Bush's favorite way to discuss energy is in terms of "energy intensity" of an economy, that is, the amount of energy used (or pollution output) per unit of GDP. When I went looking for stats, I was surprised to see that as of 2004, China's economy was actually more efficient than the US (ref 1). I'm sure that has changed in the last few years, but we're still not talking about huge differences between China and the US, just fractions. And this is despite the fact that all of China's recent economic growth has been based on construction and manufacturing, while ours has been in services--consulting, i-banking, dot coms--that are far less energy intensive industries.
I can only account for this because of our horrible leadership. Bush is probably the most backwards leader on the planet regarding energy. None of the candidates for 2008 are anywhere near as bad as he has been. We have stood in the way of climate change agreements (ref 2), and our standards for efficiency are lower than even China's (ref 3, p. 9). At least China and India have the excuse that they have hundreds of millions of people living without access to electricity, and they should be able to expand their infrastructure enough to get those people the bare minimum. Our excuse is that, as the richest economy in the world, we can't afford to adapt? That we developed the Hummer, and aren't about to stop driving it?
Furthermore, I have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of energy intensity. As we learn in high school econ, GDP is made up of government expenditures + investment + net exports + consumption, with consumption being the majority. Why then should we be allowed more emissions since we consume more than other countries? Our standard of living is the highest, our consumption is the highest, why should this give us the right to pollute more?
Finally, the common argument that we can't afford to adapt our economy to be more energy efficient is backwards. Many conservation measures, for example green buildings, will have a net positive effect on our economy. They pay for themselves within a year or two, and then save money for their entire lifetime after that, which, for a building, could be 100 years. Second, developing the skills and technologies to conserve and use renewable energy will be a huge growth factor in whatever economy takes on the challenge. If we let Germany or Japan build the best solar cells, then we are sacrificing a market that is potentially worth trillions of dollars. Shouldn't we try to be the world leader in these new industries? We have seen what happens to our auto industry when they fail to innovate--they become overtaken by more efficient Japanese cars. Let's not let this happen to the rest of our economy.
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Energy_Intensity.png
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ex=1355634000&en=890e7680d210f8c4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
3. http://theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf page 9
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Time for Solar
Our priorities are out of line. In our war in Iraq, we've spent far too much money and too many lives for oil rather than working for a cleaner, more sustainable energy source.
Thomas Friedman published another wonderful article in the NY Times explaining why we need to do something about energy. To illustrate how far we are behind other countries in our fuel effiency, here is a figure showing the current emissions standards in California and the US as a whole compared to other countries.
Please, check my sources:
Iraq: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm
nuclear R&D www.ne.doe.gov/budget/neBudgetfY07CongRequest.html
other energy R&D: www.ncseonline.org/Affiliates/Handbook/cms.cfm?id=904#9-2
CAFE standards by country: theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Climate Change Primer
The Problem
At its essence, the climate change argument is simple and irrefutable: as humans burn fuels, we emit the products of the combustion reaction into the atmosphere. We learn in high school chemistry that a combustion reaction emits CO2:
CiHjOk + (−k/2 + i + j/4)O2(g) → iCO2(g) + j/2 H2O(g)
As we burn increasing amounts of fuel, we are making changes to our environment on an unprecedented level. Measurements of the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) since 1000 AD are well known, an example is shown in the figure to the left. Since the industrial revolution, the levels of GHG in our atmosphere have been exponentially increasing along with our fuel consumption.
While it is clear that we are impacting our climate on an enormous scale, the consequences are not all known or universally accepted; the global warming debate is much more complicated than the climate change debate. Global mean temperature records in figure 2 show a striking correlation–increasing temperatures over the same period of increasing GHG concentrations, though including a dip in temperatures in the 1970’s due to global cooling from particulate emissions. The temperature increase of about 1°C over the last 100 years may not sound like much, but only about 8°C separates the hottest recorded years in history with the depths of the coldest ice ages.
CiHjOk + (−k/2 + i + j/4)O2(g) → iCO2(g) + j/2 H2O(g)
As we burn increasing amounts of fuel, we are making changes to our environment on an unprecedented level. Measurements of the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) since 1000 AD are well known, an example is shown in the figure to the left. Since the industrial revolution, the levels of GHG in our atmosphere have been exponentially increasing along with our fuel consumption.While it is clear that we are impacting our climate on an enormous scale, the consequences are not all known or universally accepted; the global warming debate is much more complicated than the climate change debate. Global mean temperature records in figure 2 show a striking correlation–increasing temperatures over the same period of increasing GHG concentrations, though including a dip in temperatures in the 1970’s due to global cooling from particulate emissions. The temperature increase of about 1°C over the last 100 years may not sound like much, but only about 8°C separates the hottest recorded years in history with the depths of the coldest ice ages.
