Category Archives: Coal

The War on Coal or War for our Grandchildren and our Biosphere?

Earth from Space. Courtesy NASA & the American Taxpayer

Coral Davenport, in the New York Times, writes (here),

“President Obama could leave office with the most aggressive, far-reaching environmental legacy of any occupant of the White House. Yet it is very possible that not a single major environmental law will have passed during his two terms in Washington.

“Instead, Mr. Obama has turned to the vast reach of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which some legal experts call the most powerful environmental law in the world. Faced with a Congress that has shut down his attempts to push through an environmental agenda, Mr. Obama is using the authority of the act passed at the birth of the environmental movement to issue a series of landmark regulations on air pollution, from soot to smog, to mercury and planet-warming carbon dioxide.”

The coal industry skels from both parties consider this a “War on Coal.” Environmentalists could argue that it is a war for our grandchildren, a war for the biosphere, and even a war for a competitive 21st Century economy. Political hyperbole aside, it seems that any “War on Coal” is being waged by the methane and fracking industries, OPEC, and the “Invisible Hand” of the marketplace, not the President of the United States and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

Energy Portfolios: 20 Months: Conclusions & Observations

Conclusions:

The performance of most of the companies in these portfolios supports the hypothesis that a paradigm shift away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy systems is underway.
Investing in an index fund may have been more lucrative – and less stressful – than investing in the Fossil Fuel portfolio.
Investing in paradigm shifting technology, i.e., First Solar, Sunpower, GT Advanced Technology and Vestas may be very lucrative.
A diversified portfolio in paradigm shifting technology may also be effective. The “home runs” will more than make up for the “strike-outs.”
Investing in a well-run, or well-connected, company, i.e., Haliburton, in a declining industry may also be lucrative.

Observations:

The long term trend appears to be that investments in Sustainable Energy are likely to pay off in the long term and also, probably, the short term.
Investments in Fossil Fuels, however do not appear likely to appreciate in the near future, even in a “Bull Market,” such as we appear to be in. However, a speculator, i.e., a gambler, may be able to play various fossil fuel stocks, buying at lows and selling at highs. While I am not an investment professional, I personally, don’t know if this is worth the risk. I prefer to do my gambling in Atlantic City, New Jersey and Las Vegas, Nevada.
When considered against the backdrop of global geopolitics, i.e., Russia, which exports oil and methane, invading Ukraine, ISIS in Iraq and Syria threatening to take over Iraqi oil operations, other turmoil in the Middle East, a paradigm shift away from fossil fuels seems likely to insulate energy flows from remote geopolitical events and strengthen economies that have executed this paradigm shift. Therefore, investments supporting such a paradigm shift may do well, while investments supporting the existing paradigm may not.

Continue reading →

Energy Portfolios, 20 Months: Sustainable Energy up 229%, Fossil Fuel up 18.4%

On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars in equal imaginary investments in 16 real energy companies; $8.0 iMil in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 iMil in the fossil fuel space.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 30.16 % from 12/21/12.
The S&P 500 is up 39.3% from 12/21/12.
The Fossil Fuel Portfolio continues to dramatically underperform the reference indices. It is up 18.36% from Dec. 21, 2012 and down 5.67% from July, 2014.
The Sustainable Energy portfolio is up 229.19% from Dec. 21, 2012.

Continue reading →

In RE Carbon Dioxide – The EPA is Listening

Hurricane Sandy, NOAA handout satellite image taken on October 27, 2012.

Hurricane Sandy, via satellite, 10/27/12, NOAA

The people at the Environmental Protection Agency understand the issue of increasing atmospheric Carbon Dioxide above 350 PPM. And EPA is listening. EPA has held two public comment periods in New York City on 10/23/13 and will hold nine additional public comment hearings across the country to “solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants.”

Boston, MA	11/04/13	Philadelphia, PA	11/08/13
Chicago, IL	11/08/13	San Francisco, CA	11/05/13
Dallas, TX	11/07/13	Seattle, WA	11/07/13
Denver, CO	10/30/13	Washington, DC	11/07/13
Lenexa, KS	11/04/13

Click HERE to register.

