Experience

So here in Texas 3 REPs went belly-up and threw their customers to the provider of last resort, at $.30 / kWh. Providing food and copy services are not core businesses to some companies, but neither are they critical businesses.  If Sodexho or IKON doesn't show up, you can get lunch or copy services from someone else at a comparable price.  

Electrical power is a critical resource.  Without it you can't do business.  If the price overnight doubles or triples (like it did to the customers of the bankrupt REPs in Texas) that can badly damage a business.

On paper it might make some sense for a third party provider to come in and provide electrical services or do EE project savings.  But there is always a risk factor for non-performance.  

I am considering a "free lunch" myself.  I can replace a piece of equipment at my home for about $1,000 that will save $900 - 1,300 in electricity the first year.  I have the $1,000 or could easily get it, yet I haven't made the investment yet.  If I make that $1,000 investment I don't have $1,000 for something else, or for an emergency.  Every day I wait a bit more of the "free lunch" disappears.  Yet I can't decide.  Am I being irrational too? On There is such a thing as a free lunch posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Steve Martin

There is an old joke about "how to become a millionaire - first get a million dollars."  

Same idea about "free energy" first spend a lot of capital on wind or solar, then everything after that is free.  Try taking your solar plan down to the bank to see if they will loan you the money.  There is no free lunch.  

And don't get me started on "green jobs", that is another myth. On There is such a thing as a free lunch posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Spelling

Excuse spelling errors. I'm triple tasking.

This whole "free lunch" brings up a related topic. Energy companies themselves require lots of energy to produce and refine energy products. As the price of crude, natural gas, and electricity rise energy efficiency projects become more attractive - unless congress does something stupid.  

Slapping a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies will RAISE the after-tax hurdle rates required for energy companies to make efficiency improvements, discouraging investment.  Energy companies have the cash flow, knowledge, and ability to improve energy efficiency. They can add combined heat and power projects, install gasifiers to turn lower valued products and biomass into steam, power, and hydrogen.

Extraordinary taxes whack "green projects" as well as the "black" ones. On There is such a thing as a free lunch posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

No Free Lunch

Larry Makovich at CERA did a great job of discrediting this particular fantasy of "negative cost" abatement - or in other words "there are no free lunches".  

Essentially he said that the market is allocating capital to energy efficiency projects now.  Consumer's hurdle rates for investment are 20-30%. But limits to credit and consumer preferences (i.e. paying for kids college vs. buying more efficient appliances) keep consumers from exploiting all available "negative cost" savings.  

http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/report/reportpreview. ...=

Unfortunately the report is only available to CERA clients.   On There is such a thing as a free lunch posted 1 year, 5 months ago 15 Responses

Oh No

OMG I am agreeing with Robert Reich

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253738014643227.html?m ...On The challenges of reconciling science and policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

It's all fusion

If nuclear fusion is good enough to power God's creation then it should work for us too. Ultimately it is the solution whether we capture the sun's energy directly or engineer our own suns here on earth. I have no idea in the end which technology will win out. But PV and thermal solar look to be competitive even now (take a look at Texas retail electric prices).

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything.  It just seems to me that if we are worried about CO2 we should be shutting down oil fired power generation and the oldest and most inefficient coal plants.  

If you want a cap and trade system then fine, just divide up the tax evenly among the 300 million US citizens and write everyone a rebate check. We don't On The challenges of reconciling science and policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Curious

Sean - excellent post. It gets at the heart of my complaint about AGW theory. There is little if any talk about uncertainty in the outcomes.  That seems very unscientific to me.  

Given the paucity of data and the complexity of the climate system, I find it hard to believe that anyone can predict with any level of certainty what might happen in 100 years and how humans might adapt to it.

I was curious if anyone would go on record here that there is a possibility that AGW will be no big deal?  

Can good, intellegent people look at the available data and evidence and come to different conclusions?On The challenges of reconciling science and policy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

A

From your TOD article: "Despite a healthy inventory of mega-projects, the world is quite simply not managing to bring on new supply fast enough to compensate for decline."

You can see the excess world capacity stands at around 2.5 million barrels per day.   The 1002 area is estimated to have 10 billion barrels of recoverable reserves (at $40 per barrel when the assessments were done).  When in production it would produce 1 million barrels a day for 20+ years.  That additional supply alone would help build the surplus capacity.  Other countries would need to increase production to save market share, lowering prices.  

