Comments vbstenswick has made

  • I have an idea that you may wish to borrow. I live in a Minneapolis suburb. I heat my house with a geothermal heat pump and buy only green electricity. I have written my lawmakers and suggested that they sell bonds to loan money to homeowners at 0% interest over 100 years to pay for the loop field for a geothermal heating system. A house like mine should be able to be retrofitted with a forced air geothermal system for $18000, of which half would be for the loop field. There is a 30% federal tax credit, so the cost after the tax credit is $12600, subtract off $9000 for the loop field and the cost to the homeowner is $3600. My heating bills are about $400 for the winter. With the best furnace available, it would be $600 - $900 assuming natural gas is $7 - $10 per MMBtu. I would also have them stipulate that when the house is sold, the loan must be repaid. Loop fields are labor intensive. It is not a short term fix, but a long term fix for northern tier states.On Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price posted 6 days, 13 hours ago 5 Responses
  • I am not completely sure where Mr. Franken stands, but he is correct in pushing to have emission cuts forced on China and India. We should proceed with cutting our emissions, but tariffs should be imposed on goods from any country that does not freeze emissions at current levels, and start cutting. Since our emissions are 4-5 times higher per capita than China, they could cut fairly slowly compared to us, but caps have to be put in place now. I also question the comment about wind generated electricity being cheaper than coal. It may depend on what comparisons are being made. It is very difficult to compete if other states or countries can just dump their waste into a river, or lake, or ocean, or the atmosphere. Again, we should not back off from cleaning up our act, but China and India cannot be given a free ride.On Al Franken (D-Minn.) posted 1 week, 4 days ago 3 Responses
  • I wonder if it would not be more effective to test out the latest lead-acid batteries (Firefly Energy, Axion Power, maybe others), and do a 20 year install campaign, going door-to-door. It would be much more efficient than our normal free market approach. I would think you could install batteries in a house for $1000-$2000 because the batteries themselves would be cheap. People would not have to sign up, but if they are paying for it as part of their utility bill and have space, why not?On The long and wind-powered road posted 1 month ago 7 Responses
  • I think someone should integrate this with studying the costs of putting up more wind turbines and utility grade batteries. The reason I say this is I heat my house in a Minneapolis suburb with a geothermal heat pump. I buy all of my electricity from our local utilities "WindSource" program. I tracked my electrical usage fairly closely a few years back, and I used 7600 kwh to run the heat pump for heating, and 1400 kwh for cooling. My heating bills would be under $400 for the winter except for the extra for wind energy, which last year was an extra $50 for heating. I am fairly energy conscious, but I am sure my house could be made more tight. However, I question the payback on retrofitting my double pane windows with triple pane windows. It might be more cost effective on many houses in cold climates to put in geothermal heat pumps and put up more wind turbines. In more temperate climates, use air-source heat pumps.On Weatherization will save us all posted 1 month, 1 week ago 6 Responses
  • Let's stick to the issue, climate change. One of the author's points is working class people will get access to middle class via green jobs. That may work out, and it may not. We may end up with the same wealth inequity that we have now. The real issue is how difficult do you want to make life for your grandchildren. We face the real possibility that infants today may live long enough to see New Orleans abandoned permanently, and every coastal city in the world doomed. Over what time span is uncertain. It is also very possible and economic to cut our GHG emissions quite quickly utilizing the organic rankine cycle to generate electricity from waste heat. The problem is the loss of revenue for the utilities. I would also like to add my analysis of temperatures in a cold climate, though not as cold as Alaska, and not as cold as it used to be. I analyzed weather data at MSP for 1960-1967 versus 2000-2007. My premise was that people who live in warm climates wonder what the big deal is, weather has not changed. My results, July highs are 1+ degrees warmer than 40 years ago, July overnight lows are 4+ degrees warmer, January highs are 6+ degrees warmer, and January overnight lows are 9+ degrees warmer. Also, I prefer to use the argument about how difficult do you want to make life for your grandchildren. I am afraid that hearing about the hardship of Alaskans will fall on deaf ears. We become immune to this when you hear about Darfur, Somalia, etc. I am not sure people become immune to the fact that they are going to make life very difficult for their grandkids. They may not want to believe it, but the numbers tell a different story.On Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 32 Responses