And as President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly …”

Continue reading →

Carbon Sequestration: A Surreal Carbon Solution

What was once a mountain. image courtesy of Appalachian Voices. AppVoices.org

Writing in the New York Times, here, Joe Nocera, says,

Sometime this summer, in Odessa, Tex., the Summit Power Group plans to break ground on a $2.5 billion coal gasification power plant. Summit has named this the Texas Clean Energy Project. With good reason.

The people behind this project want people to believe that the energy the plant produces is clean. Mr. Nocera continues.

Part of the promise of this power plant is its use of gasified coal; because the gasification process doesn’t burn the coal, it makes for far cleaner energy than a traditional coal-fired plant.

The plant doesn’t burn SOLID coal. It gassifies the coal, then burns the gas. It’s still burning the coal. Only this process uses energy to gassify the coal. It then uses more energy to capture and sequester 90% of the carbon. Think, Mr. Nocera, how can this make CLEANER? Answer: It Can’t and it Doesn’t. But it can – and does – make it more expensive.

And what about the Arsenic, Mercury, Uranium that are embedded in coal? And the processes that dig coal out of the ground? Refer to Appalachian Voices for more on mountaintop removal.

Continue reading →

“Grandpa” Wen Worth $2.7 Billion: NY Times Blocked in China

Wen Jaibao, NY Times, 10/25/12

Guangxi River

Child in Linfen

The NY Times reported, here, that Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister of China, has amassed approximately $2.7 billion, and so according to the Guardian, here, access to the Times has been blocked within China by the “Great Firewall of China.” In term’s of China’s population, Wen’s family fortune is approximately $2.08 for every man, woman, and child in China. This is ¥12.978 , at current rate of ¥6.2465 CNY to the $1.0 USD. The Times also details the Wen family empire, here.

Nicknamed “Grandpa Wen” because of his reputation of concern for the underprivileged, or, in Marxist parlance “The Proletariat,” for there are no “Privileged” people in the People’s Republic, Wen has called official corruption a threat to the ruling Communist Party. He should know. This is what happens when a disregard for rights is coupled with tremendous power. However, given that the Chinese leadership has embraced a form of capitalism, wherein the people who run the state own or manages the corporations that produce things or allocate resources, it must be noted that China seems to be following a fascist political and economic model, rather than a Marxist or Maoist communist political and economic model.

What would Mao say? Hard to tell. He ate well during the “Bitter Years” from 1958 to 1962, when an estimated 15 to 43 million people died (wikipedia).

Political and economic theory aside, when coupled with what we know about air and water pollution, working conditions in Chinese factories and coal mines, official attitudes toward intellectual property (Business Week / Popular Logistics) , the challenge posed by a demographic imbalance of a population of 700 million men and 600 million women, cultural attitudes towards homosexuality, prostitution, and HIV AIDS; the long term prospects for socio-economic stability in China seem low.

A small boy walks through the smog of Donglu, on the outskirts of Linfen, where villagers have difficulty in selling their crops because of the severe pollution. Linfen, a city of about 4.3 million, is one of the most polluted cities in the world. China's increasingly polluted environment is largely a result of the country's rapid development and consequently a large increase in primary energy consumption, which is almost entirely produced by burning coal.

Linfen, a city of about 4.3 million, one of the most polluted cities in the world. Courtesy Greenpeace.

Air and water pollution in China, as documented by Elizabeth Economy in The River Runs Black, in 2004, ISBN: 978-080-1442-20-9, available at the Strand Bookstore, here, and also documented by Greenpeace here and here here and here, present tremendous long term threats to the people of China to breathe, drink, and to eat.

River Guangxi

As a public service to the people who make smart phones, laptops, routers, and clothing for use here in the USA, the NY Times article is reproduced below. It is not the policy of this blog to quote entire articles. However, given that the entire article – and the entire web-site – is blocked from within “The Great Firewall,” we have made an exception in this case. We trust that the writers, editors, and publishers of The Times will understand. Continue reading →

Question for John Kerry

40 KW Solar array on Whilehall St Ferry Terminal

40 KW PV Solar Array on SI Ferry Terminal

While Chinese subsidies of their solar energy industry have decimated the manufacturing base of the American solar industry, solar energy continues to expand across the country.

What if we stimulated the solar industry with a public works program?

