The End Of Global Warming

Because of our contacts and our interest in the global warming debate, we’ve been fully focused on what has become known as Climategate. Calls, e-mails and water cooler conversations about it abound. Despise our absorption with the topic, we realize that many are still unclear about what Climategate is and it involves.

As promised, here is another insightful commentary about it that offers interesting science--different from the politically correct view. Here frequent contributor Michael Economides is joined by meteorologist Art Horn.

Is Climategate the end of global warming? It surely reveals that there is not “consensus” as has been claimed.

Getting Warm In Here? Open A Window
The story of manmade global warming, the one for which “the science was all in,” is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant seeking scientists and academics, ratings obsessed television networks and opportunistic eco-activists. The recent outrage of “climategate” showed really only one thing: the motivations of the advocates and alarmists, headed by Al Gore, are every bit as political as most people have suspected. But there is some science and some data that need to be discussed and the science shows much different conclusions than what has been passed as the “consensus”. After the recent furor it is almost preposterous that President Barack Obama just pledged a “cut in emissions” in the upcoming Copenhagen successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

Climate change is real. The earth has been coming out of a 450 year cold era known as the “Little Ice Age” since it bottomed out in the late 1600s. Hundreds of studies have verified the existence of this cold period. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to erase the climate history of the last 1,000 years in its 2001 report. They replaced all the peer reviewed studies of past climate with one that fit their needs. The now defunct “hockey stick” graph showed virtually no significant change in temperature of the world over the last 1,000 years. Conveniently the graph then shows a rapid and abrupt increase in global temperature during the last 100 years. This is of course due to our sin of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of global warming.

The only “evidence” that human activity is causing global warming has been computer models. These models take what the people who develop them know about how the earth’s climate system works and attempt to predict the future. Computer models are not evidence. Evidence is something real, something concrete. The creator of the model can make it say whatever the creator wants it to say by adjusting parameters.

From this people have conjured up all sorts of climate disasters, movies, concerts, fixes and swindles with their varied political and economic benefactors and, of course, victims.

There was a study done in 2007 that showed the failings of computer model forecasts. The models showed that there exists a global warming “fingerprint” in the air. This fingerprint is a dramatic warming of the atmosphere, not on the ground but up twenty to fifty thousand feet in the air above the tropics. If this fingerprint is not there then the current global warming theory is wrong. The 2007 study revealed that real world temperature observations by weather balloons over a 50 year period showed no global warming fingerprint at all, none. The computer models had grossly overestimated the warming over the tropics. Real world observations trump computer models. Despite this revelation the climate alarmists continued to trumpet the coming doom if we don’t change our sinful ways. To do otherwise would threaten government grants to colleges and universities, research facilities and government agencies. Large corporations are developing eco-friendly technologies to replace fossil fuels and brokerage houses are looking to cash in big time on the evolving carbon trading markets. The United Nations is looking to use climate treaties to wrestle control of carbon emissions from independent nations. This will elevate the United Nations and its leaders to the role of effectively ruling the world energy consumption as a one world government authority.

Enter 2009 and a new study by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi from MIT. As background we start with the prevailing predictions. The climate models say that as the oceans warmed by one degree celsius from the 1980s into the 1990s the amount of heat escaping to space would decrease. More heat would be trapped in the atmosphere, ultimately due to the burning of fossil fuels. The warming of the oceans was natural. All part of the large multi decadal temperature changes that have been known for years. Now if only we had a way to measure the amount of heat going out to space. If we did we could get some answers. We do, it’s called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE). It was in orbit above the earth measuring outgoing longwave radiation (heat) for sixteen years from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. This is very significant. Now we had a tool, real world data that we could compare to the computer model predictions. It is the ultimate climate system umpire.

The results were stunning. The computer models, all eleven of them predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing.

The satellite data inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong. If the atmosphere is not trapping heat generated by warming oceans then there is no manmade global warming taking place. The atmosphere compensated for the additional heat by opening the window a little more. The theory of global warming is lying on the canvas bloodied and dying. Alarmists will attempt to revive the carcass with even louder cries of impending doom and calls to repent. But increasingly this clamoring will fall on deaf ears. Science will ultimately prove the winner and the world will bury global warming in an icy grave where it belongs.