  • I do not have time to read everything, and most of the commenters are more informed than myself, but I have a hard time with the fact the the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to coincide with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Yes we have had natural cycles in the past due to orbital forcing and solar forcing. I do not know where we stand on solar forcing now, but according to orbital forcing, we should be cooling, not warming, so it would appear to limited understanding that the current warming we are seeing is due to man's activities. Perhaps Dr. Fred could explain this to me. As a sidelight, overnight lows in January in Minneapolis are 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 40 years ago (1960-1967 versus 2000 - 2007).On Entergy CEO warns of humanity’s extinction if climate legislation not passed posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses
  • In reply to ShellyT and Latecommer, I doubt any of us really have the time to study this. People make their living studying this, so it somewhat comes down to what sources we believe. I live in a Minneapolis suburb, and overnight lows in January are 9 degrees F warmer than 40 years ago. (NWS data for MSP airport, 1960-1967 and 2000-2007). As far as the icecaps go, I read an article a few years ago that was a synopsis of a presentation by Dr. James Hansen, and due to increase precipation, the ice caps might very well expand temporarily. That aspect was predicted. I am aware that the temperature has lagged CO2, but that has been due to warming due to Milankovitch cycles. My understanding is that currently the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, so the oceans are absorbing, not releasing CO2. I could be wrong, I only know what I have read. I also believe that growth in GHG can be stopped in 2-3 years with the organic rankine cycle, and probably some decent cutbacks in CO2 emissions. I am a former high school science teacher, I happen to know how little I know. I also have a hard time with the fact that the current build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to correspond with the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is too big a coincidence for me.On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 104 Responses
  • Grist should start a policy of requiring people to identify themselves and who they work for. I hope everyone recognizes that 'Latecommer' is completely off base. It is not that change is bad, but the economic consequences of climate change probably dwarf the consequences of dealing with it. The biggest consequence, in my opinion, is rising seas. The cost of losing all the coastal cities in the world dwarfs the cost of dealing with climate change. It's all economics. We could put up million of wind turbines, spin them to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, and use hydrogen for just about everything. It would just be expensive, and inconvenient.On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 104 Responses
  • Remember, the founders of the US were radicals. I do not know enough about cap and trade, but I think it would work if it were strict, which apparently it is not. The advantage of cap and trade is you--theoretically--implement the most cost effective solutions first. That is one of the problems with some of the green programs. Mandating a certain amount of renewable energy might not be the best way to cut GHG, energy efficiency might be a better solution, often. I am as radical as you can get, but there is not much more I can do cost effectively. It might be more cost effective for me to go to Home Depot and buy a bunch of CFL's and stand on the street corner and give them away--which is something I think should be done anyway.On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 2 months ago 104 Responses
  • Let's not forget that 20-30 years ago it was Japan, Inc. that was going to kick our butts. They have done well, but we are still doing OK. As China prospers it's wages will go up. What we need to keep it mind right now is that climate change has the potential to be economically devastating for all countries. We have to solve our problem, but lean on China and India to cap emissions, now.On China is leaving the U.S. in the dust as it surges ahead on clean energy posted 2 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses
  • Yes there may be health problems with a warmer climate, it will also make living in the cold climates easier. The real problem, I think, is the economic impact of rising seas. Who pays when we have to abandon coastal cities? Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will bear the burden. This is a much more solvable problem than the fossil fuel guys want us to believe.On World's big polluters kick off climate talks in Washington posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses
  • Yes there may be health problems with a warmer climate, it will also make living in the cold climates easier. The real problem, I think, is the economic impact of rising seas. Who pays when we have to abandon coastal cities? Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will bear the burden. This is a much more solvable problem than the fossil fuel guys want us to believe.On World's big polluters kick off climate talks in Washington posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