Global temperatures fluctuate periodically, and the next figure shows that the correlation between GHG concentrations and temperatures holds remarkably well for the last 400,000 years. The figure also shows that the earth is now hotter than it has been for the last 100,000 years and near the hottest temperatures recorded on earth for the last 400,000 years. Current greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than ever recorded, with methane, a particularly important greenhouse gas,at more than twice its record high.
The climate models cannot explain the recorded temperatures without including the effects of human activity, as shown in the next figure.
Atmospheric concentrations of GHG are integrals of the amount we emit, which is projected to grow exponentially for the near future. Global temperatures take some time to adjust to atmospheric GHG levels, so even if all GHG emissions stopped today, the planet would continue to feel the effect of past emissions for the lifetime of the GHGs in the atmosphere, hundreds to thousands of years.
The vital questions are: 1) as we continue to emit GHGs, what are the effects to our climate? 2) How can we adapt to or mitigate the consequences of projected increasing GHG emissions?
The vital questions are: 1) as we continue to emit GHGs, what are the effects to our climate? 2) How can we adapt to or mitigate the consequences of projected increasing GHG emissions?
Consequences
There are the known knowns, the known unknowns,and the unknown unknowns. Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known: gases in the atmosphere absorb energy radiated from the earth, trapping some heat in the earth. Warmer ocean surfaces result in more severe tropical storms. A warmer climate leads to expanding deserts but longer growing seasons. Melting glaciers raise global water levels. As glaciers melt, methane clathrates trapped in glacial ice are released into the atmosphere, further increasing GHG concentrations.
Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known to have an effect on the environment, but it is not known if the feedback loop is positive (reinforcing the trend of warming) or negative (pushing back, and cooling the climate). Examples include clouds: warming increases evaporation and thus cloudiness; it is not known whether clouds will increase temperatures by blocking in heat (water vapor is also a GHG) or decrease temperatures by increasing albedo.
The unintended and unknown consequences of climate change could potentially become the worst. Until several years ago, the major heat flows around the world were not understood, and the importance of the slowing of the vital Thermohaline Circulation was not understood. We now know that this ocean current keeps Northern Europe 20 °C warmer than other locations at the same latitude, and as a warming earth shuts down the THC, Northern Europe may quickly resemble Newfoundland. Before literally watching a glacial ice shelf melt in weeks in 2002, we didn't understand how quickly the ice could melt.
A prudent policy would take into consideration major threats due to climate change. What are the consequences of a Katrina every decade or every year? If global sea levels rise quickly, major population centers will be displaced and buildings will be lost.
Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known to have an effect on the environment, but it is not known if the feedback loop is positive (reinforcing the trend of warming) or negative (pushing back, and cooling the climate). Examples include clouds: warming increases evaporation and thus cloudiness; it is not known whether clouds will increase temperatures by blocking in heat (water vapor is also a GHG) or decrease temperatures by increasing albedo.
The unintended and unknown consequences of climate change could potentially become the worst. Until several years ago, the major heat flows around the world were not understood, and the importance of the slowing of the vital Thermohaline Circulation was not understood. We now know that this ocean current keeps Northern Europe 20 °C warmer than other locations at the same latitude, and as a warming earth shuts down the THC, Northern Europe may quickly resemble Newfoundland. Before literally watching a glacial ice shelf melt in weeks in 2002, we didn't understand how quickly the ice could melt.
A prudent policy would take into consideration major threats due to climate change. What are the consequences of a Katrina every decade or every year? If global sea levels rise quickly, major population centers will be displaced and buildings will be lost.
Economical Solutions
Conservation can be effective and easy. For example, we could reduce the "vampire load" (so called because it sucks you dry at night) which comes from plugged in electrical devices on standby such as TVs and phone chargers and accounts for about 10% of the US electricity consumption. The US policy on auto emissions, which account for 25% of GHG emissions, is reprehensible, as even China is due to pass tougher standards by 2008. As shown in the next figure, increasing automobile power and weight have offset gains in engine efficiency to lower fuel efficiency of new cars sold in the US since 1980.
Market-based solutions such as cap-and-trade systems or taxes on negative externalities have solved similar problems. To deal with acid rain, a cap-and-trade system was implemented for SOx and NOx emissions at less than one quarter the projected cost.