Basic economics says that additional supplies will lower prices.  It does depend on how demand reacts though.

So I guess if you say that US companies account for such a small amount of world demand then they also cannot be held responsible for setting world prices?On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 6 months ago 59 Responses

Not so fast

Grey

1. Our dear Dr. Romm quotes EIA as the source of this 1 cent analysis and then trashes them for being lousy at forecasting prices. Speculators are betting that Congress will continue to keep productive US oilfields off the market.  The best companies in the world at producing oil and gas have access to only 6% of the world's reserves.  An immediate lease sale in the 1002 would change that. We haven't hit peak oil until the rest of the world has as many holes drilled into it as Oklahoma and East Texas.  We may have reached peak access though, with shareholder companies prohibited from participating in the best plays.

2. At $120 / barrel, maybe not. The problem isn't high prices it is the fear of a return to $30 oil that keeps these investments from happening.

3. Another myth. Deepwater royalty relief was granted in the late 1990s not in 2006 which is the dateline of the story you linked to. In the 1990s oil was $15 a barrel and drilling budgets were slim. Incentives were granted to get companies to invest in US production rather than sending those dollars overseas.  

DR is Wrong Again

New drilling and production technologies have drastically reduced the environmental impact of drilling operations.  Both the frequency and size of oil spills are down dramatically. Oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico took direct hits from both hurricanes Katrina and Rita with no major oil spills. Companies like Petrobras have little problem drilling offshore of the beautiful beaches of Brazil or in the Amazon.  Norway, one of the most environmentally conscience countries in the world sanctions drilling off its coast and in sensitive arctic regions like the massive Snovhit gas field.

DR displays a glaring lack of knowledge about how markets work.  Supply and demand of crude oil are in balance. There are no shortages of either crude or gasoline. Two factors are primarily driving the price of oil today, a weak dollar and a perception of shortages in the future. Which is causing speculators to bet "long" on crude.  Less than 10 years ago crude was selling below $20 per barrel.  At the time OPEC had between 2 and 3 million barrels of excess crude capacity. Demand growth and lack of investment has worked off that surplus.  

If the US opened additional lands for exploration, like the 1002 area, the market would need to acknowledge the potential for several million barrels of crude oil supply to be available.  Prices would come down - immediately.  

A lease sale in the 1002 would generate as much as a billion dollars in premiums which could be used to fund alternative energies or conservation programs.  It would be a win both for environmentalists and for US consumers. On Gingrich mounts campaign to support domestic oil drilling posted 1 year, 6 months ago 59 Responses

Beverly Hillbully

I had a typo in the earlier post. Hillbully was what I meant.  

Hey this ought to be fun.  Gov. Sarah Palin and the State of Alaska is going to sue over listing the polar bear as "threatened".  You go girl!!!

(Or does DR not believe in states rights.)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90QBM4G1&sho ...On Waxman is going to punch somebody posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

DR

Other than being obnoxious, how about abusing his position as a committee chair to conduct political witch hunts?  

I think the mistake that President Bush made is even responding to this clown. I would have told Waxman to pound sand. The EPA has some discretion over setting these limits. The adminstrator gets to weigh the scientific evidence and the cost and benefit to society from the new standard.  I don't see the need to throw counties in North Dakota into non-attainment. On Waxman is going to punch somebody posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Sorry Darrell

Rep. Waxman's constituents might be saving on GHG emissions, but the issue here is ozone and the appropriate standard.  LA County curretnly averages 0.112 ppm, some of the worst air in the country.  If people want to get healthier, they should move to Houston. (You'd not only get healthier air, you might even be able to buy a house!)  

Lowering the standard from 0.084 to 0.075 adds many counties to the list of non-attainment for ozone and should have a positive health benefit.
The county list is here: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/2008_03_design_v ...

But going to 0.060 is overkill.  For example, this would put Napa County in non-attainment.  It would also put 4 counties in North Dakota in non-attainment.  Now seriously, when people think of smog does North Dakota come to mind???  On Waxman is going to punch somebody posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Broken Window

Ludwig von Mises thinks you should read the broken window fallacy .
On Solving climate change can save billions, boost the economy, and create jobs posted 1 year, 7 months ago 5 Responses

Source

Grey - you cite oilwatchdog as a source? There is an unbiased source of information!