  • We are supposed to sit back and cut our GHG emissions while they increase theirs??  I do not know all of the means that China and India obtain their oil, but we are a much more open society than theirs, and look at the difficulty we have in getting the facts straight.  I really doubt that China and India would ignore increasing tariffs on their goods and services by Europe and the US.  All the jobs that migrated to China would migrate somewhere else as Nicaragua, Mexico, Vietnam raced to cap their GHG emissions so as to avoid tariffs.  China and India would follow suit, but I doubt it will happen without leverage.  Who precisely is going to pay if the subways of NYC are flooded?  We could just not pay the Chinese back for all the money they have loaned us. 

    On A big breakthrough on green jobs posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

  • Tariffs should be used first.  Using logic and reason with people who stand to become filthy rich by destroying the planet is probably not a good strategy.  Moral persuasion with people who are immoral does not work.

    On A big breakthrough on green jobs posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

  • I am as green as anyone, but care must be taken on the claims of jobs gained.  Yes, we might gain jobs installing solar panels, yet lose other jobs because we drove the electricity rates too high.  We will not necessarily lose jobs if everyone one has to operate under the same handicaps--i.e. we must reduce our GHG emissions.  Therefore we need to press Congress to enact meaningful GHG limiting legislation, and impose tariffs on nations that do not cap their emissions immediately.  I do not think we have time for any 'bleeding heart liberal' nonsense about letting China and India raise their standards of living.  GHG emissions have to be limited now, worldwide.  Everyone also has to understand that China and India are no different than us, they will have powerful people who will get even wealthier and use the pretext of raising the standard of living for the masses so that they can become more powerful.  The masses, here and abroad, are the ones that stand to lose the most since they will not have the resources to comfortably relocate away from the coasts as the oceans rise.  Congress should also authorize the President to use the navy to throttle China and India's oil supply should tariffs fail to entice them to cut their GHG emissions.

    On A big breakthrough on green jobs posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

  • Green isn't always right, just most of the time.  There are legitimate concerns from large energy users over the price of energy.  I personally favor a carbon tax increased gradually, maybe $2/ton per year, every January 1 it goes up $2, using the proceeds to mostly lower the Social Security tax, or maybe half rebated and half to lower the tax.  Along with that we could very gradually increase the production tax credit for renewable energy, treating all equally, thus wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc get $0.02/kwh this year, and increase it $0.002/kwh every other year.  The utilities, companies, homeowners would figure out what the best deal was.

    On Duke Energy quits scandal-ridden American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 4 Responses

  • I really doubt that anyone who takes climate change seriously should even be talking about solar, except maybe in very sunny areas like the southwest.  I live in Minnesota, and while I am no fan of the big utilities, it is far more cost effective for me to buy all of my electricity from our local "WindSource" program than it is to even think about putting up a small solar system.  Cost is the real issue in addressing climate change.  We could put up a gazillion(yes I know that is not a number) wind turbines, spin them and electrolyze water to get hydrogen, and use that for all of our energy needs.  Just what is the cost.  Most environmentalist's get butchered at public hearings because jobs trump the environment.  Wind is pretty cost effective.  I also heat my house with a geothermal heat pump, and even paying extra for wind energy, my heating bills are lower than a comparable house with the best furnace you can buy.  We need to make intelligent decisions.  Wind in most cases is probably tops, and then energy efficiency, which most of the time will beat solar panels. 

    On Could we replace the nation's pavement with solar panels? posted 3 months ago 30 Responses

  • I wish the auto companies would look at building a serial hybrid truck using Firefly Energy's batteries and part of the truck bed for battery storage.  While I do not know enough about the batteries, I bet they could get a truck that could go 50 miles just on electricity for $1000 worth of batteries, and still sell it and get the $7500 tax credit. 

    On Big Blue dreams of a big green battery posted 3 months ago 4 Responses

  • No doubt many of these people who believe fighting climate change will have a bad effect on the economy have good intentions.  They may not understand 3 things, first, we also have to put economic pressure on China and India to conform also.  The economic battle requires a level playing field.  Second, the first 5-15 years will be relatively painless.  We are so wasteful, that we might very well benefit from being forced to become more efficient.  One thing I advocate is giving electricity generated from waste heat the same tax incentives as wind, which I believe is $0.02/kwh for 10 years.  There are alot of energy intensive industries that would benefit from a policy like that.  Third, they have to understand the gravity of the situation.  Climate change is in a class by itself.  It is easily the second most important problem this country faces, after controlling WMD's, which is easily the biggest challenge the human race faces. 

    On National Association of Manufacturers claims climate bill would crush economy posted 3 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

  • People are correct on climate change being extremely important, though I rate it number two behind controlling WMD's (the human race does have it's sick side).  Most of the politicians do not understand that in this country, the first 5-15 years of combatting climate change will be relatively painless.  There is so much wasted energy.  The problem is that our leaders will take no chances that might inflict a bit of pain.  I have talked to numerous people and asked them if the gas tax went up 5 cents per gallon every year, and 4 cents were rebated through lower income taxes, would it hurt them, and I have yet to have someone say yes (the other penney is to fund R&D and rebates for energy efficiency), but people have to know that to 20 years it is going to go up that amount every January 1.  I think we could make significant headway in a hurry if we gave electricity from waste heat the same incentives as wind, which I think is $0.02/kwh for 10 years.