What if we decided to deploy a 40 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array on each of the approximately 90,000 public schools in the country?

The best kept secret in NYC may be found on the Staten Island Ferry, or more precisely, on the south roof of the Whitehall Street terminal. It’s a 40 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array.

Taxpayers pay the electric bills of the ferry terminal, which today are much lower because of the energy the system produces. Taxpayers also pay the electric bills of public schools, courts and other municipal, state and federal office buildings – and the externalized costs of pollution and “health effects” related to mining coal and uranium, drilling oil or frakking gas.

I met Senator John Kerry at the Harvey Nash Inc. Leadership Breakfast at the Plaza Hotel in NYC on Friday, March 2, 2012. At the conclusion I asked him to consider a 40 kw photovoltaic solar energy system on each of the approximately 90,000 public schools in the US.

At $5.00 per watt, which is less than the cost of new nuclear and much less than coal with carbon sequestration, these 90,000 systems would cost $18 billion. They would produce electricity without burning fuel, creating wastes, or creating targets for terrorists, and would pay for themselves in eight to 15 years, depending on the market price of electricity. They would also produce energy for 25 to 40 years – paying for themselves several times over.

This kind of a public works project would create jobs. Even if we didn’t mandate that these used products made in American factories, which I think we should, installation and maintenance would have to be local.

It would also lessen our dependence on fossil fuels.

And each solar energy powered building could be designed to generate electricity during the day during an emergency which shuts down the grid, further enhancing our emergency response capability.

Senator Kerry responded that this would be a perfect project for the Infrastructure Bank that he wants to create. However, the political climate is such that it can’t get done.

Beyond Fuel – for the 21st Century – Cocoa Beach, Sept. 17

Tweet I will be presenting Beyond Fuel: From Consuming Natural Resources to Harnessing Natural Processes at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sept 17, 2011. The festival is sponsored by the Cocoa Beach Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. It will be at the Cocoa Beach Courtyard by Marriott. Haley Sales, (Website / Facebook / Youtube),a local singer / songwriter, will perform.

Hayley Sales

Our current energy paradigm today is to fuel based. We burn oceans of oil and methane mountains of coal. And there are consequences. We suffer oil spills, polluted water, mercury, coal mine disasters, nuclear power plant melt-downs, we fight wars …

According to the DoE, in 2010 we burned 1,085,281 thousand short tons of coal and 15,022 thousand short tons of coke (here).

Wind and solar don’t burn fuel. The winds blow, the sun shines, you put a widget in the path of those moving particles in the air or those photons of light and you get electricity – without greenhouse gases, radioactive wastes, toxic wastes, and it costs less. So the question is not ‘Can we meet our energy needs with clean, sustainable renewable energy technologies?” The real question are How? How Much? And How quickly?

100% Clean Energy
100 Gigawatts Wind	$300 Billion
100 GW Marine Hydro	$300 B
50 GW Solar	$200 B
50 GW Geothermal	$200 B
200 GW Equiv Efficiency	$200 B
A Smart Grid	$100 B
500 GW or GW Equiv.	$1.3 Trillion

And we could do it within 25 Years if we wanted to.

Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, coined the term “Negawatt” to mean energy you don’t need to buy, as in “The cheapest unit of energy is the one you don’t have to buy.” The next cheapest, the “nega-fuel-watt” is the unit of energy that doesn’t require fuel.

In Jersey Three Strikes Equals a Home Run

Tweet

Strike 1 – Solar Power

When the NJ Clean Energy Program started in 2001, there were six (6) solar energy systems and a nameplate capacity of nine (9) kilowatts. By December 31, 2010 there were over 7000 systems with a combined capacity close to 300 megawatts, MW, of solar electric generating capacity. In the first six months of 2011, another 100 MW was added, bringing the total to 400 MW by June 30, 2011. By these metrics, the NJ Clean Energy Program has been successful.

Continue reading →

"Beyond Fuel" at the Space Coast Green Living Festival

Green Living Festival

Tweet I am presenting “Beyond Fuel: From Consuming Natural Resources to Harnessing Natural Processes,” a discussion of the hidden costs, or “economic externalities,” of nuclear power, coal, and oil, and the non-obvious benefits of wind, solar, marine hydro and efficiency at the Sp ace Coast Green Living Festival, Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sept 17, 2011.