Prof. Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and also Editor-in-Chief Energy Tribune Houston, TX. Art Horn is a meteorologist who has worked for CBS, NBC and ABC.

Climategate; This Changes Everything

The airwaves have been abuzz and the internet has been on fire with emails and forwarded articles addressing what could turn out to be the biggest scandal since Watergate: the hacking or insider release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia—which has been dubbed Climategate. Even youtube videos have been popping up! While those of us who work with global warming issues have been deeply immersed in this game-changer, many have heard nothing about it or have only heard a snippet and wonder what all the noise is about.

The news is still relatively new—just few days old—and we will surely have many more postings about this, but this one offers a great summary of the issue and the potential consequences. Here Michael Fox, a regular contributor to CARE’s Blog, shows why this news should change everything in the climate change debate and end the push for cap and trade.

Read on. Learn what all the noise is about. Pass this on to everyone you know. It is big news. What do you think? Add your comments.

The Collapse of the Global Warming Myth
If this scandal of November 20, 2009 continues in the horrendous path it’s taken, it should be the end of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. Beyond the warmers inability to prove their simple hypothesis after more than 20 years and $80 billion dollars, has been their collective bullying behavior patterns. This bullying has been so outrageous and out of character of honest scientists, that it is as offensive as it is noticeable. This behavior suggested to me that this group of people were being less than honorable in their conduct of their work.

In a speech last Spring in New York by John Sununu I was reminded that the climate warming leaders were high paid bullies who determined who got funded (the recipients of those $89 Billion), and who didn't, who got published and who didn't, and who got the acclaim, and who didn't. Much of this is now confirmed in the released emails from Hadley/CRU.

The release of 62 Mbytes of the climate research data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in computer files has been momentous, almost unique in human history (http://tinyurl.com/yha4lxn). During the 24 hours following the release of these 62 Mbytes of documents, emails, letters, and reports, all became public knowledge around the world and thousands are pouring over the contents.

While still in the beginning stages of analyses, gleaned information has been showing horrendous levels of corruption, suborning subterfuge and deceptions, and controlling the science journals in limiting publications of research which do not support the AGW hypothesis. I have never ever seen anything like this, so high level, so unethical, and so evil.

I say evil since the unproven AGW hypothesis promoted by these insiders, is the basis for the trillion dollar Cap and Trade legislation and the redistribution of trillions from the US to the rest of the world. It is the basis for the Copenhagen meeting coming up in December which is designed how best to cripple the economics of the west through increased energy costs and energy rationing. It is the basis for the EU and the UN asking the US to pay trillions in reparations to all of those 3rd world nations which have been "damaged" by global warming.

These nation members walk the halls of the UN promoting "justifications” for reparations for their "damages" and their need for our wealth. It is the basis for demanding green energy sources to be installed with trillions of our dollars all over the 3rd world. Green energy sources already installed in the 3rd world, are not working well either. This debate has profound global implications and I find it contemptible that adults, Ph.D.s or not, would works so fanatically to achieve these destructive goals.

I also point out the thousands of media, academics, environmentalists, legislators, and movie elites who have taken strong and powerful positions in this debate, as if the AGW hypothesis has been validated. It hasn't. All of them have failed to ask the simple question "Show us the evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming." That such people, presumed to be Americans, could promote and defend such a dangerous policy for our nation, is stunning.

Many of the global warming supporters seem to think that a photo of a polar bear on an ice floe is evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause!! The implied message is that this has never happened before, that man is causing it, that it is dangerous, which is all nonsense. They also seem to think that a photo-shopped video of a tidal wave roaring through downtown Manhattan is evidence of sea level rise, or that an iceberg calving from a glacier is evidence. We might also add that consensus is not evidence either, nor are appeals from high authority, nor are computer model predictions. If it weren’t for faulty computer models there would be no controversy at all, since real world measured evidence is still unreported.