    On The Climate Post: Grid, for lack of a better word, is good posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • These guys are right, but not for the right reasons.  In the 5-15 year time frame, no energy tax or climate change bill will hurt us.  There is so much waste and inefficiency we can wring out of our system that the first 5-15 years will be relatively painless.  The real reason we need this is we cannot afford to let China and India build several hundred coal fired power plants while we try to shut ours down or clean them up.  We have a limited time to halt GHG growth and reduce it or kiss our coastal cities goodbye.  They should also authorize the President to use the navy to throttle China's and India's oil supply should tariffs be insufficient.  As far as quick action goes, I suggest that Congress also give industry the same tax incentives for electricity generated from waste heat as wind gets, which I think is $0.02/kwh for 10 years.  I am not in the industry, but I think you would see a 'feeding frenzy' as companies rushed to take advantage of this.  My amateurish calculations show that it is significantly more cost effective at reducing CO2 emissions than wind farms.

    On 10 Dems call on Obama admin to support trade protections in a climate bill posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • Sounds good to me.  As long as people do not go overboard and try for carbon neutrality.  I use my house as an example.  I heat my house with a geothermal heat pump and buy all of my electricity from our local "WindSource" program.  Last year I paid about $50 extra for this, it could vary from $0 to $250 depending on the price of natural gas.  Even at $250, it would take a long time to pay off replacing my double pane windows with triple pane windows, let alone paying for photovoltaics, increased insulation, etc. 

    On Oh, those sexy building codes: More powerful than 100 nuclear plants posted 4 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses

  • I agree we need a revolution, but I have a few ideas.  First, and most important, give electricity from waste heat the the same incentives as wind, which I think is $0.02/kwh for ten years.  Second, keep the current incentives for solar in place, but give addtional incentives based on some sort of solar index, the higher the  index the greater the incentive.  If you only had 1000 solar panels, and wanted to have the most effect, where would you put them, Seattle or Phoenix?  As for the first incentive, I did a few calculations, having to make a few assumptions, but here they are.  WOW Energies claims to be able to recover 30% of the waste heat if it is at 700 degrees.   Now a coal fired power plant will not have waste heat that high, so I will guesstimate that 10% can be recovered.  If a plant is 35% efficient, that means there is 65% waste heat.  10% of that is 6.5%.  6.5 % as a fraction of 35% is 18.6%, or call it 20% or 1/5.  That means a 500 MW power plant could become a 600 MW power plant and 100 MW of coal generated electricity removed from the system elsewhere, nearby.  The cost of this upgrade would be about $180 million.  Let's assume that this is in a state like mine, Minnesota, that has a law requiring CO2 emissions to be reduced.  So assume the utility only uses this investment for 10 years before shutting the upgraded plant down.  That is $18 million per year, divided by 5 million people in the state and you get $3.60 per person per year, and you prevented alot of CO2 from being put into the atmosphere.  I am not an expert in all areas of energy, or in any area, but this looks pretty cost effective to me.

    On We need an energy revolution posted 4 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

  • I am an amateur and do not have time to read every report, including the IPCC.  However, overnight lows in January in Minneapolis are 9+ degrees warmer than 40 years ago (1960-1967 versus 2000-2007).  It is scientific fact that carbon dioxide absorbs the wavelength of radiation re-radiated by the earth.  Whether this has an effect on climate or not I will not argue.  It is also my understanding that the current buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traces back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Is it a coincidence that Mother Nature started to spew CO2 at the same time humans figured out how to use fossil fuels to make our lives easier?  I also have yet to hear anyone dispute Gore's slides showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature.  All this leads me to believe that the changes in weather we see are caused by man.  I also do not completely buy the arguments about expensive green energy, at this time.  Wind, along with coal and nuclear, is accepted as one of the least expensive ways to generate electricity.  I also heat my house with a geothermal heat pump and have heating bills lower than anyone with a comparable house and the best furnace on the market.  Also, waste heat is a vastly untapped resource.  It is going to vary considerably by site, but I think if we gave waste heat the same incentives as wind, which I think is $0.02/kwh for ten years, we would see an significant increase in investment in energy efficiency.  Much of it would remove load from the grid, saving on the need to make investments in the electrical transmission infrastructure.  Beyond that, it will get more difficult.  I think congress should authorize tariffs on any nation that does not cap their emissions at current levels, and set then we have to set goals for how to cut them.  I also think congress should authorize the President to use the navy to ration China and India's oil should they not cap their emissions.  I pick on them simply because of their size.  No matter what we do, it will not matter if they 'stay the course'.