Your post perpetuates the myth.  Here is the direct quote from Opensecrets.com:  

"This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

There is no such thing as "oil company" money in electoral politics.On The latest primary dispute: Does Obama take oil money? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 14 Responses

Patrick

Thanks Patrick for the computer lesson.

I have tried to obtain some of the underlying mathematical relationships for the CO2 sections of the GCM models.  Once I was interested in the equations of state used in the GCMs so I asked an expert.  Instead of an answer I got back hate mail.

My chemical engineering models had very good physical properties and lots of repeatable data. These models are much less complicated than the GCM models, yet we can't predict temperatures down to 1 or 2 degrees C on well defined systems.

I guess Chemical Engineers should just turn over the modeling jobs to the climate modelers.  They seem to have figured out all the hard stuff we struggle with.  

Of course the climate modelers can only make forecasts out 50 years with absolute certainty. Don't ask them if it will rain tomorrow, they don't have a clue.
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Scientist

Yesterday I posted this quote:

The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models.

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. [...] The term "global warming" itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable?"

The person who said this is Dr.Joanne Simpson. You can read about her here:  

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/lookingatearth/simpso ...

And see the full letter here:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-m ...
On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Patrick

I hope you are having a nice late winter day in the caves of Beijing. Nice debate trick, trying to equate two things that are very different.  Al Gore said we know as much about AGW theory as we do gravity.  And you call me silly?

Drugs conduct clinical trials before being tried on the general public. Even then sometimes well designed studies miss things, like in the case of Vioxx.  Same with chemicals, chemicals, clinical treatments, the dentist, etc.  

The other major difference between the things you cite are that the clinical benefits clearly outweigh the risks. I trade some immediate and measurable benefit for some unknown risk.

AGW proponents are asking for just the opposite.  They want us to give up some immediate economic and societal cost for some unknown and unmeasurable benefit decades out in the future. Some try to equate it to "insurance" but again, insurable events can be measured with far greater accuracy than AGW models are capable of.

The more accurate term would be "global warming agnostic", because as you correctly point out I don't think there is enough proof yet.  I don't deny that AGW might be true or go as far as to say it is a hoax. AGW apocolyptics strike me more as members of some cult religion.  

It is a cult religion that apparently worships infoulable computer models. On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Thanks

Wallaby - I hadn't heard of Brian Valentine before, but I looked him up. His views are similar to mine, perhaps because we have similar educational backgrounds. My advanced degrees are in both chemistry and engineering.

Christopher - really you should read up on the difference between correlation and causation. And from your post it is pretty clear that for you AGW theory is a political cause.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 9 months ago 287 Responses

That Didn't Take Long

Christopherj - thank you for responding in an appropriate way.  

To answer your question, yes, using only objective data I could show you that I have gangrene and that antibiotics could cure me. We could look at medical case studies of other patients with similar symptoms. We could isolate the organisms which cause gangrene and reproduce them in a lab then use antibiotics to measure the effectiveness of the drugs.  

So Patrick do you live in a cave in Beijing? I've been there many times and saw mostly apartment buildings. I don't think asking for data is an unreasonable request, nor is it unreasonable to ask about the accuracy and uncertainty of the data or whether or not the conclusions fall within both the accuracy and uncertainty of the data.  It is called science.  

Funny but I don't recall name calling as part of the scientific method.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 9 months ago 287 Responses

It's the 1002 Stupid!

A little history lesson is in order. The 1002 area of 1.5 million acres on the coastal plain was set aside as an area for future oil exploration. Without the 1002, it is unlikely that the Alaskans nor many members of Congress would have agreed to setting up ANWR in the first place.  Congress ordered and environmental impact study (completed in 1986) that said that environmental damage from drilling would be minimal.

It was after this that the Democrat party renegged on the deal to open the 1002 to exploration.  There is oil and gas exploration on 77 of the 567 federally created wildlife refuge, including areas that are MUCH more environmentally sensitive than the 1002, like the Rainey NWR in Louisiana.  

The Audobon society and other conservation groups collect royalties from oil and gas exploration on their conservation properties.  The industry has worked very responsibly with these groups to ensure that impacts are minimal.  An oil company is the largest fee land holder in the state of Louisiana.  They are working on deals to grant the surface fee lands to conservation groups while maintaining the mineral rights for development - truly a win-win for both environmentalists and industry.  

With 21st century technology there is no reason to believe the 1002 could not be developed responsibly. On Big Energy promotes Big Energy at Houston energy conference posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

Amazingdrx

I was suggesting that Mr. de Place put his e-mail on the gas ration card.  