Too few seem to have the wits to ask for a thermometer or ask for real Temp data, or sea level data, or hurricane data, or polar ice data. Also missing from the discussions is the large program needed to achieve high quality of all of the data, and how that is sustained. I have never seen a word of a Quality Assessment/Quality Control programs being used within the climate science realm. Then there is the entire issue of pathetically poor quality of the climate computer modeling programs. Anthony Watts at www.whatsupwiththat.com has undertaken to examine the low quality of the temperature stations and the low grade erratic temperature data they produce. His findings also show low grade station and data management as practiced by our climate agencies.

The British seem now to have realized the damage to all of science which has been done by the AGW crowd at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:

"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."

People in the media, academics, legislators, movie elites, and environmentalist group have been quite sympathetic to the AGW promoters, and with apologies to Sherlock Holmes they have been the “The Dogs Which Didn't Bark”. They knew or should have known that these climate crimes were being committed and they knew or should have known who was committing them. They not only did nothing to stop them, they attacked, insulted, and dismissed those who objected. These are actions of dangerous people, too, and are unforgivable.

Michael Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Hypocrisy of the "Green Movement"

Do you remember all the noise that was being made over ethanol by environmentalists during the Bush administration? Many individuals pointed out the limitations of ethanol but these voices were ignored because the greens were on board. Now environmentalists have flip-flopped on ethanol because they initially glossed over its limitations. This pattern is a familiar one and our CARE blog contributor Dennis T. Avery (Director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute) points out the hypocrisy of the "green movement" by realistically assessing several energy sources.

For example, clearing and plowing the massive amount of acerage necessary for using cellulosic ethanol releases huge amounts of CO2 into the air-one of the greenhouse gases that is allegedly causing global warming. Yet despite this grave concern over global warming, environmentalists in concert with the Obama administration have stopped spent nuclear fuel from being stored in Nevada. That's right! The environmentalists oppose opening the disposal site necessary to continue using nuclear power, the only CO2-free base load energy source Americans have access to. Of course, these hypocritical environmentalists pay no heed to the facts as does Mr. Avery. We invite you to read on as we are confident that decision making based upon facts rather than eco-ideology will change your views on energy for the better.

Greens Again Bait And Switch On Energy
Back during the bad old Bush presidency, the eco-movement loudly endorsed ethanol, particularly cellulosic ethanol, as a good eco-substitute for gasoline. Now they’ve changed their minds. They’re finally admitting that you can’t grow ethanol and food on the same acres. If you’re going to add ethanol to your shopping list, you need to clear more land to grow the feedstock. When forest or grassland is cleared and plowed, huge amounts of carbon stored in the soil gas off into the air. If Global Warming is man-made, this is a serious problem.

This gem of newfound wisdom has just been published in the October 23 issue of Science, and dutifully repeated by the Washington Post and the other Green media collaborators. The lead author is Princeton’s Tim Searchinger, formerly a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Where were these "environmentalists" when Bush and the Congress installed their ill-considered mandates for corn and cellulosic ethanol? Three full years ago, I did a study with the Competitive Enterprise Institute titled Biofuels, Food or Wildlife: The Massive Land Costs of U.S. Ethanol. I warned back then that making any useful amount of ethanol would force us to plow millions more acres of wildlands—first for corn and then for poplar, pine, and other fast-growing trees to make wood chips for cellulosic ethanol.

I warned there wasn’t enough land to go around. Nobody cared; because the Greens approved it. But the Greens are playing bait-n-switch. First it was solar, but the sun only shines for half of each 24 hours. Clouds interrupt too. How can we keep the lights on at the school and the hospital?

Then it was wind turbines. But a big EU power provider has testified that wind is so erratic you need 90 percent of your installed wind capacity matched in "spinning reserve"—burning fuel—from fossil or nuclear. Why bother to make the wind turbines at all?

Corn ethanol nearly doubled world food prices in three years, and is set to do it again whenever there’s a short corn crop. Cellulosic ethanol is still unworkable and the environmentalists are now telling us not to bother.

They don’t want us to have energy! Paul Ehrlich and Maurice Strong—the Canadian "grey eminence" of the UN—agree that the threat to the earth is "too many rich people." And energy is the key to the affluence. So we must tax away the energy.

What about more nuclear plants that don’t emit CO2? The Obama administration won’t allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored at Harry Reid’s Yucca Mountain, and it won’t permit reprocessing. Strike it off the list!