Increased funding for research may lead to the much talked about "technological fix.'' Rather than lag behind, if the US takes the lead on global initiatives on GHG emissions, we can create incentives for R&D to solve major problems in the field, and US firms can become leaders in the industry. If we continue to elect leaders who not only drop the ball but kick it farther away, we will fall further behind in important future industries, just as US car makers fell behind Japanese firms as fuel efficiency became more of a factor in the last several years.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Livestock's Long Shadow
A recent report by the UN and a story in the NY Times raise some issues about food. As a triathlete, food is very important to me (eating is commonly known as "the fourth sport"). As an environmentalist, I now know to take it seriously because of the UN Report "Livestock's Long Shadow." The takeaway message from this report is that you can reduce your carbon footprint more by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.
The argument goes as follows: getting your calories from meat is much more energy intensive than getting the same number of calories from plants. Because animals need to breathe, move a little, chat, or whatever else they do to pass the time while they get fattened and prepare to meat their maker, they are inefficient converters of plants into protein. After you consider all the methane released in cow farts, the energy it takes to fatten a cow, move it to the slaughterhouse, cut out the bones and fat and skin, package the meat, and get it to the grocery store, you've released 10 times as many greenhouse gasses as if you'd just eaten the corn yourself and skipped the middle-pig.
The NY Times article doesn't touch energy issues, it addresses health. In notes the twin key trends over the last 30 years: 1) people have become increasingly health- and diet-conscious, leading to a proliferation of health foods and nutritional products and 2) people have become less healthy, more prone to diabetes, fatter, more oft-stricken by heart attacks. The recommendations made are essentially to eat less, eat unprocessed food (produce), and eat less meat.
If you aren't yet concerned about eating meet, check out the webiste www.goveg.com, which, while a little heavy-handed, may give you second-thoughts next time you buy a sausage.
Finally, I'd like to argue the 80% case: even meat lovers can stand to eat less meat. The average American diet includes far more protein than is necessary or healthy. So if going "whole hog" is too much to ask (it is for me), try to become an 80% vegetarian. Or any percent vegetarian. Every so often, try to order something without meat when you would have otherwise gotten meat.
The argument goes as follows: getting your calories from meat is much more energy intensive than getting the same number of calories from plants. Because animals need to breathe, move a little, chat, or whatever else they do to pass the time while they get fattened and prepare to meat their maker, they are inefficient converters of plants into protein. After you consider all the methane released in cow farts, the energy it takes to fatten a cow, move it to the slaughterhouse, cut out the bones and fat and skin, package the meat, and get it to the grocery store, you've released 10 times as many greenhouse gasses as if you'd just eaten the corn yourself and skipped the middle-pig.
The NY Times article doesn't touch energy issues, it addresses health. In notes the twin key trends over the last 30 years: 1) people have become increasingly health- and diet-conscious, leading to a proliferation of health foods and nutritional products and 2) people have become less healthy, more prone to diabetes, fatter, more oft-stricken by heart attacks. The recommendations made are essentially to eat less, eat unprocessed food (produce), and eat less meat.
If you aren't yet concerned about eating meet, check out the webiste www.goveg.com, which, while a little heavy-handed, may give you second-thoughts next time you buy a sausage.
Finally, I'd like to argue the 80% case: even meat lovers can stand to eat less meat. The average American diet includes far more protein than is necessary or healthy. So if going "whole hog" is too much to ask (it is for me), try to become an 80% vegetarian. Or any percent vegetarian. Every so often, try to order something without meat when you would have otherwise gotten meat.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
How We Are Hungry
After a few blog posts, it is time to explain the name and theme of this blog. How We Are Hungry is a tribute to my favorite book by Dave Eggers. Though I don't think Eggers meant for the title to mean what I use it to stand for, perhaps he won't be offended at this tribute. This blog will be about our hunger, and the things we hunger for. It will be devoted to, in roughly equal parts, the things I am hungry for (triathlons, music, efficiency, food, cycling), and the things many others are hungry for (electricity, luxury, entropy).