    On Deniers are “full of passionate intensity”—and eating our lunch on climate bill posted 4 months, 1 week ago 16 Responses

  • Well, I still have not heard anyone delink CO2 and temperature, and I also think this is more solvable than people believe.  I think GHG can be capped in 2-3 years with the organic rankine cycle.  Whether cap and trade is the answer I do not know, but I think if you gave electricity generated from waste heat the same incentives as wind you would see a massive investment in carbon free electricity.  I think Congress should give the President authority to use the navy to regulate China and India's oil if they do not agree to cap GHG.

    On The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ACES edition posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 38 Responses

  • This is interesting.  Is a Repulican actually acknowleding that climate change is real, man made, and a serious problem?????You are missing the boat.  This is earth shattering, a Republican willing to take responsiblity for something.  Now, nuclear is not the correct approach, but I am not going to get uptight.  To a certain extent he is right about some of the renewable mandates.  Another way to look at it is if we gave wind the same incentives as we gave solar, we would drive the coal industry out of existence.  Solar is so uneconomic that it needs huge subsidies.  I do not oppose it simply because I do not oppose anything that halts GHG emission growth.  As far as Exelon goes, be careful what you wish for.  They might state economic concerns, but they may have other motives.  Maybe they believe they have the votes to block any climate legislation and can continue to burn coal.  Just a thought.  I still believe that we should give electricity generated from waste heat recovery the same tax breaks as wind.  I am not in the industry, but I think you would see an explosion of investment in energy efficiency.  Care would have to be taken in not retrofitting too many coal plants that are going to have to be shut down.  I firmly believe that GHG emissions can be capped in 2-3 years with waste heat recovery--world wide.

    On Sen. Alexander calls for 100 new nuke plants, won't work with Dems on climate bill posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

  • GHG emission growth can and should be frozen within 2-3 years.  No new fossil fuel power plants without very strict CO2 emissions controls.  Significant retrofits in industry with the organic rankine cycle to capture waste heat and turn it into electricity.  A bit of care has to be taken in the power industry not to retrofit too many coal plants in that then the utilities will want to keep using them.  I am not an expert, but I think if we gave the same incentives to waste heat recovery as we do to wind--I think it is $0.02/kwh for 10 years, you would see an rapid growth of carbon free electricity from this sector.  Much more cost effective than solar.  The 2 degree C is nonsense.  1 degree max, preferably zero.  The consequences of not doing enough are too severe.  I like to argue a variation on Pascal's wager, what are the consequence's of being wrong.  In one case, a bit of inconvenience as we figure out how to live without carbon, and in the other a catastrophe.  Strict controls now, and tariffs on nations that do not comply.

    On Climate tango at G8 meeting bodes ill for Copenhagen deal posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Response

  • I also believe that the costs are overestimated.  I heat my house in a Minneapolis suburb with a geothermal heat pump.  I calculate its operating expense to be equivalent to that of a 95% efficient natural gas furnace with gas at $4/MMBtu.  A new state-of-the-art heat pump would be equivalent to a 95% efficient furnace with natural gas at $3.50.  People always ask what is the payback.  That is the wrong question.  A person buys a new car because they need one, no one asks what the payback is.  Ten years later it might be worth 15% of its original value.  We should be installing geothermal heat pumps because of the capability of heating our homes and putting nothing into the atmosphere--at least in time as we cleam up the electrical system.  This also removes demand and thus lowers the price of natural gas for everyone.  Still being a young industry, many contractors install systems that are too large.  I have analyzed my system and believe that the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency is correct, and that geothermal systems should be sized to 60%-70% of maximum load.

    On Why we overestimate the costs of climate change legislation posted 4 months, 4 weeks ago 12 Responses

  • This is really unbelieveable.  I do not know the best way to address climate change, but to deny it is unreal.  For the guy who says climate change is a hoax, why are overnight January lows in Minneapolis 9 degrees warmer than they were 40 years ago?  Could someone give me a different explanation of the link between CO2 and temperature than what is accepted by science?