The festival is sponsored by the Cocoa Beach Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club Turtle Coast Group. It will be at the Cocoa Beach Courtyard by Marriott.

Continue reading →

Clean Energy, Good Jobs, and a Vibrant Economy … But

courtesy NASA (our tax dollars at work)

Tweet It sounds too good to be true:

*   100 gigawatts of offshore wind, $300 Billion,
*   100 gw of landbased wind, $200 Billion,
*   75 gw of solar, $300 Billion,
*   75 gw of geothermal, $200 Billion.
*   200 gigawatt equivalents of efficiency – $200 Billion.
*   100 & Clean, Renewable, Sustaianble Energy: 1.2 Trillion.
*   2.7 Million New Jobs and a Healthy Economy: Priceless!

This is happening, slowly, inexorably, by the “invisible hand of the market.” But it will happen faster if the “invisible mind of the community” acts. This means the government!

Continue reading →

Brookings, SAP, NRG, and the City of New York on our Energy Future

NRG Energy

Tweet Will moving to the new energy future – deploying Solar, Wind and other sustainable alternatives create 2.7 Million New Jobs?

At “How Cities and Companies Can Work Together to Operate in the New Energy-Constrained Economy” a panel discussion (press release), Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, said “2.7 million new jobs” will be created in moving to the clean energy / low carbon economy.

Mr. Katz also noted that two out of three Americans – 200 million people – live in the 100 biggest metropolitan areas, and those 200 million people are responsible for 75% of our GDP. High carbon energy is no longer cheap. The people in those metropolitan areas, and elsewhere, therefore, must act. Continue reading →

Would Ayn Rand be Concerned about Climate Change? You Betcha!

Tweet On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Climate Change

Ayn Rand would not “believe” in climate change. She would try to objectively determine whether the theory correctly modeled the data. While it is legitimate to question both the conclusions of scientists and the methodologies by which data are gathered, denying objective validity of the data, which people who call themselves “Objectivists” are doing with respect to climate science, is well, in a word, anti-Objectivist, at least as described by Ayn Rand in 1962.

“The essence of my philosophy” she said, is:

Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism

“Translated into simple language, ” she continued, “it would read:

“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
“Man is an end in himself.”
“Give me liberty or give me death.” Continue reading →

Keynes, Reluctance to hire, & 21ST Century Energy

in black and white, because some ideas are.

Tweet During the Great Depression the Classical Economists said “Unemployment is voluntary. Business owners will not voluntarily keep the means of production idle.” While he had been a student of classical economics, John Maynard Keynes observed that the data didn’t fit the theory. And, he reasoned, if the observable data don’t fit the theory, the theory must be flawed. “Business owners are risk averse,” he saw. “A employee needs to be productive, needs to make widgets. But if no one is buying widgets, then contrary to classical theory, factory owners will fire workers and keep capital idle rather than hire workers to create excess inventory. That’s just common sense.”

We see this today.

When unemployment was low, for example in the United States during the tech boom of the 1990’s, people acted on the premise that “There is so much work that we could hire and good people and train them.” Today hiring managers seem to be acting on the premise that “There are so many people looking for work that they can wait for the perfect candidate.” Perfection being unattainable, jobs go unfilled. This is ok, in this context, because

“Budgets are tight.”
“The future is uncertain.”
“Money not spent on a new hire can be saved or used to pay down debt.”

Keynes also observed that the government is an employer that does not need to worry about going out of business. Building infrastructure is government employment that is investment for the future. These observations are as valid today as they were 80 years ago.

Continue reading →

Why Cape Wind Still Matters

Tweet On May 25, 1961 President John Kennedy said, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” (Kennedy library and NASA)

Ten years ago, before Sept. 11, Jim Gordon and his team set out to build a small wind farm on the waters on which the young President, his wife, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews sailed. Size is relative. It’s small compared to a large coal or nuclear power complex. The wind farm will be composed of 130 turbines and produce up to 430 megawatts of power (here).