Any cap and trade program means that SOMEONE will be deprived of fuel they want or need.  I'm just saying that the people who are responsible for the cap and trade need to be held accountable for implementing it.  

Enviromentalists restrict oil exploration in offshore waters and in the 1002 area then turn around and blame energy companies for the high prices.  Environmentalists block expansion of refineries then complain when gasoline prices skyrocket.

You got a specific instance of bribery you want to discuss or you just spouting off the "everybody knows" argument?  OK, I'll give you one, Marc Rich trades with Iran during the embargo then gets convicted of tax evasion.  His wife donates big bucks to the Clinton library in exchange for a pardon on the day Clinton leaves the White House. Or how about Benon Sevan at the UN getting kickbacks from Iraq in the UN Oil for Food program. Saddam violates the terms of his cease fire agreement for 12 years, bribing UN council members with oil and money to stay in power until President Bush puts a stop to it.

Same with the subsidies and tax breaks.  You want to talk specifics?

And yes, I have a problem with sending out some 7th grader to defend expansion of S-CHIP when we find out his parents aren't poor and they could get a private health care policy for about $600 per month but they choose to sponge off the taxpayers. On Why the West should worry about transportation emissions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

Sure

All Republicans are stupid knuckle dragging apes and Democrats are infoulable enlightened saints.  Is that what passes for debate here on Grist?

The top 3 Dems for President have very little political experience, weak resumes, ran in largely uncontested elections, and have some very deep personal flaws.  Those are the facts.

No amount of Republican name calling will change that. On The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 11 months ago 32 Responses

GG

I was thinking if Senator Clinton goes negative and manages to get the nomination, she could turn off a lot of people in the general election.  Going negative against Obama could really backfire on her too.  

You are correct in that many Republicans are dissatisfied with both the president and congress over the swelling of government.  Republicans (and many Democrats) are also upset over illegal immigration.  I was doing some focus group testing in a very blue northeastern state. I didn't think it was a big problem, but in almost every meeting people were upset about illegals in their state.

It will be difficult for Senator Clinton to distance herself from the war when both she and President Clinton both made very passionate pleas for regime change in Iraq prior to 2003. When they try to reinvent the facts to fit the current political winds they remind us of the meaning of "Clintonesque".

I won't vote for him, but I got to tell you that Obama's speech last night was very good. Clinton was awful, she tried to latch on to Obama and Edwards victories as if it was an endorsement of her.  Edwards "neo-populist" speach was just bizarre.  On The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 11 months ago 32 Responses

Experience

Here is the other problem for Senator Clinton, and for the top 3 Democrats - paper thin political resumes.

Senator Clinton can't knock Obama on experience, because she has very little experience herself.  

Clinton, 7 years in Senate.  Edwards, 6 years in Senate.  Obama 3 years in Senate.  That is 16 years total.  

John McCain, 21 years in the Senate. If Senate experience is your qualification then one republican has more than the entire Democratic field - combined.

Can you name 1 piece of major legislation that Senator Clinton has sponsored in her 7 years? What exactly has she done?  

Someone here said they were impressed with the Democratic field.  Really?  Compared to the Republicans?  

Giuliani - Mayor of NY for 8 years, credited for revitalizing the city. As federal prosecutor succesfull prosection of the "Five Families" an white collar criminals.

McCain - War hero and 24 year veteran of both Congress and Senate. Major sponsor of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.  Took on big tobacco companies, served on select POW/MIA committee chaired by John Kerry and co sponsored legislation to formally recognize Vietnam.  

Romney - 1 term governor of the bluest of states, turned a $3 billion deficit into a $.7 billion surplus at the end of his term.  Impressive business career and CEO of Bain Capital. CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing committee credited with turning around a scandal tainted Olympics into a well run event that made a $100 million profit.

Huckabee - 10 year governor of Arkansas, compelling personal story.  Led campaign for state amendments to equalize school funding.  Cut welfare roles in 1/2 during tenure, Arkansas economy grew faster than national average. In 2005 named by Time magazine as one of the 5 best Governors in the US.

Thompson - succeeded Al Gore as Senator for Tennessee (8 years - about the same as Obama & Edwards combined). Popular TV and film actor. Minority counsel during Watergate (Ok we'll give Clinton some credit here too), Chairman of International Security Advisory Board, advising the Sec of State and POTUS on emerging threats.