    On Lowlights from the House climate debate posted 5 months ago 3 Responses

  • So which coal company do you work for?  There is no brainwashing involved.  The science is correct, you just refuse toaccept science.  It is also a much easier problem to solve than the fossil fuel guys want us to believe.  I did not say easy, just easier than they want us to believe.  We could cap carbon emissions immediately by harnassing waste heat, and it would be fairly cost effective.  There are alot of bright hard working people who have figured out how to extract carbon from the ground to provide us with energy.  We need to harnass that intellect and work ethic to provide energy without extracting carbon from the ground.  I have tremendous faith in human ingenuity.  20 years from now people might be complaining about having to pay $3/gallon for cellulostic ethanol when they could have gasoline to $0.50/gallon, but it would be banned.  Yes that would be irritating, but the consequences of not dealing with climate change are too severe to ignore.  I heat my house in a Minneapolis suburb with a geothermal heat pump and buy all of my electricity from our local utilities "WindSource" program.  My heating bills are still lower than anyone around me.  So I paid alot to install an efficient heating system, people pay alot to buy a car and 10 years later it is close to worthless.

    On DeFazio lambasts cap-and-trade posted 5 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

  • First, the GHG do not reradiate electromagnetic radiation to earth, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (energy) is converted to another form of energy--heat.  More GHG, more heat.  Second, is this guy really denying the graphs that Gore presents in 'An Inconvenient Truth'.  From those graphs you can conclude one of three things, 1) increased CO2 causes an increase in temperature--accepted theory, or 2) an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2--this would be plausible if the oceans were saturated and the increased temperature caused the CO2 to come out of solution.  From what I have read, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, thus dispelling this option, or 3) some external factor(s) cause both CO2 and temperature to move in synch. I have read explanations of external events causing temperature to rise, but not to the degree that it has.  I, for one, would appreciate knowing his/her sources for ignoring the apparent correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    On House GOP unveils energy bill heavy on fossil fuels and nuclear power posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • While I do not oppose nukes, I also believe that the projections of load growth are just the utilities why of keeping control.  The interim technology should not be nuclear but waste heat.  A generous feed-in-tariff for electricity from waste heat would halt all new power plants nationwide.  This is the bridging technology to engineered geothermal, ocean power, intermittent power with energy storage.

    On This White House science adviser thinks America should embrace nuclear power posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

  • This is not about Democrats versus Republicans.  It is about good energy policy.  I would not oppose nuclear power, though I do not think it is the correct approach.  I think enhanced geothermal or engineered geothermal is a better approach.  I would not even oppose offshore drilling, if we also forced better fuel economy.  What I dislike is their refusal to accept the science of climate change as real and caused by man's activities.  You, and most people, miss one of the huge energy sources, and that is waste heat from power plants and other industrial processes.  The problem is it is not sexy, and saving ratepayers a fraction of a cent per kwh does not generate the political support that building a new power plant which will employ 80 people and 700 during construction does.

    On House GOP unveils energy bill heavy on fossil fuels and nuclear power posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • This is nonsense.  These people are in the pockets of various corporate interests and have no interest in the welfare of the American people.  Next to weapons of mass destruction, climate change is the biggest threat to Americans well-being.  While it may be true that no one wants more taxes, it is absolutely necessary to cut GHG emissions.  These people are cowards, plain and simple.

    On House GOP unveils energy bill heavy on fossil fuels and nuclear power posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • I prefer 'global flooding'.

    On Ditch ‘warming’ and start talking ‘deteriorating atmosphere,’ PR firm says posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 14 Responses

  • This guy is wrong.  Nukes and CCS would make it easy, but I doubt it is necessary.  First, most power plants in the world could be upgraded with the organic rankine cycle.  That means we do not have to build ANY new fossil fuel power plants.  Second, many industrial processes produce significant waste heat.  This can be turned into electricity with the ORC.  Thus we could shut down a few coal plant fairly quickly with no loss of generating capacity.  This would be a stalling mechanism while wind and energy storage mature, along with enhanced geothermal or engineered geothermal.  The real problem is the people who have developed the technology for nuclear generation want to use it (sell it and make a buck) and the people who stand to lose trillions of dollars if ban burning coal.  Waste heat is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.  It is more attractive to build a new power plant and employ several hundred workers, and employ coal miners to mine the coal and railroads to transport the coal, than to upgrade an existing plant and save tens of thousands of consumers a fraction of a cent per kwh.