Now we learn that the energy-tax bills currently in the Congress contain a little clause that lets the White House renege on all those emission permits the big companies have sold their souls for—if CO2 levels go too high. That’s not temperatures too high, but CO2 levels in the atmosphere too high. So what if CO2 has almost no linkage to our temperatures? As the oceans recover from their Little Ice Age chill, the laws of physics guarantee higher and higher CO2 concentrations in the air. Talk about legislative sleight-of-hand!

Again I will warn the Green movement: If children are starving for lack of nitrogen fertilizer for the crops (made with natural gas); if elderly voters are literally freezing to death in their homes for lack of coal; those laws won’t be worth the paper they were drafted on (considerable as the paper piles already are).

In fact, the Congress itself will race to change the laws before you can say "tea party."

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net

How Environmentalists Are Killing American Energy

We've all seen it on television. America is in a deep recession. The national unemployment rate according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics has risen to 10.2%. People are losing their jobs, struggling to pay the bills, and what are environmentalists doing in response? They are systematically waging war against job-creating sources of affordable energy while promoting a fanatical religion known as "global warming".

CARE's most recent blog guest, Edwin X Berry, PhD, has been gracious enough to provide our readers with insights on how extreme environmentalist groups are Turning Off The Lights In America. He begins by telling us how an aluminum plant has recently shut down in Montana due to environmental regulations and outlines how the Environmental Protection Agency has been working diligently since 1988 to spread global warming propaganda. He tells us how credible scientists have been silenced for fear of losing their government jobs and updates us on how the EPA is trying to declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That's right! When you exhale as a human being the federal government wants to declare you a pollutant! He finishes off by building the case that global warming is a religion rather than a scientifically-based theory.

His writing is provocative, his determination is admirable, and his writings are credible as Doctor Berry is a respected atmospheric scientist. We at CARE strongly believe that this piece will help change your view of the global warming debate in America. Please read on!

How they are turning off the lights in America

On October 31,2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America's industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America's elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos started to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970's. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers to foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth's radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, "How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee * in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1973 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?"

He answered me by saying, "You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do."

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, "I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?"

He answered, "I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA."

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global warming propaganda.

The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government's tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming - now called "climate change" because it's no longer warming - come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California's AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been "clean" by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as "dirty" and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960's. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960's the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: "natural" conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion ... her many resources saved for whom?

References:

* R. Lee: "The 'greenhouse' effect" J. Appl. Meteor. 12, 556-557 (1973)

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner: "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics," Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)

International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html
Page 37: "Lee's paper is a milestone marking the day after which every serious scientist or science educator is no longer allowed to compare the greenhouse with the atmosphere."

Nuclear Power: Safer Than Ever

To help set the record straight on how safe nuclear power is, CARE has enlisted the aid of Michael Fox, a regular contributor to the CARE blog and a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor with nearly four decades of experience in the energy field. Professor Fox builds the case that since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, nuclear power has become considerably safer and should continue to be used in America for decades to come.

Some of the safety improvements discussed include: Reduced average number of "significant reactor events" over the past 30 years, fewer industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours, improved worker protection versus radiation exposure, reduced amounts of low-level nuclear waste produced by plant operations, and improved power plant operating capacity. Professor Fox also discusses lessons learned from Three Mile Island such as the need for enhanced training for reactor operators, the use of site-specific control simulators, and the well-established "culture of safety" throughout the nuclear industry. We have the utmost repect for Professor Fox and our readers can learn much from his expertise.

Safety Improvements in Nuclear Energy

An unrecognized improvement in U.S. nuclear plant safety shows that the lessons of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident still are being taken seriously. Nuclear power wouldn’t be making a comeback in this country unless that was the case.

Industry-wide data compiled by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), a utility organization that monitors nuclear plant safety and operations, shows a dramatic improvement in nuclear plant performance over the past 30 years. Among the changes is a reduction “to nearly zero” of the average number of significant reactor events, especially unplanned reactor shutdowns.

All safety indices show improvement since post-TMI reforms took hold. For example, in 2008 the industrial accident rate dropped to only 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours. Efforts to protect workers from radiation exposure and to reduce the amount of low-level nuclear waste produced from plant operations have also been successful.