In 2010 Jim Gordon and Cape Wind, LLC, finally, got their permits to build the wind farm. For a variety of reasons it took longer for Cape Wind, LLC to get the permits to build the wind farm than it took this nation to land a man on the moon and bring him home safely. Had the wind farm been built by the winter of 2004, Cape Wind would have provided power during the bitter January of ’04, the heat wave of ’05, and every day, especially the coldest days of winter and the hottest days of summer – when the winds are strongest and New Englander’s electricity needs are highest.

It’s also clear, from reading Cape Wind, by Wendy Williams and Robert Whitcomb, that the alliance to “Save Our Sound,” created an anti-wind rogue’s gallery, a bipartisan coalition of moneyed special interests which led Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, Governor Willard Mitt Romney, R-MA, Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK, Representative Dan Young, R-AK, Sen. Trent Lott, R-MS, Sen. John Warner, R-VA, and very wealthy residents of Cape Cod, including Bill Koch, the late Richard Egan, Rachel “Bunny” Lambert Mellon (Sen. Warner’s ex-mother-in-law), professional environmentalist Robert F Kennedy, Jr. to obstruct the regulatory and the legislative processes and which slowed the development of Cape Wind and offshore wind farms off of the mid-Atlantic and elsewhere.

For them to oppose this project or say “I favor wind power, as long as it’s somewhere else,” was and remains cynical. Given that we have combat troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 described the mission in Iraq as a war for oil, was unpatriotic, perhaps traitorous.

Yet another bipartisan coalition rose up to challenge them and support Cape Wind: Ted Roosevelt, IV, who lives on the Cape, Rep. Jim Bass, R-NH, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, Matt Patrick, Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick, Greenpeace, unions, Fox News’ Sean Hannity. What these politicians have in common is an understanding of the values of energy independence and renewable energy.

Popular Logistics is a policy blog, not a politics blog. However, it’s worth noting that several political campaigns were won in Massachusetts by Democrats who supported Cape Wind, including Matt Patrick, the 5-term Democratic Representative of the 3rd District of Barnstable, Cape Cod, and Deval Patrick who started his 2006 Gubenatorial campaign in front of the Hull, MA, wind turbine.

Mitt Romney, who signed Ted Kennedy’s health care plan into law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (also known as Obamacare 1.0) appears to be running for President in 2012. He lost in the 2008 Primary to John McCain. Mr. Romney signed on to the Kennedy-Koch-Egan-Mellon anti-Cape Wind jihad. Americans favor wind power. Will they support Romney in 2012?

Scott “Mitt-Lite” Brown, said (here) “While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure.” Massachusetts voters favor Cape Wind 70 to 30. Will they support Brown in his re-election campaign in 2012? The Statue of Liberty is a “National Treasure,” as is the Constitution. I last visited Cape Cod when I was 7. Nantucket Sound is not a “National Treasure.” Getting America off coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, moving to clean, renewable, sustainable energy means our children and grandchildren will enjoy our national treasures.

In their book Williams and Whitcomb suggest that Senator Kennedy may have realized that he had made a bad decision in opposing Cape Wind, but that for a variety of reasons he refused to back down. They may be right. While I think Kennedy was wrong, I can’t speak to whether he came to that understanding. As I noted on this blog, back in August, 2009, (here) President Obama said of Ted Kennedy,”His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives: in seniors who know new dignity; in families who know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including myself.”

Obama said “More equal and more just,” but he didn’t say “perfect.” America is not perfect. It is nation of men and women governed by the rule of law. The laws are not perfect, and neither are the men and women who make, enforce and interpret the laws.

Our energy policy is electricity flows when people flip a switch. Most of that electricity comes from burning fossil fuels and harnessing nuclear fission. We can pretend that the carbon we are pumping into the oceans and the atmosphere will have no effect, that we have unlimited supplies of fossil fuels, and uranium, that all the waste from coal mining, processing, transporting, and burning, and all the radiation leaks from nuclear plants (and radioactive waste from coal) are trivial or routine. Or we can get real. The choice is between coal, oil, methane, and nuclear, or wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. I choose wind, solar, tidal and geothermal; for myself, for my backyard, not just for people who are my equal in the eyes of the law, whether they have more or less money than me.

—

Index to the series that explores Offshore Wind and Politics:

Cape Wind, Leadership and Vision, here.
Why Cape Wind Still Matters, here.
Ted Roosevelt, IV, on Cape Wind (coming soon).