    On We've got no choice but nukes and carbon-capture tech, says Jeffrey Sachs posted 5 months, 4 weeks ago 35 Responses

  • There is absolutely no reason that GHG emissions growth cannot be stopped in its tracks, without serious economic harm.  The power output of existing power plants can be increased by use of the Organic Rankine Cycle.  This can also be used with various industrial processes that produce waste heat.  This will provide a buffer while new technologies such as wave power and enhanced or engineered geothermal are developed.  This is not a time for finger pointing as to who put the CO2 into the atmosphere.  The developing countries have an advantage in that they have not already built the power plants.  Shutting down an existing polluter is much more difficult than not building it in the first place.  The consequence of not dealing with climate change are so severe that no one in their right mind would ignore it.  Put tariffs on goods from any country that does not cut CO2 emissions.

    On Nicholas Stern's heresy: conceding the West's climate burden posted 6 months ago 2 Responses

  • This is in response to Mr. Johnson's comment.

    This will depend on what you call greener.  Unless you wish to deny the basic relationship between CO2 and temperature, or are ignorant of it, greener appears to mean avoiding a man-made environmental catastrophe.  I think a better name for climate change or global warming would be global flooding.  There will be lots of jobs in the future for architects, civil engineers, and moving fan drivers as humanity faces the reality of rising sea levels.  Anyone who has seen the historical graphs of CO2 versus temperature could only come to one of three conclusions:

    1.  Rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures

    2.  Rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels

    3.  Some outside factor(s) cause both to move in sync


    There are those who claim that rising temperatures cause the oceans to release CO2.  While gases are less soluble in warmer liquids, from what I have read, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorbing CO2, so that appears to dispel option 2.


    I am assuming that Mr. Johnson is aware of the fact that CO2 absorbs the wavelength of radiation that is re-radiated into space by the earth, thus causing the increase in temperature that we are observing.  That is the basis for the science.

    I have not heard of any outside factors that have not been explained by the climate scientists.

    In case Mr. Johnson does not believe that we are warming, I can partially understand that.  I did a bit of research on my own a few years ago.  My premise was that people who lived in warm climates do not notice any difference in temperature.  I live in a Minneapolis suburb, and summers do not appear to be any different than 40 years ago, however winters have changed drastically.  I researched temperatures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, from 1960-1967 versus 2000-2007.  July highs are 1.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Hardly noticable.  July overnight lows are 4.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Who notices overnight lows in the summer?  January highs are 6.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  This is noticable.  January overnight lows are 9.x degrees warmer than 40 years ago.  Very noticeable.  Mr. Johnson is not going to have to deal with the most serious consequences of global flooding, but Mr. Johnson's grandchildren may have to put up with million of refugees in this country who have to relocate because  Miami, or Houston, or NYC has flooded.

    On Tennessee rep accuses Gore of trying to profit from climate bill posted 7 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses

  • In the upper Midwest we burn alot of natural gas to heat homes.  Much of this demand can be replaced by geothermal heat pumps.  The federal government recently removed the cap on the 30% tax credit.  I have urged my legislators to match that at the state level for new residential construction.  That would make a very strong incentive for new home builders to install geothermal heating systems rather than a fossil fuel solution, putting a cap on natural gas demand.  Since these are very good systems, more modest incentives on retrofits should be sufficient to get some homeowners to switch and start to reduce demand for natural gas.  While geothermal systems are expensive, the costs can be kept down by following the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency guidelines, which state that the heat pump should be sized to 60%-70% of maximum load, with supplementary heat picking up the rest.  In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, that should be about $15,000 for a 3 ton system and $18,000 for a 4 ton system before any tax credits or rebates.  A 3 ton system should cost 3 x $2200 = $6600 for the loop field, $4000+ for the heat pump, and a few thousand $ for the pump pack, supplementary heat, and hooking it up.

    On Is the Obama administration backing away from LNG terminals? posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Another suggestion

    The report probably has not gotten to geothermal heat pumps yet for home heating.  In the upper midwest, natural gas is widely used for home heating.  In my opinion, this is too valuable a resource to waste by burning directly in our homes.  I have submitted suggestions to my legislators, to no avail, that in Minnesota we should:

    1.  Match the 30% tax credit for geothermal heat pumps for new residential construction.  Along with the federal tax credit of 30%, this would give homebuilders a very strong incentive to put in geothermal heat pumps and not a fossil fuel heating system.

    2.  Use part of the stimulus package to fund one $3000 grant per legislative house district for homeowners who are replacing their heating system with a geothermal system to follow the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency guidelines.  Many contractors are not familiar with these guidelines, and install systems that are too large.  I have analyzed my system and agree with the Canadian guidelines.