Not surprisingly, the reliability of nuclear plants has risen along with the industry’s safety and operating record. In 2008, the median capacity factor of the 104 U.S. nuclear plants was 91.1 percent, meaning that plants were operating more than 90 percent of the time. That was the ninth consecutive year that the capacity factor was in the 90-percent range. By contrast, in 1979 the average capacity factor at nuclear plants was 56 percent.

The TMI accident occurred just three months after Unit 2 began operating when a valve malfunction compounded by human error in responding to the problem led to a loss of cooling water in the reactor core, exposing the uranium fuel assemblies and causing them to partially melt. One of the lessons that the accident taught us was that the signals on the control panel of a reactor needed to be improved so as to give the operators a clear picture of the state of the reactor at all times. Also, reactor operators needed better training, and weaknesses in some of the specific reactor designs had to be corrected.

Among the many changes that were made following the accident was the installation of site-specific control room simulators at every nuclear plant. The simulators are used as part of a continuous training program that INPO conducts for reactor operators. The goal is to ensure that a serious accident can never happen again.

One of the more important outcomes of the accident was the formation of INPO to conduct independent evaluations of plant operations and share reactor operating experience and lessons learned across the industry. INPO has used this data to set challenging benchmarks against which safety and plant operations can be measured. Though the results of its evaluations are not made public, INPO makes them available to plant managers. And lessons learned are shared among nuclear plant operators in this country and worldwide.

After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the World Association of Nuclear Operators was established with a mission patterned after INPO’s. Much of the credit for establishing both organizations goes to the late William Street Lee, who was chairman and chief executive officer of Duke Power Co., headquartered in Charlotte, NC Bill Lee, as he was known by colleagues, did much to instill a culture of safety throughout the nuclear industry that continues to this day.

That attention to safety is much in evidence at the TMI plant. Though Unit 2 was lost due to the accident, TMI Unit 1 has continued to operate.

Over the past decade Unit 1 has achieved one of the highest capacity factors in the country and has held four world records for continuous operation by pressurized water reactors, including a 689-day cycle that ended in October 2005.

The improved performance of Unit 1 – and other nuclear plants around the country – has enabled electricity companies to reduce the use of fossil fuel plants, particularly plants fueled with costly natural gas. But it has been the seriousness with which companies have taken safety that’s led to the renewal of operating licenses at nuclear plants and plans for building new plants. Let’s hope nuclear power will be available to meet America’s energy needs well into the future.

Debunking Myths To Lower Prices, Trim Emissions And Sustain Access To Energy

A new extensive report has just been released by one of our Blog Contributors: Tom Tanton. This report titled Top Ten Energy Myths offers insight into and facts on the myths that are permeated upon the public by the mainstream media. As an energy supporter, this report will give you valuable information to back up conversations you may have.

Why should you know about, understand and debunk the myths? Because, as these comments for the report's conclusion state, "Myths have consequences. Energy policy based on myths could easily curtail our energy supply, drive up prices, and even increase pollution, all without any increase in energy security. On the other hand, energy policy based on facts stands the best chance of increasing our supply, lowering prices, trimming emissions, and boosting our overall energy security. If that is their goal, policy makers, the media, and the public should reject energy myths and stick to the path of facts and reality. That way alone leads to energy abundance and security for America."

This posting is different from most of our Blog contributions in that what you see below is the press release copy that provides an overview of the study. Typically our Blog postings are shorter commentaries from noted energy experts—such as Tom Tanton. However, this report is 19 pages—a bit lengthily for this forum. We believe that once you read the overview, you’ll want to connect to the full report. The colorful document is full of charts, graphs and maps for quick reference. Print it out and pass it around!

Top Ten Energy Myths
The Pacific Research Institute, a free market think tank based in San Francisco, released a new report debunking the common myths about energy in America. Top Ten Energy Myths, by Thomas Tanton, senior fellow in Energy Studies, confronts ten popular myths about America’s energy sources, uses, and risks.

The report challenges conventional discourse about energy propagated by politicians, celebrities, and the media. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Top Ten Energy Myths clearly outlines the types of fuel most used in the U.S.—where they come from, the risks involved, and the potential for alternative technologies.