If someone would like to compile a similar list of the Dems, I'd listen.  

I would suggest the Democrats make the election about ideas, because they don't measure up in experience.  In an nomination process about ideas, Obama wins. If Clinton goes negative to get the nomination she exposes her own weaknesses and turns people off for the general election.  On The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 11 months ago 32 Responses

Epistemic Principles

My God you must have been a philosophy major.

Anyway, if California wants to pass goofy regulations that impact just their own citizens, I could care less.  Its when Californians and the other 16 states want to impose their will on the rest of the country that I take exception.

The states issue titles and licenses to vehicles. IF they don't like inefficient vehicles then just don't issue licenses or limit the number available. They don't need the Supreme Court or the EPA to do this, but it does make for a nice sideshow.
On EPA staff say they were excluded from waiver decision; suspect Cheney's involvement posted 1 year, 11 months ago 10 Responses

Romm & Dyson

But Joseph Romm is also PhD physicist and not a climate scientist.  So shouldn't we disregard everything HE says about climate science?

Dyson, also a physicist,  argument is essentially that the climate models are inadquate and require fudge factors to get them to validate the data. That more carbon is locked up in vegetation than in the atmosphere and that the relationship between CO2 and vegetation is poorly understood. Dyson believes that land management has the potential to sequester CO2 at a reasonable cost.  

Wow, what a radical.
On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Trying to help

Andrew - have you tried Dr. Neil Frank, head meteorologist at KHOU TV in Houston? Dr. Frank is retiring in 2008 so he might have a little time on his hands.  It is just a short drive to College Station.

He came to a company safety meeting to speak about severe weather shortly before hurricane season. For the first 15 minutes he launched off on global warming.  It seemed a bit strange.

There was a retired professor of Chemical Engineering at University of Texas who was rather outspoken on the topic, but I don't recall his name, it has been 15 years or so ago. He may not be around.  Seems that the Chemical Engineers might be a good place to find skeptics, as they will know a lot about modeling gas mixtures,  heat transfer, and dynamic systems. On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 1 year, 11 months ago 61 Responses

Back on Topic

OK, I just looked up a solar power kit at www.wholesalesolar.com at 5 hours/day the cost of a system works out to about $6,500 / kW roughly the same as FutureGen.  

So is PV solar "maddeningly stupid"?  

The point of FutureGen is to explore the technology and the costs. Sean is a big proponent of CHP systems.  I think this is one area that IGCCs may have a hope.  

Currently a lot of natural gas, at $7.50 / mmBTu gets burned to make hydrogen, with the CO2 vented to the atmosphere. Hydrogen's biggest use is in refining and petrochemicals.  Hydrogen sells at a premium to natural gas on a BTU basis.  IGCCs like FutureGen, located near refining and petrochemical complexes could sell H2 as a co-product.  

IGCCs need large amounts of pure oxygen. The air seperation untis at IGCCs could produce liquid nitrogen, and noble gases (argon, neon) as a coproduct.  FutureGen will generate a large amount of low quality steam.  They could pipe the steam into Mattoon for heating and cooling needs.  

Branson's bet is for removing CO2 from the air, and is more of a gimmick.  It is a lot cheaper to remove CO2 from combustion streams than to fool with the 380 ppm present in the air. On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Texas leads the way - again

Sean - we have such a program here in Texas.  Go to www.driveacleanmachine.org

Administerd by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state will pay you up to $3,500 to trade in your 10-year old car.  Unfortunately there is an income cap on this benefit.  It seems to me that if your primary interest is in cleaning up the environment you wouldn't care who took you up on the offer.

That reminds me, whatever happened to Englehard's PremAir system? PremAir removes ground level ozone and CO. The catalyst is used in a popular air purifying system.  Initially cost was an issue, but they aren't using platinum in the current system.  On When is a Tundra a better buy than a Prius? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 47 Responses

Sunflower

What are you smoking?

I hope you were joking.  Like me joking about my Dick Cheney implant.  

First of all, it is ExxonMobil and has been for nearly 10 years.  There is no Texaco any more.  It was Chevron Texaco,  but they shortened it to Chevron.  

If by the oil companies you mean the U.S. oil companies (Top 3 are ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips), all are publicly traded companies.  They would be required by law and their shareholders to report any ownership in companies involved with the nuclear industry.  And the companies you speak of would be required by law to disclose the names of any beneficial owners of more than 5% of their company stock.