As past readers may have discovered, this blog will be primarily concerned with energy: alternative energy, technology, and energy conservation and efficiency. It will address the climate change "debate". Such blogs can hopefully increase the awareness of the problems resulting from future climate change as well as some easy things we can all do to help in mitigation. I will highlight the degree of consensus among scientists that global warming: is happening, is caused by humans, and will harm us in the future. Such publicity is important as the public perceives there to be disagreement on this issue, and criterion for political action include
As past readers may have discovered, this blog will be primarily concerned with energy: alternative energy, technology, and energy conservation and efficiency. It will address the climate change "debate". Such blogs can hopefully increase the awareness of the problems resulting from future climate change as well as some easy things we can all do to help in mitigation. I will highlight the degree of consensus among scientists that global warming: is happening, is caused by humans, and will harm us in the future. Such publicity is important as the public perceives there to be disagreement on this issue, and criterion for political action include
- awareness
- consensus: if the situation is complicated, voters need to at least believe that the experts agree
- efficacy: a feeling that by acting, we can improve things
So, I hope to keep writing about these issues, and I hope you'll keep reading up on them. After all, it is hard to open a newspaper these days without seeing stories about energy. We clearly reached a tipping point in the last year, energy is no longer a fringe issue. Let's keep up the momentum.
Vampires that suck us dry at night
The "vampire load" on the grid consists of those little electronic devices we leave plugged in that glow and get slightly warm to the touch. DVD players, computers on standby, phone chargers, really anything with a transformer consumes energy even when turned off. Sometimes they use 75% as much power as when they are on! In Australia, these account for 10% of residential power use, according to a government survey. I'd guess it is a bigger share of commercial use, as printers, Xerox machines, lights, and computers are routinely left on every night.
To some energy wonks, this is a well known problem. There was some attention devoted to it during the blackouts in NY, including a NY Times article and an appleal by Mayor Bloomberg to conserve. There is a contest for copy machines that use the least amount of power when on standby. And one fantastic suggestion by another blogger is that Microsoft set all its machines to default to the highest energy saving mode, thereby saving the an estimated 45 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. But for most of us, this problem is not high on our priority list.
Since energy efficiency and conservation should be a high priority, what are some steps we can all take? Here are a few cloves of garlic to keep the vampires away:
To some energy wonks, this is a well known problem. There was some attention devoted to it during the blackouts in NY, including a NY Times article and an appleal by Mayor Bloomberg to conserve. There is a contest for copy machines that use the least amount of power when on standby. And one fantastic suggestion by another blogger is that Microsoft set all its machines to default to the highest energy saving mode, thereby saving the an estimated 45 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. But for most of us, this problem is not high on our priority list.
Since energy efficiency and conservation should be a high priority, what are some steps we can all take? Here are a few cloves of garlic to keep the vampires away:
- Set your computers to power saving modes that turn off the display and harddrives after some idle period
- Turn off lights and devices when not in use. Weren't we all taught this as kids?
- When possible, unplug things when not in use. Phone chargers, IPod docks, and laptop power adapters don't suffer when they are unplugged
Thursday, November 09, 2006
CA Voters Say, "Tax Grandma, not Exxon"
Overlooked due to the Democrats’ victories on the national level, the votes on CA state propositions provided two victories for Big Business: No for renewable energy and No on a cigarette tax. Oil companies spent around $100 million fighting against Proposition 87 to avoid paying a tax for extracting oil in California. The proposed 1.5% to 6% tax would have brought California in line with other states and raised between $200 and $500 million annually to be spent on alternative energy research.
Big Tobacco splashed out $55 million on the fight against Prop. 86, which would have taxed cigarettes to fund hospitals, tobacco-use-prevention programs, and cancer research. It appears the days are over when major tobacco companies were hauled to Washington DC and made to pay $200 billion.
While voters declined taxes of $4 billion over the next 10-20 years on oil companies that earned $286 billion last year and are set for another record year, they passed Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, that will cost taxpayers an estimated $74 billion.
These results are a boon to the Economics professors, who have been provided with a textbook example of revealed preferences to use in classes this year. Despite all the talk of climate change, including Britain’s headline-grabbing Stern Report on climate change and Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, even relatively progressive Californians aren’t prepared to put their money where their mouths are: guzzling gasoline at the pump.
Big Tobacco splashed out $55 million on the fight against Prop. 86, which would have taxed cigarettes to fund hospitals, tobacco-use-prevention programs, and cancer research. It appears the days are over when major tobacco companies were hauled to Washington DC and made to pay $200 billion.
While voters declined taxes of $4 billion over the next 10-20 years on oil companies that earned $286 billion last year and are set for another record year, they passed Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, that will cost taxpayers an estimated $74 billion.
These results are a boon to the Economics professors, who have been provided with a textbook example of revealed preferences to use in classes this year. Despite all the talk of climate change, including Britain’s headline-grabbing Stern Report on climate change and Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, even relatively progressive Californians aren’t prepared to put their money where their mouths are: guzzling gasoline at the pump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)