"Contrary to common belief, new technology has greatly reduced the environmental risk of oil extraction, and renewable energies such as solar and wind will not increase our energy security," said Mr. Tanton. "There is a plethora of unexplored options for securing energy in America through domestic sources, but misled confidence in renewable technologies and increased efficiency are hampering common-sense energy policy."

The list of top ten myths in the report are:
1. Myth: Most of our energy comes from oil.
Reality: Oil represents less than 40 percent of our energy use.

2. Myth: Most of our oil comes from the Middle East.
Reality: Two-thirds of our oil comes from North America.

3. Myth: We have no choice but to import vast quantities of oil and natural gas.
Reality: The U.S. could significantly reduce imports by expanding domestic production.

4. Myth: Offshore oil production poses environmental risks.
Reality: New technology has greatly reduced the risk of oil spills. Reducing oil reservoir pressure through extraction of petroleum will decrease the amount of oil pollution from natural seepage.

5. Myth: Reducing our petroleum use through alternative energies will increase U.S. energy security.
Reality: Reducing petroleum use will first reduce domestic production, not production in unstable regions. Renewable technologies are subject to import and price security concerns as well.

6. Myth: Energy companies will not invest in clean reliable energy so we need government programs to do so.
Reality: Energy companies are investing huge sums of money to develop cleaner and more reliable sources of energy.

7. Myth: Renewable energies will soon replace most conventional energy sources.
Reality: While growing fast in percentage terms, renewable energies are a very small fraction of our energy mix and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

8. Myth: The U.S. consumes large amounts of energy and thus emits a disproportionate amount of the world’s greenhouse gases.
Reality: The U.S. uses energy and emits a large portion of the world’s emissions because it produces a large portion of the world’s goods and services.

9. Myth: Federal mandates for higher-mileage cars means less energy consumption.
Reality: Increased energy efficiency leads to increased energy use.

10. Myth: Forcing drivers to use alternative fuels will help solve global warming.
Reality: Alternative fuels do not necessarily result in lower greenhouse gas emissions.

"Energy policy must be based on facts, not myths," said Mr. Tanton. "If based on myths, energy policy could easily curtail our energy supply, drive up prices, and even increase pollution, all without an increase in energy security."

"If our goal is to lower prices, trim emissions and sustain access to energy, then policy makers, the media, and the public should reject energy myths and stick to the path of facts and reality," concluded Mr. Tanton.

Barrel of Oil Cost to Increase by End of 2009

With uncertainty in the air about the future cost of a barrel of oil, CARE contacted our good friend Michael J. Economides, a nationally energy analyst, to provide us with some foresight. As a regular contributor to national TV and radio programs and PhD petroleum engineer that has performed technical and managerial work in more than 70 countries; Dr. Economides has both the credibility and expertise to predict how much a barrel of oil will cost in months ahead. With both international political calculations and oil-producing nation's economic policies guiding the future price for a barrel of oil, things can get confusing sometimes and it takes an expert to provide clarity. Below is Dr. Economies's case that the cost of a barrel of oil will soon increase from $80 per barrel to $100 per barrel.

$80 oil on the way to $100 by the end of 2009
Oil has been flirting with $80 per barrel and from the start of this year I have been predicting $100 oil before the end of the year. Almost all other analysts were predicting $40 to $60 oil. I am not quite ready to declare that I was exactly right and they were wrong but it looks like increasingly so.

There are obvious and real underlying reasons for the escalating oil prices which we will expound upon below but news headlines have ruled the price of oil since at least 2004. There was no real rational economic reason for almost $150 oil (which for people with short memories may seem to have happened last century – it happened a year ago, July) nor was there any reason for below $40 oil, which happened right after the late last year "crises" such as the economic crisis, the credit crunch crisis etc. In fact had it not been for those events delegating oil announcements to the seventeenth page of newspapers, a report by the International Energy Agency in Paris last November, which showed that world oil production from operating wells has been declining by 9.1 percent per year, the largest ever, would have shot the oil price to over $200. In fact, even now, there is a lingering possibility that a strike by Israel on Iran may close the Straits of Hormuz and will shoot the price overnight to the stratosphere.

The headlines started in 2004 and included the Abu Ghraib photographs, which increased enormously the fear factor in the Middle East, the re-Sovietization of Russia’s oil industry following the assault on Yukos by then President Vladimir Putin and the re-nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry by the Hugo Chavez government. That perfect storm of headlines created one of the most telling and repeatable events from 2004 to last year’s economic collapse. With escalating energy and energy product prices, every quarter ExxonMobil, the largest multinational oil company, would announce the biggest profits of any company in the history of the world and "Big Oil" would be in the mouth of many politicians in many countries as the devil-incarnate himself. And yet that very same day, mystifying to many people, their stock would plunge because in smaller letters they would announce that their oil production and reserves were declining. Shut out of reserves in some of the most prolific oil provinces of the world, such as Russia and Venezuela, international Big Oil was, and is, in trouble.

Recent hints of economic recovery and the price of the dollar are offered now as the reason for the oil price escalation. They are real reasons but they hide others. There should be no mistake: oil producing countries love $100 oil and they have little incentive to shoot themselves in the foot by increasing production. Neither the price escalation of the previous four years nor the oncoming one have anything to do with "peak oil". This will eventually happen but not for decades. Physically but not necessarily politically, the world can produce 130 million barrels of oil per day, compared to the current 85 million, but with proper investment and management and will.

Many of the oil producing and exporting nations are run by regimes that want the oil revenue not for technological and even business re-investment and long-term resource management but to affect other internal political and geopolitical aims.

Let’s look first at Russia. From 1998 and the admittedly imperfect privatizations that involved Yukos and Sibneft when the country produced 6 million barrels per day to 2005 when production escalated to more than 9.5 million barrels per day (almost 10% increase per year) Russia was the brightest spot in the international oil business. There was talk of increasing production to 12 million barrels per day which some Yukos executives touted as very realistic. Since then Russia has vegetated to about the same production and the tax regime and government control of the oil business can mean only one thing: imminent declining production and no incentive to do any of the spectacular things that Yukos and Sibneft became legendary for.

Venezuela is an even bigger factor, considering its oil dominance in the Western hemisphere. Before Hugo Chavez took office in 1999 Venezuela was producing 3.4 million barrels per day and there were concrete plans to increase that production by now to 6 million. Instead, after the massive firing of practically all petroleum professionals and the re-nationalization and expulsion of international oil companies, Venezuela is producing 2.6 million barrels per day, the lowest volume since the first nationalization in the 1970’s.

And of course Iraq, with a demonstrable ability to escalate its oil production to 6 million barrels per day has been languishing at 2 million. It may have been quieted down a bit but the sectarian violence is barely beneath the surface and the risks are still great. In a recent auction for oil blocks the interest by international oil companies was abjectly disappointing.

Saudi Arabia is the only country with excess production capacity, estimated at 2.5 million barrels per day, and this is a role that the country found itself once more, in the 1980s, when at the prompting of then US President Reagan it overproduced. The ensuing oil price collapse contributed greatly to the demise of the Soviet Union which depended on oil for almost all its foreign revenues. Russia today depends pretty much at the same level on oil and gas and Saudi Arabia has the capability, if it chooses, to bring enormous hardship on that and other oil producing countries. There is no evidence they will do so, considering it will bring huge hardship on them as well.

Finally, the signs of imminent Chinese exploding oil demand are already here. After phenomenal economic growth in the first seven years of this decade, oil demand was growing by annual double digits. A short-lived slowdown lasted for a few months after the dire headlines of last year’s economic crisis. But Chinese economic growth has bounced back to more than 8 percent. So did oil demand which just came in with vengeance. Last January and February, Chinese oil imports stood at 3.1 million barrels per day, compared to an average of 3.87 million barrels per day in 2008. But from March to June oil imports averaged over 4 million barrels per day and in July they jumped to an unprecedented 4.6 million barrels per day, close to a 20% increase over the average of 2008. (Source: China Customs, August 2009.) This level of imports inch towards the two-thirds of total demand that the United States has been experiencing.

All signs point that oil is on its way to $100 very soon and it will not stop there.

Prof. Michael J. Economides, University of Houston and also Editor-in-Chief Energy Tribune Houston, TX