I don't believe the White House is against alternatives.  Even the WH Energy Task Force recommended expanding alternative energy, including solar.On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Typo

I meant pocket Constitution.  

Can't recall that the Republicans ever did this to President Clinton.On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Not a Merrry Christmas for some Senators

Since Mr. Roberts believes that obstructionism is such a bad thing, how about this news item.  Senator Harry "this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything" Reid, is calling the Senate into "pro forma" sessions every couple of days over the 3 week Christmas break to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments.  Which means some poor Democrat schmuck Senator (the gutless Harry Reid won't bother to show up) has to bang the gavel every 3 days, to open an empty Senate chamber, with a full staff on hand just in case.  

Recess appointments go back to George Washington.

The Democrats are holding up nearly 200 Presidential appointments requiring senate confirmation.  Guess they are too busy proposing meaningless anti-war votes to get around to confirmations.

Merry F'ing Christmas from Harry Reid!On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Fillibusters - not just for breakfast any more!

Well what is this?  Senator Dodd (Dem) threatened a fillibuster this week of the FISA reauthorization. Being a lawyer he didn't like provisions exempting telecoms from lawsuits over complying with FISA.

So it isn't JUST Republicans who do it.  

And before you bring up Abe Fortis and the nuclear option, I would remind you that in 1968 Fortis was a Johnson crony with some serious ethical challenges not known to the public.  Both Republicans and Democrats joined in the filibuster and that Fortis didn't even have 50 votes to elevate Fortis to Chief Justice in the waning days of the Johnson presidency.

Yes the 110th congress set the new record for fillibusters, at 72 breaking the 98th and 99th (Dem minority) records of 58. That bastion of conservative reporting, the NY Times says: "So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding."On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Stereotype

Ok, I'll expand my horizons if you will give up on the all energy workers are evil and George Bush and the Republicans are both stupid and evil. On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Challenged

Mr. Roberts

Several of your statements should not go without challenge.  

1) When Dems were in the minority and so much as breathed of a filibuster, Republicans flew into high dudgeon and threatened the "nuclear option," an unprecedented maneuver that would have scrapped the filibuster altogether.

Untrue. The Republicans threatened the nuclear option for only one type of vote - confirmation of Presidential appointments. Democrats used filibusters in a new and unprecidented way to block President Bush's judicial and other appointments which otherwise had support in the Senate.  This is a constitutional and separation of powers issue.  What is meant by "advise and consent", does that mean 60 votes? I would have preferred that President Bush hauled the Democrats to the Supreme Court and settled this issue once and for all. But the "Gang of 14" inserted themselves into the process.  Funny you don't hear much about them any more.  

2) But now they use the filibuster willy-nilly

Again - untrue, I won't dispute the number you quoted, but how many of those votes were for ending the war in Iraq in one form or another?  Democrats wasted their time trying to appease the Daily Kos kook base of the party with endless, meandingless votes on the war.  It was clear from the day they took office that neither the President nor the Republicans would approve any timetables for withdrawals or other moves that would undermine the war in Iraq.  The President and Republicans made their intentions clear, it wasn't willy nilly fillibusters, it was the willy nilly and silly legislative agenda of the Democrat Party that caused the fillibusters and veto.  

3) He let Big Oil defeat renewable energy.

Do you have anything to back that up?  I suppose you mean the renewable fuels standard.  API and the industry opposed HR 6 primarily because of targeted tax increases on a handful of energy companies.  In 1998 (when oil was $20 per bbl) congress granted tax and royalty relief for exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. At a time when oil companies were laying off workers and cutting capital programs, this kept energy company investments at home instead of making investments overseas.  Some of those investments (not all) paid off, and prices rose. Now the Democrat Party wants to punish some energy companies for being profitable. The also wanted to close what they called a "loophole" applied to double taxation on manufactured goods that was extended to energy companies.

API also objected to mandated volumes and type of renewable fuels.  The industry is not against renewable fuels, in fact many energy companies are supporting reesarch and production of biofuels. In 2006 regional shortages of gasoline and ethanol demonstrated the folly of boutique fuels and mandating alternatives. The industry is mandated to produce some 20 different grades of gasoline and 3 grades of diesel fuel.  

I don't think the industry is against renewables or tax incentives, as long as they are evenly applied - including allowing large energy companies to get into the renewable fuel business and qualify for the same tax breaks. On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Thanks Sean.