    3.  Make low interest loans available for homeowners installing geothermal systems.

    As far as I know, most geothermal systems are manufactured in the US.  Also, installation of the loop field is labor intensive.  An added benefit is that with enough systems installed, it drives down the price of natural gas.  This will make CHP more affordable and combined cycle power plants more affordable, reducing the cost advantage of coal.On Duke University's study on the intersection of green jobs and rust belt manufacturing posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Climate change top priority

    Let's keep health care in perspective, we are all going to die.  When the house is burning down, we need to worry a bit less about grandma being sick.  The only thing that is higher priority than climate change is controlling weapons of mass destruction(nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons).On Will coal fight continue if governor is tapped for Obama Cabinet? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • No new coal plants

    Until carbon sequestration is reality, there should be no new coal plants built.  WOW Energies of Sugarland, TX claims to be able to upgrade existing plants for $1800/kw, versus $2500/kw for a new power plant.  They are easily the low cost option since they use waste heat as their fuel.  Also, a large number of homes in the US that currently burn fossil fuels to heat their houses could be heated with geothermal heat pumps, freeing up natural gas for electricity generation.  If the COP of the heat pump is 3.7, and the natural gas was burned in a 60% efficient combined cycle power plant, and 7% line losses, natural gas consumption would be 46% of what a 95% efficient natural gas furnace or boiler would use.  That is assuming none of the electricity comes from renewable source such as wind or solar.  I buy all of my electricity from our local 'WindSource' program.  The cost of installing a geothermal system can be kept down by following the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency guidelines, what state that you should size it to be 60%-70% of maximum load.  I do not believe this is common practice, but I believe it to be correct after analyzing weather data from a local airport.On Senators prod DOE pick Chu for his thoughts on various energy sources posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

  • Waste heat

    First, we certainly cannot build any new coal plants.  Second, many if not all of the existing coal plants could be upgraded using the Organic Rankine Cycle to get more power and not burn any more coal.  This would be a temporary while new technologies are developed.  We certainly need more conservation.  I do not know what technologies will eventually win out, but the whole world is working on clean energy.  We really need to avoid any bad big decisions, and building 100 new coal plants is a bad big decision.  I think eventually wind and enhanced geothermal will be huge.   Also microgeneration using hydrogen fuel cells in the home.  The hydrogen of course needs to be produced cleanly, which could be done with electrolysis, but a cheaper method may have to be devised.  The organic rankine cycle can also be used at many idustrial sites to recover energy from waste heat.On EPA board freezes construction of new coal-fired power plants in U.S. posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

  • Geothermal and radiant floor heat

    Radiant floor heat is exceptionally good with geothermal heat pumps, especially if the floor is uncarpetted.  Carpetting acts as an insulator.  I heat my Minnesota home with geothermal and forced air.  I calculated how much it cost to heat my house a few winters ago, how much it would have cost with a 95% efficient natural gas furnace, and how much it would have cost with radiant floor heat and uncarpetted floors.  The costs were $410 for my present system, $855 for a gas furnace with gas at $9.50 per million btu, and $290 if I had a geothermal heat pump and radiant floor heat.  The heat pump is much more efficient if it can output water at a lower temperature.  With an uncarpetted floor, it outputs the water at 85 and has a COP of 4.7.  My forced air system has a COP of 3.3.  If the floor were carpetted, the water would have to be output at 100 F, which would result in a COP of about 4.On Umbra on radiant heating posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

  • Incremental carbon tax

    Imposing a large carbon tax in one step would scare alot of people away.  Some congressman introduced or talked about introducing a carbon tax of $10 per ton, every year.  That is probably too high.  By my calculations that came out to $0.09 per gallon of gas.  While I think that is quite reasonable, I doubt it would fly politically.  $5 per ton, every year, for 40 years would probably fly if the proceeds were used to reduce other taxes and give massive rebates or subsidies for energy efficiency.  The tax could also be selective, in that we could raise the gasoline tax $0.03/gal every year, a tax on coal a certain amount, etc, including CO2 produced by livestock.  The savings will start to occur a few years down the road as people trade in their cars and know that the price of gas will increase every year, no matter what the market does.  Ditto for all other use of fossil fuels.On He proposes a carbon tax, assuming it will fail posted 2 years, 4 months ago 12 Responses