Thanks for the links.  I don't work in the regulated side of the business.  But I see how that has screwed things up.

One time we were looking to buy a natural gas storage facility from a utility. It had been shut down for 20 years but it looked brand new. Even the pickup that the manager was driving around was washed every day and didn't have a scratch on it.  One of my junior engineers commented in amazement.  I told him no worry - every bolt and piece of equipment here was making 8% rate of return whether it was running or not.  

Deregulation has gotten a bad name because of Enron and the California botched deregulation scheme.  People fear profits as if it a bad word, but seem OK with the inefficiencies inherent in a regulated business.  

In Texas generation and retail sales of electricity are deregulated, but dispatching and wholesale pricing is still set by ERCOT. Generators can't sell directly to end users. On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Sean Redux

1. I see lifecycle costs applied to conventional energy sources.  Seems like nobody likes to do the same for alternatives.  How much energy does it take to plow, plant, and fertilize the fields for growing biodiesel or ethanol.  Don't even mention sucking water out of aquifers.  Not very sustainable.  Have never seen the energy requirement for PV solar either. It takes a lot of juice to refine silicon into PV cells.

2. True enough, pollution controls are expensive. That is why so many 1970s vintage power plants are burning Powder River Basin coal rather than install scrubbers. Our current regulated power model is akin to cities with rent control.  Paying below-market prices encourages neither conservation nor new construction or alternatives.  

4. $35/Mwh?  At a heat rate of 5,700 (60%) efficiency and $7 gas, I'm generating at $40/Mwh just for the fuel.  If you can make some energy recovery scheme work at this price it implies a very low $/kwh cost.  I think what you are saying is that the way the system works is that energy recovery projects go head-to-head against the AVERAGE price of power, not against the most expensive generated power.  

Sean

You have some valid points. But you offer a false choice. There are cheaper alternatives for reducing GHG emissions, but enviros and politicians are equally against those too!  

If you wanted to make a serious dent in GHG emissions, then convert pulverized coal plants that run at 25-30% efficiency with natural gas fired combined cycle at near 60% or with IGCC plants at 50% efficiency.  Permitting such a plant would seem to be a no brainer, but I would bet the farm that the enviro wackos will oppose it vigorously.

Same with nuclear, it is our best shot at making significant GHG reductions.  I'm sure someone will post after me how I'm all wrong and nuclear is actually dirty - yada, yada.  Know nothing anti-nuke protestors are likely to show up at the hearings.  

You complain that clean coal is expensive. We've had hyperinflation in the process industry for the last 2 years.  Costs are double what they were in 2005, so all new power, chemical, refineries, and E&P operations are more expensive.  In a regulated utility market used to 8 cents/ kWh retail power no alternative looks very good.  

We could make demand side adjustments in efficiency, like the improvements your company makes, including more CHP.  But at 6-7 cents/kWh for commercial power, it will be hard to pay those off.  I pulled up some prices in the Appalachian Power pool,  3-4 cents/ kWh for wholesale power sales.  I can't build a power plant to extract waste heat for that, even given free energy! And I can't sell my excess power to NY or CT where I could get a decent price for it.

The only way out of the problem is to structurally change the electric power industry.  Impose some kind of CO2 tax - or tier the power market where small consumers pay the regulated rates, but big users (like Al Gore before he made his home improvements) pay the much higher market rates.  On Grist contributor bashes 'clean coal' posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Hard to believe

Mrs. Clinton said: "This has taken our total [kilowatt-hour consumption per year] from about 14,000 to about 4,300."

I mean no disrespect to Mrs. Clinton, but I find this very hard to believe.  If true, that puts her monthly electric bill at 360 kWh per month. Or about $72 from ConEd.  Their house in Westchester Count is reportedly 100 years old, has 5 bedrooms, 11 rooms total. Plus they have a 20' x 45' pool (24,000 gallons).  

A 2 hp pool pump running 8 hours per day consumes about 12 kWh per day, or 360 kWh per month.  Ok, so maybe they only operate the pool 3 months out of the year.  Still that wouldn't leave them much power for the rest of the year. Certainly not enough for air conditioning even for a month or two.  

Plus, Mrs. Clinton has a home in Washington, DC near the naval observatory.  

I believe that the 14,000 kWh / year is about right for the house in Westchester. I just don't think there is any way they could get it to 4,300. On An interview with Hillary Clinton about her presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses