The Tale Of Two Americas

There is a tale of two Americans playing out right before our eyes. In the state of Pennsylvania, there is an job-creation surge being fueled by the shale gas industry. In the state of California, there is a campaign to drive hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work by mandating the creation of "green jobs" at the expense of other sectors of the economy. The shale gas industry has sent up a flare of hope during dark economic times while environmentalists are doing everything they can do to prolong this recession.

According to Penn State University, "the shale gas industry's boom is creating 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania during 2010..." In contrast, "California's unemployment has soared from less than 5 percent to more than 12 percent since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act three years ago." See the difference? Embracing traditional energy sources like shale gas can turn back the tide of rising unemployment while government-mandated "green jobs" will exacerbate America's current economic plight.

In reality, the problem is much more complicated than this which is why CARE is pleased to bring you insights from Dennis T. Avery, an environmental economist and senior fellow with the Hudson Institute. We invite you to read his latest analysis so you have the knowledge needed to set the record straight and tell the tale of two Americas; one that embraces traditional energy sources and economic prosperity while the other embraces government-mandated "green jobs" and the economic misery that comes with it.

Green Jobs or Shale Gas? The Numbers Talk
The shale gas industry’s boom is creating 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania during 2010, according to Penn State University. Only a few of these new jobs are on drill rigs; many of those jobs go to highly-skilled oil patch veterans from out of state. But the gas industry’s expansion has created jobs by the tens of thousands in steel production, construction, and services.

More important, the clean, low-cost energy from the shale gas will go on creating additional jobs in every Northeast regional industry that needs energy—meaning all of them. The shale gas boom is creating similar huge job gains throughout Appalachia, Texas, and Louisiana, with the new shale drilling system also about to expand in the huge Bakken oil shale deposits under the Dakotas and Montana.

Meanwhile, the giant state of California has created only 48,000 "green jobs" over the 13 years from 1995 to 2008. Green jobs still make up only 1 percent of California’s economy. Worse, says State Senator Bob Dutton, the high energy taxes needed to create those few green jobs are at the same time killing millions of jobs in all sorts of industries across the state. California’s unemployment has soared from less than 5 percent to more than 12 percent since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act three years ago.

The governor promised that the global warming tax would "create a whole new industry to pump up our economy, a clean-tech industry that creates jobs, sparks new cutting-edge technology and will be a model for the rest of the nation and the rest of the world." Instead, the global warming taxes will drive up the prices of all non-renewable energy—as they were intended to do.

California taxpayers will now pay for wind turbines and solar panels made in China, while California has lost more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs. Business relocation specialist Joseph Vranich says he’s working full time to help companies flee California’s rising costs and restrictions. He warns that no one is calling about moving into the Golden State.

Senator Dutton points to CalPortland Cement, which has cancelled its California expansion plans and is considering a Nevada location instead. It recently closed a cement operation in Colton, laying off 100 workers.

That’s a preview of the "green jobs" impact. The manufacturing—and farming—will be done in places that don’t impose energy taxes. If the Congress imposes import tariffs, that still won’t provide cost-effective energy for American farming, manufacturing, or transport. With far less energy available, our standards of living must drop dramatically.

The Wall Street Journal reports the Southern California Public Power Authority is warning of a 30 percent hike in electric rates. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has told business to expect a 21 percent hike this year. LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says the city must raise rates because "the State is breathing down our necks . . . where we could be looking at fines of $300 million [in 2012] and $600 million on top of that."

All of this in spite of the low correlation between CO2 and our thermometer records—22 percent. The correlation with sunspots is 79 percent. Does Washington care? Or does President Obama want $6 gasoline, tripled electric bills—and $800 billion per year in energy taxes to "spread the wealth" among his allies?

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for 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.

Least Expensive Power for the Future--It’s Not What You Think

On March 25th, we had a great conference call with Robert Bryce. A call Participant had suggested Robert as a featured guest after seeing him on television with John Stossel. In that interview, Robert Bryce debated T. Boone Pickens regarding the “Pickens Plan” and the ability of wind to do what Pickens proposed. We invited Robert Bryce (author of Gusher of Lies and the forthcoming Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future) to join us and he did. It was a great discussion. If you have not listened to the recording, available on CARE’s website, we encourage you to check it out.

During the call, Robert pointed us to an article he’d written that very day and posted on his website. His article is based on a recent IEA Study called “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.” The study has not gotten much media attention—and you can expect it will not, as it does not affirm the popular views on electricity generation. We believe this is information all American’s need to know.

Give it a look. What do you think?

IEA: Nuclear Power is Cheap, Wind Energy Is Expensive
The wind energy lobbyists love to claim that installing new wind turbines is the cheapest form of new electricity generation capacity. In fact, I heard that very claim while at a party here in Austin a few weeks ago. But as usual, there’s the hype and there’s the reality.

On March 25th, the International Energy Agency, in cooperation with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency, released a study called “Projected Costs of Generating Electricity.” The results are yet another refutation that wind is the least-costly source of new generation. Using what it calls the “levelized costs of electricity,” a metric that includes key factors like the discount rate, construction costs, load factors, fuel prices, and carbon costs, the study found that nuclear power is the least-expensive option for new generation in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific when the discount rate is 5%. Meanwhile, wind energy was often the most expensive option regardless of location and whether the discount rate was 5% or 10%.

Levelized Cost of Electricity for Nuclear, Coal, Gas, and Onshore Wind Power Plants

Source: OECD

When the discount rate was moved to 10%, then nuclear remained cheaper than other sources in both North America and Asia Pacific. Indeed, at that higher discount rate, the median cost for nuclear power in Asia Pacific is less than half that of wind. But nuclear’s economics falter in Europe under a 10% discount rate making it slightly more expensive than both coal and gas, but it remains substantially cheaper than wind.
The study collected data from 190 power plants in 21 countries. And while the IEA included numerous factors in coming up with their estimate of costs, this text from the report is critically important:
The electricity generation costs calculated are plant-level (busbar) costs, at the station, and do not include transmission and distribution costs. Neither does the study include other systemic effects such as the costs incurred for providing back-up for variable or intermittent (non-dispatchable) renewable energies.


Those two sentences are telling. While the IEA report shows that wind energy is usually more expensive than conventional generation, their cost calculations do not include two of the most expensive--and controversial--aspects of integrating wind energy into a given electric grid: the transmission lines needed to carry wind-generated electricity to distant cities, and the cost of backup generation capacity that must be available to assure that the intermittent electricity supplied by the wind turbines doesn’t cause the grid to go dark.

Expect wind lobbyists and environmental advocates to downplay the importance of this IEA report. (For my recent article on earlier IEA and EIA projections on the cost of wind energy, go here.) But just look at the figures from the new IEA and consider the disparity in costs between wind and nuclear. Also look at the disparity in costs between wind and conventional generation, particularly in Asia. Then consider how much higher the costs of wind would be if all of the costs--that means adding in the transmission line costs and the backup generation costs--were factored into the equation.

The punchline here is abundantly obvious: Adding more wind energy to the US electricity grid will mean higher costs for consumers.

Robert Bryce's articles have appeared in dozens of publications ranging from the Wall Street Journal to Counterpunch and Atlantic Monthly to Oklahoma Stripper. Bryce, the managing editor of Energy Tribune, is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He lives in Austin.

Green Technology Means Higher Unemployment

There is a sense of frustration in America today; our government is taking concrete steps to drive up unemployment while millions of Americans are looking for work. People are fed up with the status quo and they want to get this economy moving again. Unfortunately however, the federal government is using green technology as a means to drive up unemployment and to prolong the recession. This claim may seem strange as it stands in contrast to the often presented picture that green technology will help solve our current economic woes; but in reality green technology is making the situation worse.

To help sort fact from fiction CARE is pleased to present Dennis T. Avery, a regular contributor and Senior Fellow with the Hudson Institute. As an environmental economist he builds the case that government-mandated green technology such as the "smart grid" is driving up unemployment in America just as government-imposed renewable energy is driving up unemployment in Spain. He also points out that federal mandates are benefiting Chinese manufactures as America imports wind turbines from the far-east. All the while our federal government is failing to help advance proven energy sources such as fossil fuels and until this changes, more American workers will be left filing for unemployment benefits...

Losing Jobs With Green Technology
President Obama has allocated $4 billion in "stimulus funds" to help advance the "smart grid," which is intended to seamlessly integrate all our new solar and wind power into the national supply of electricity. Much of the $4 billion will be spent to install 20 million new digital "smart meters." These meters will instantly tell the power company how to deploy its varied generating sources most effectively.

The "stimulus fund" goal is to create new "green" jobs. The Washington Post estimates that deploying the 20 million smart meters will create jobs for about 1,600 installers, and keep them employed for about five years. The manufacturing process for the meters will be highly automated, so only a few hundred jobs would be involved there. Still, 2,000 green jobs for five years, paid for by stimulus funds, must be good. Or is it?

Let’s think this through. The smart meters report automatically to the power company. We’ll lose 28,000 existing, permanent jobs for meter-readers. The Washington Post says all our "green" energy efforts are likely to produce only tens of thousands of jobs, not the millions of jobs needed to keep America at full employment.

A good Spanish study, led by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Juan Carlos University in Madrid, found that every renewable-energy job created by the Spanish government has destroyed 2.2 other energy-related jobs. Worse, every megawatt of expensive "green energy" has destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors as products became too expensive for consumers to buy—or as manufacturing shifted to countries without energy taxes. President Obama has held Spain up as a country for us to emulate, which only emphasizes that Calzada’s study is likely an Obama-valid blueprint for our own energy future.

Note, by the way, that China has already become the world’s major source of wind turbines, cutting further into Obama’s "green job" expectations. The wind turbine manufacturing will shortly be joined by our steel and aluminum industries, fertilizer plants and many other production facilities when the U.S. energy penalty taxes mount up.

Unfortunately, the $4 billion doesn’t replace our massive existing investments in coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, in gasoline refineries and service stations, in natural gas pipelines and drilling rigs. In reality, the renewables will subtract from our standard of living.

In 2007, U.S. subsidies to coal-fired electricity were 44 cents per megawatt hour, compared with $23.37 in subsidies for wind turbine megawatts, and $24.34 in subsidies per solar megawatt. That’s a fair measure of the added cost for renewables, except that wind and solar megawatts must also be billed for the additional costs of the fossil fueled plants that must be built and kept in "spinning reserve" in case the wind drops or clouds cover the sun. Denmark, a world leader in wind, has not decommissioned any fossil-power generators because of its "spinning reserve" requirement.

As Obama’s energy taxes force reductions in coal and oil production, the price of U.S. energy will double and triple—and so will the costs of the things we buy. Clearly, if the President wasn’t afraid of man-made global warming, we would not have spent the $4 billion on the "smart grid" at this moment of recession. Nor would we be planning massive and ineffective wind farms.
We might, instead, be designing new coal-fired power plants with the Department of Energy’s latest discoveries in clean-burn technology.

DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He is an environmental economist and 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

Source: Gabriel Calzada; "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources," Juan Carlos University, Madrid; March, 2009.

A Chill Hits Wind Power

Would you like to save money? Of course you would! If you live in a house or rent an apartment then you probably consume electricity and have to pay an electrical bill at the end of the month. In this spirit of saving money, CARE has decided to take a realistic look at the cost-effectiveness of a popular renewable energy source; wind power.

CARE is not against wind power or renewables in general, but our friend Dennis T. Avery, an environmental economist and senior fellow for the Hudson Institute, has brought some sobering facts to our attention that we would like to share with you. One such fact is that "General Electric has just announced a big wind project: 338 turbines, rated at 845 MW. GE claims it will power for 235,000 homes, and is applying for appropriate federal subsidies." This is troublesome because GE could only realistically provide power for 21,000 households while costing taxpayers money at a time when America is drowning in red ink. This trend isn't limited to America; it's affecting countries that are seen as leaders in wind power such as Denmark and Germany. The British are even being forced to become more dependent on Vladimir Putin's Russia because they overinvested in wind power and... well we better stop there so you have a reason to read the whole article!

A Chill Hits Wind Power
CHURCHVILLE, VA—As I write, a strong wind is blowing across the Alleghany Mountains onto my house. It’s bringing an "Arctic Clipper" that will drop my temperatures this weekend to a frigid and unusual 6 degrees F. Why can’t I get some good from this chill wind—with a wind turbine to harvest the "free" energy?

Out in Oregon, General Electric has just announced a big wind project: 338 turbines, rated at 845 MW. GE claims it will power for 235,000 homes, and is applying for the appropriate federal subsidies.

Will the wind turbines power 235,000 homes? Don’t bet on it. My friend Donald Hertzmark—an energy economist—warns the power deliveries from this wind project are likely to average only 25 percent of its rated capacity. That would serve only 58,000 homes, not 235,000.

But Hertzmark says even this is too high because the wind is highly variable. The Texas power grid’s experience is to rely on no more than 9 percent of the wind farm’s rated capacity. That would reduce GE’s real subsidy claim to about 21,000 households.

It gets worse.

Most of Oregon’s power comes from dams, and the lean period for hydropower is winter. That’s when heating demand peaks—but also when the dams have to restrict their water flow to protect fish, control flooding, and save up irrigation water for the next summer.
How likely is it that wind turbines can add to Oregon’s generating capacity in the midst of the winter electricity demand surge, and offset the hydroelectric generating restrictions? Not very, says Hertzmark.

This January, Britain’s wind turbines (6 percent of total generating capacity after many billions of dollars invested) supplied virtually no power on most days. The wind tends not to blow when and where it’s already very cold.

The stars of the British winter power demand were natural gas turbines, which are 34 percent of capacity and supplied 40 percent of the power during the winter wind lull. But Britain’s North Sea natural gas is running out; the only likely new source would be natural gas piped from Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Ouch.

"Wind cannot be relied upon to provide firm generation at full capacity coincident with peak demand." warns Hertzmark. "Wind might be capable of contributing to the peak demand requirements at some times. However, this will rarely happen—and when it does, it will be for brief periods. For significant periods of time, no households will be served by the wind farms."

Nor have either of the worlds "wind leaders"—Denmark and Germany—decommissioned any fossil fuel plants. The fossil generators are kept in "spinning reserve"—burning fossil fuels—to keep the lights on in the schools, factories, and hospitals when the wind dies.

Why build wind turbines at all? Well, wind and solar were the only energy sources the Greens would endorse, probably because they’re so expensive and erratic that there’s no danger of anybody getting hooked on cheap power again. Denmark was also selling wind turbines to other countries, so they had to be demonstrated at home. Now China is making cheaper turbines. Who will buy?

The cost of the "free wind"? Projections are about 17 cents per kwh—far higher than other energy sources. One of my neighbors has just invested $100,000 in a wind turbine. I think he’s wasted his money—and some of yours.

DENNIS T. AVERY is an environmental economist, and a senior fellow for 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

Alternative Energy: Real Costs in the Real World

As America is looking at alternative energies, the decisions need to be based on fact and reality, not just hope and change. While many numbers are tossed about, it has been difficult to truly grasp the real output of these alternatives as it is difficult to find examples of alternative energy in real use. It is all so new.

Additionally, since the change toward these expensive and unreliable energy sources is all about reducing carbon, the real reductions need to be considered as well.

Here is an interesting real-world scenario. Of particular interest is the author’s comment about a possible correlation between Ireland’s high energy costs and high unemployment. What do you think?

The Role Of Wind Power Generation In Ireland
EirGrid is the state-owned commercial electrical transmission company for Ireland. The company as of August 2009 generated 12 percent of its electricity by renewable(10 percent from wind and 2 percent hydroelectric). The company plans to generate 40 percent of their electricity by renewable by the year 2020 which would put them at the forefront for Europe if they achieve that goal.

By the end of 2009, EirGrid had a connected wind capacity of 1260 MW and contracted for an additional 1415 MW by 2015. The non-wind generated electricity at the end of 2009 was 6392 MW. This is provided by oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and land fill gas. If you add these figures, Ireland's total generating capacity could be 7652 MW.

A few statistics about Ireland are the unemployment rate November 2009 was 12.9 percent and the average residential cost of electricity averaged about 22 cents per kwhr. Both of these numbers were among the highest of all countries in the European Union. Maybe high electricity prices contribute to high unemployment.

Figures 1 and 2 give electric power generation in megawatts as a function of time for January 25, 2010. Figure 1 is for wind power and Figure 2 is total system generation. Similar graphs are shown for other days of operation.


Figure 1. Wind power generated for Ireland for January 25


Figure 2. Total electric power generation for Ireland Jan 25

Figure 1 illustrates the rapid changes in wind power generation that takes place daily in the Irish system. Wind turbines operate during wind speeds from 9 miles per hour up to speeds in the vicinity of 34 miles per hour. The power from a wind turbine is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. So a small change in wind speed can cause significant changes in power output. For this day, the maximum wind power output was 280 MW; although EirGrid claims they have 1260 MW of wind generation connected to their system. Possibly turbines were out of the system or wind speeds were inadequate for maximum power generation.

Total peak demand was 4800 MW, which occurred at 6 p.m. This time is similar to the United States. You can note that peak production of wind power was at 9 p.m., three hours later than peak system demand.

To keep production matched with demand for rapidly changing production with wind turbines takes generators that rapidly change output. Hydroelectric plants and natural gas combustion engines can make these rapid changes. Because hydroelectric power generation is small in the Ireland grid, it is likely load shifts have to be made with natural gas powered combustion engines.

It would be interesting to show measurements of carbon dioxide reductions obtained by using wind turbines. The load following equipment may be of a lower efficiency than would be used if no wind turbines were in the system. This means a greater carbon dioxide output when standby equipement operates. Standby equipment might have to be operating with no power supplied to the grid which contributes to unnecessary carbon dioxide production.

One factor that is never mentioned when discussing wind power is that a considerable amount of standby electricity is necessary for turbines when they are not in operation. The nacelle needs to be heated and de-humidified year round. Controls on the blades have to be powered year round because blade pitch may have to be changed due to excessive winds. These standby demands may be significant, and possibly at times exceed, the output from the wind turbine. Fossil fuels may have to be used to provide standby power.

Large carbon dioxide reductions from use of wind turbines may be fantasies generated by those promoting use of wind turbines. These promoters are manufacturers of wind turbines, wind turbine associations, utilities or others making money because of government subsidies, and U. S. government organizations such as the Department of Energy and its affiliate the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

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 for 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.

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.

Tom Tanton is a Senior Fellow with the Pacific Research Institute as well as the Principal of T2 & Associates, a firm providing consulting services to the energy and technology industries. Mr. Tanton has over 35 years experience in the energy, economy, and environmental fields.

An Informed Voter's Opinions on Cap and Trade

Typically here at Comments About Responsible Energy, we feature opinions, current energy news, and have made available a cadre of experts who willingly share their insights with us. Upon reading, you are invited to add you comments or questions.

In the CARE Newsletter, The PowerLine, we frequently post questions from the “audience”—either an audience member from one of Marita’s speaking engagements or something that comes in via e-mail in response to the newsletter. We solicit the answer from an appropriate expert and post both the question and answer there.

But this posting is different. It is from a CARE Newsletter Reader and it does have questions. And we are inviting our various experts to comment on it. But we’ve chosen to post this piece here in the Blog because we think the author’s comments and questions may reflect some of what you are thinking. We invite you—expert or not—to respond to the thoughts and questions posted here. Tell Criss where she is right—or where she is off base. If you know the answers to her questions, please offer your insights.

My feelings on cap and trade can best be expressed by the following:
The root purpose of the Cap and Trade bill appears to me to be reducing greenhouse emissions and steer the U.S. away from fossil fuel dependency; the ultimate goal being reducing the emissions by 20% by the year 2020. It accomplishes this via various taxes, surcharges, fines and the like and then distributing these funds to the development and deployment of “renewable” energy sources.

When I look at gas, oil and coal I realize that they give us electrical energy, transportation/shipping fuel and a ton of by-products like: plastic, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, more than 50% of all our composite materials, including fabrics, air and water filters and even pencils. Until recently these fossil fuels have been the most cost effective sources of these energy needs. We humans have known, consciously, as a whole, that these fuels put poisons into our air, water and soil. We have also been aware that they kill humans since at least the 1800’s. No government taxes in any country developed or made available these fuels and all their various uses to the masses, rather free enterprise did that. Governments did not really get involved until it was admitted just how deadly these poisons from burning these fuels can be. IE: There were thousands of deaths from these poisons. Also all three of these fuel sources are an earth resource. They are finite as far as we humans are concerned because it takes the earth millions if not billions of years to produce them. Worldwide consumption rates to these fuels are increasing each year. This means eventually they will become consumed to extinction. We humans currently, nor in the near future, have a way to make our own version of these fuels, en mass, quickly and cost efficiently.

I do not want to put any more poisons into our air, water and soil. So any replacement energy source will need to be cleaner than our existing ones. Nor do I want to rely on another finite earth resource for energy as eventually that too will be consumed to extinction. So they should be as renewable as possible. Nor do I want to have the new energy source to be more dangerous than any existing fuel source to harvest, refine, distribute and burn or utilize and dispose of in any way. Nor do I want to be charged to develop these new energy sources or to put these new sources into production. I believe that the private enterprise sector should do that. And the new sources must be at least as cost effective as the existing energy sources.

The existing alternatives to gas, coal and oil are hydro, solar, wind, geo-thermal and nuclear.

I rule nuclear out because it is based on another finite earth resource--uranium, which is rarer than gas, oil or coal. Rarer than diamonds. Plus it has some safety and security issues that have yet to be resolved. The large plants are almost as cost effective as existing gas, coal and oil, but the cost of safety and security make it uneconomical. Then there is the fact that it only addresses, on a large scale, just one energy need--electrical. It does not address transportation, other than large sea vessels, nor does it address all the by-products. Its safety and security issues also means that additional poisons can and have been, released into either or our air, water or soil. And radiation poison scares me as much as any other natural or man-made disaster or poison, if not more so.

I rule out solar and wind because again they only address electrical energy and do not address transportation or by-product. Yes there is some research to use electrical airplanes, but the successful ones so far are for one or two people and not mass transit or cargo. And yes we do have some electrical vehicles, but they too are not ready for economical en mass deployment (being small they are a safety risk to occupants up against say a dump truck, nor do they have the oomph to plow thru a snow drift). When implemented for large scale electrical production there are some environmental issues and they are not as cost effective as gas, coal and oil production plants in our current business economic model (mega bucks, mega profits, mega quickly). Although, these are very good and cost effective on a small non-commercial production scale, so much so that the energy companies are doing everything in their power to push the price up and they must perceive this as a threat to their mega bucks.

I rule out hydro energy as again this is mostly electrical energy and has some safety and security issues of its own to be resolved. Mainly concerning the dams themselves. They disrupt the natural flow and ecosystems of the river they are implemented on and there is the risk of dam failure which could result in deaths from flooding. Nor does hydro address all the by-products. They are however almost as cost effective as gas, coal and oil without the poisons.

I rule out geo-thermal as they only address electrical and are not quite as cost effective as our existing gas, coal and oil, very close but not quite. Nor do they address transportation and by-products.

My research also indicates that if the U.S. achieved its Cap and Trade Bill goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, the actual result worldwide would be barely over 1%. If all the other countries of the world did the same and reduced by 20% by 2020 the overall worldwide lowering of greenhouse gases in the air would still be in the single percentage points, almost double digit, but single.

Then there is my opinion that physiologically it does not induce or entice people to reduce and conserve their existing fossil fuel usage. Yes it does tax and fine or surcharge if we do not lower our consumption but it does so in a very negative way and not a positive way. Philologists have long been proponents of the quickest and longest lasting behavior changes occur thru positive reinforcement and not negative. IE: Give people a tax break if they lower their consumption (individual or company), taxes stay the same if they stay at the same level as today and then taxes go to a higher percentage rate if they increase consumption over today.

When I compare this research information against the bill, the bill does not address my requirements or priorities. It charges (taxes, fines, surcharges) me to make drastic changes to the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions but does not result in an overall reduction worldwide that is beneficial to humans, et al verses the cost of doing so. Nor does it address finding, developing and deploying en mass cost effective replacements to the electrical, transportation and by-product needs to get off coal, gas and oil. Nor does it address the issue of how to use our existing energy sources more effectively and cost efficiently. And last but not least it does not address the energy infrastructure which is over 50 years old, is falling down around our feet and looses approximately 20-30% of the energy we currently produce via transmission and conversion from AC to DC and DC to AC losses. We need a suite of replacements and no one alternative available today accomplishes enough to charge me to death for their deployment.

I am against the cap and trade bill as it exists today because it basically accomplishes nothing but charges the crap out of me.

My "debate" questions are really asking why everyone seems to be debating the disputed facts concerning greenhouse gas emissions and not zeroing in on the real issues:

Oil, Coal, Gas and Uranium are finite earth resources and will eventually become extinct. Doesn't really matter when they get used up, they will be used up and the longer we take to reduce or eliminate our use of them the faster they will be used up.

Other than people with a suicide wish--I doubt there is anyone who wants more poisons in our air, water or land. So cutting greenhouse gases is not really the issue--cutting all poison emissions is the real issue.

Our energy infrastructure or GRID is so old it is falling down around us. Just putting a computer program on it to re-route surges and drops does not fix this aspect. We need a new, more efficient and cost effective TRUE SMART GRID. We need to stop loosing energy we currently produce to transmission and energy type conversion as well as the physical aspects of the power lines being just too old and tired to keep up with today’s demands.

We need replacements for our electrical energy needs, our transportation (personal and bulk) energy needs and we need replacements for all the by-products that existing fossil fuels, particularly oil and coal, now give us.

Our current US Business Economic Model for Mega Bucks, Mega Profits, Mega Quickly (instead of just bucks, profits and quick) are killing research, development and deployment of any true changes to our existing mass energy systems and enterprises that can get us off these dang blasted finite earth resource fuels.

Our current US Government and energy businesses seem to think that we the American Citizens should pay for this development and deployment of new sources and fixes through taxes, fines, surcharges and debasement of our dollars. Sorry but they created the problem, it was not just us citizens, this needs to be free enterprise.

There seems to be an avoidance of the fact that NONE of the existing alternatives to coal, gas and oil will FIX our true energy issues or the environmental ones either and no one wants to go broke via any means to pay for the fix either. So why do we keep debating all this other crap instead of really brain storming for ideas to fix this mess?

Criss--An Independent, Informed Voter

Keeping Energy In The Discussion: Questions To Ask At Town Hall Meetings

We had a lively conversation with Paul Driessen during CARE’s July Conference Call. As we were discussing energy and policies in Washington DC, the conversation naturally went to cap and trade legislation. Paul began giving us some ideas and we asked if he would, from his background on the subject, please give us some comments/questions that we could ask our representatives when they are home for August Recess that would keep energy issues in the dialogue. He promised to give it some thought and the following is what he created.

It suggests a number of important, substantive questions that members of Congress need to address, before proceeding further on energy and climate legislation. It could help inspire and energize people to participate in those sessions--and exercise their First Amendment rights to be fully involved in an informed democratic process. Indeed, many are questions that people all over the world should be asking their elected officials.

Demand Answers From Your Senators And Congressman During Their August Recess
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system--17% of our economy--with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation could affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.

They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy--the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do--to prevent hypothetical manmade catastrophic climate change.

Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back.

And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.

Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian reductions in plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide at the December Copenhagen climate conference. He wants to pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.

Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn’t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can’t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?

2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?

3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,” so that America can slash energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?

4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It’s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama’s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?

5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 for a century or more, to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and produce ice-cap meltdowns?

6) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that renewable energy projects can’t be built, either--and we have a huge “energy gap”?

Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these projects?

7) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?

8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical--so that we can have honest, unbiased science … and sound public policy decisions?

9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don’t call predictions--but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 25-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America’s energy and economic future, based on computer models?

10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster--until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Penalize EPA for suppressing free speech?

11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That’s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?

12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn’t that violate their most basic human rights--including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?

Exercise your constitutional rights. Write to your legislators. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children’s future.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – black death.

Wind Energy, Green Jobs “Sustainable” ?

Here at CARE, our primary role is public education on energy issues. We believe that all sources of energy—both green and traditional—will be needed to support America’s ever-growing energy needs. Because we also believe that energy is what makes America great, we do not want to sacrifice when it comes to energy; we do not want to take America back to the dark ages.

We as a country are in the process of potentially making major changes in energy production and delivery. So that we as citizens can make responsible choices we need to know the facts—not just feel good. We need to know the energy reality. (This was also addressed in CARE’s most recent op-ed which has been widely published throughout New Mexico.) It may seem that the choice is out of our hands as many of the elected officials in Washington DC appear to be bent on doing things the way want, not what their constituents want. But they’ll be home for “August recess;” they’ll be holding town-hall meetings. If you care about energy (no pun intended), go to the meetings and ask the hard questions.

Here from one of our Energy Counsel Members, Paul Driessen, are some “facts” to add into the “feel good.” We believe that if American citizens had straight talk instead of happy talk, they will make the right decisions for America.

Forests of concrete and steel
Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others have been issuing statements and running ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however.

Spain did increase its installed wind power capacity to 10% of its total electricity, although actual energy output is 10-30% of this, or 1-3% of total electricity, because the wind is intermittent and unreliable. However, Spain spent $3.7 billion on the program in 2007 alone, King Juan Carlos University economics professor Gabriel Calzada determined.

It created 50,000 jobs, mostly installing wind turbines, at $73,000 in annual subsidies per job – and 10,000 of these jobs have already been terminated. The subsidies have been slashed, due to Spain’s growing economic problems, putting the remaining 40,000 jobs at risk.

Meanwhile, the cost of subsidized wind energy and carbon dioxide emission permits sent electricity prices soaring for other businesses – causing 2.2 jobs to be lost for every “green” job created, says Calzada. Spain’s unemployment rate is now 17% and rising. That’s hardly the “success” story so often cited by Congress and the Obama Administration.

Across the Channel, Britain’s biggest wind-energy projects are in trouble. Just as the UK government announced its goal of creating 400,000 eco-jobs by 2015, major green energy employer Vestas UK is ending production. All 7,000 turbines that Downing Street just committed to installing over the next decade will be manufactured – not in Britain, but in Germany, Denmark and China.

For businesses, existing global warming policies have added 21% to industrial electricity bills since 2001, and this will rise to 55% by 2020, the UK government admits. Its latest renewable energy strategy will add another 15% – meaning the total impact on British industry will likely be a prohibitive 70% cost increase over two decades. This is the result of the government’s plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, and increase the share of renewables, especially wind, from 6% to 31% of Britain’s electricity.

These cost hikes could make British manufacturers uncompetitive, and send thousands more jobs overseas, the Energy Intensive Users Group reports. English steel mills could become “unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices,” says British journalist Dominic Lawson; “but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism – and even madness … a futile gesture ... and immoral.”

On this side of the pond, President Obama and anti-hydrocarbon members of Congress are promoting “green” energy and jobs, via new mandates, standards, tax breaks and subsidies. However, the United States would need 180,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines by 2020, just to generate the 600 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity that compliance with the narrowly passed Waxman-Markey global warming bill would necessitate, retired energy and nuclear engineering professor James Rust calculates.

This would require millions of acres of scenic, habitat and agricultural lands, and 126 million tons of concrete, steel, fiberglass and “rare earth” minerals for the turbines, at 700 tons per turbine; prodigious quantities of concrete, steel, copper and land for new transmission lines; and still more land, fuel and raw materials for backup gas-fired generators. America’s new national forests will apparently be made of concrete and steel.

Those miners and drillers would likely be reclassified as “green” workers, based on the intended purpose of their output. However, the raw materials will probably not be produced in the States, because so many lands, prospects and deposits are off limits – and NIMBY litigation will further hamper resource extraction.

Air quality laws and skyrocketing energy costs (due to carbon taxes and expensive renewable energy mandates) will make wind turbine (and solar panel) manufacturing in the USA equally improbable. Thus, manufacturing could well be in China or India, and most “green” jobs could be for installers, as Spain and Britain discovered.

Posturing has already collided with reality in Texas, the nation’s wind energy capital. Austin’s GreenChoice program cannot find buyers for electricity generated entirely from wind and solar power. Its latest sales scheme has been a massive flop: after seven months, 99% of its recent electricity offering remains unsold.

Austin officials admit that “times have changed,” and the recession and falling energy prices may make it impossible for the city to meet its lofty goals. The company’s renewable electricity now costs almost three times more than standard electricity, and even eco-conscious consumers care more about the color of their money than the hue of their purported ideology.

Even worse for global warming alarmists and renewable energy advocates and rent seekers, global warming patterns have reversed during the past decade. Satellite data reveal that the planet is cooling, despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels, and summertime low temperature records are being broken all over the United States.

“You'd better hope global warming is caused by manmade CO2 if you're investing in [renewable] sectors,” says Daniel Rice, the past decade’s best-performing US equity fund manager (BlackRock Energy and Resources Fund). But evidence for manmade catastrophic global warming is dissipating faster than carbon dioxide from an open soda bottle on a hot summer day.

The crucial fact remains: wind and solar are simply not economical without major government subsidies or monstrous carbon taxes. Moreover, cap-and-tax legislation currently being promoted in the House and Senate is “not enough to do anything” about supposed global warming disasters notes Rice.

“All it does is provide Obama a pass to Copenhagen,” where the UN will host a climate change conference in December, Rice says. And those subsidies and taxes would drive energy prices still higher, killing jobs and skyrocketing the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.

Congress and the Administration are dragging their feet on nuclear power, closing off access to more resource-rich lands, and imposing layers of new regulations on oil, gas and coal energy – denying Americans these vast stores of energy and hundreds of billions in revenue that developing them would generate. Meanwhile, slick wind turbine ad campaigns promote expensive, heavily subsidized, unreliable technologies that only climate activists and company lobbyists would describe as sustainable, affordable, eco-friendly or socially responsible.

The ads and lobbyists seek more mandates, tax breaks and subsidies. Wind promoters want to quiet opponents long enough to get energy and climate legislation enacted – before Americans realize how it would drive the price of energy still higher, kill jobs, curtail living standards and liberties, and raise the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – black death.

Choices in Large-scale Electricity Production

Do you agree with this statement: “The working of the nation depends upon a reliable supply of electricity, day and night, winter and summer, quiet days and stormy days”? If you do, you will want to read on. This posting was sent exclusively to CARE from the members Los Alamos Education Group in Los Alamos, NM. Remember Los Alamos is where the atom bomb was developed and where the high school students have the highest IQ in the country (their parents are literally “rocket scientists"). So when scientists and engineers from Los Alamos speak up, we should listen!

This piece is authored specifically by Donald Peterson and William Stratton, who have served CARE with written commentaries in the past and were guests on the radio program CARE organized last fall on uranium mining and nuclear power. Their biographical information can be found below. From their professional and scientific background, here--through the lens of history--they analyze America’s electricity needs for the future and the possible solutions.

This is a through look that is based on in depth study. It is a bit longer than many of the postings here so you may want to print it out for reading later. We at CARE are confident that our Blog readers will find this information to be insight and an important piece in your ongoing energy education. Please let us know what you think!

Powering the National Grid
A few years ago, the National Academy of Sciences polled its members to determine the premier engineering development of the 20th century. Although the candidates are numerous, including the automobile, radio and television, and the airplane, the Academy determined that the most significant engineering accomplishment was the electrification of the nation, essentially providing electricity to nearly every home, business, and industry. The importance of this development is evident from the innumerable applications of electricity, and also from news reports showing the impact of electric interruptions due to disasters of one kind or another. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine being without electric power for an extended period. The working of the nation depends upon a reliable supply of electricity, day and night, winter and summer, quiet days and stormy days. In spite of this accolade for the electrification of the nation, critics exist--voiceing complaints about design, age, reliability, etc. More on this later.

Until the early 1970s, the time of the first oil supply crisis, most of the country’s electrical power was provided by burning coal, with a fraction provided by burning oil because it was cheap at the time. Between about 1905 and 1975, electrical power demand and the production in the U.S. rose at the phenomenal rate of 7% per year, or doubling every decade. This rate only declined for a year or two in the depression, and then accelerated a bit during World War II. Otherwise remained steady at 7% per year. The United States was not unique in experiencing a steady growth in the use of electricity.

However, in the mid-1970s, the annual increase in demand for electricity dropped from 7% a year to one or two percent, even dropping to zero percent for a year or two. A saturation effect had taken place. This reduced growth rate led to the cancellation of plans for new power stations--both coal and nuclear--in large numbers.

During the 1950s the creation of new ideas and development of designs for nuclear power stations had progressed to the point that a dozen or more small (by modern standards) nuclear power reactors were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Some of these were experimental in nature and were short lived, but some provided power for several years. However, the experience convinced companies, such as General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock and Wilcox that nuclear power could be a competitor to the coal-fired power plants. They were so convinced, they offered bargain rates to build the early large nuclear power stations to get the business started, and the utility industry responded with many orders.

The first large commercial power plant, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, produced 650 megawatts, and was licensed and began operating in 1969. It is now about to receive a license extension of another 20 years, along with most of the other operating nuclear power stations.

By 1980, 60 nuclear power stations were in operation. Between roughly 1965 and 1995, some 112 plants were built, of which 104 are still in operation. These plants provide nearly 20% of all electrical power in the United States. For the electric utilities, the initial burst of enthusiasm was economics--the nuclear plants were less expensive to build and operate than new coal fired plants.

However, shortly after this initial enthusiastic beginning, a number of factors combined to slow this introduction of nuclear power. The operation and maintenance of these new power plants was much more difficult than had been expected and an anti-nuclear movement emerged. Various organizations were created, motivated somewhat by the association of nuclear power with nuclear weapons, but also by some fears predating that time, which can be related back to the discovery of x-rays, radioactivity and the spooky pictures of a hand showing clearly bones inside the flesh. Bad experiences with radium (unregulated) contributed to the unease. (The extensive and accepted use of x-rays for medical and dental diagnostics had no apparent effect on the anti-nuclear movement, perhaps because these uses were not associated with the radiation from the fission process.) Most of the early so-called reactor safety studies were badly done with frightening results. Simultaneously, licensing, financing, and construction time and costs were rising. The expense of new nuclear plants became more than coal plants, and neither was needed because of the lack of demand for more power.

About the same time, President Carter issued an executive order halting nuclear fuel reprocessing due to concerns regarding control of plutonium and proliferation of nuclear weapons. This killed a developing industry (reprocessing of spent fuel), and, more importantly, research and development work to find a better fuel cycle than the Purex process, which was developed and used during and after World War II. (The Purex process was designed to produce pure plutonium, quite unsuited to commercial power applications.)

In the late 1980s and 1990s, when the demand for electrical power began to rise again (at a lower rate), nuclear plants were in disfavor due to expense, regulation, as well as the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernoble. The fuel of choice became natural gas. These gas plants were inexpensive to build and natural gas was relatively cheap. Natural gas fired power grew to be about 20% of the total U.S. electrical supply, along with 20% for nuclear and 50% for coal.
We are now in the first decade of the 21st century. Fossil fuels, especially coal, have fallen into disfavor because of emission of carbon dioxide--allegedly leading to global warming. Additionally, pollutants are calimed to be responsible for thousands of deaths per year (spread over the whole population and therefore not generally observed like deaths from auto accidents). The demand for electricity is now rising 1½% to 2% per year. Nuclear power is more generally accepted, since it does not suffer from the same pollution problems, and it has compiled a record of decades of reliable, safe service at a relatively low cost. In fact, we believe that some nuclear plants produce the least expensive electricity.

Concomitantly, due primarily to the same concerns about global warming and emissions from coal fired power plants, a so-called “green” movement has emerged and is literally wildly enthusiastic about "renewable" power, such as electric power from sunshine and wind. (There are a few other options, such as power from ocean waves, or the burning of trash, but these are even less proven than wind or solar.)

The total electrical demand of the United States is a mind-boggling 600,000 to 700,000 megawatts (each megawatt is one million watts, or 1000 kilowatts [kw]. To those of us accustomed to thinking in household terms [watts or kilowatts], this is an incomprehensively large amount of power.) We expect the electric industry to provide this power reliably, at a steady, constant voltage and at a price we can afford. If one power station fails, we expect another to be available to take up the load nearly instantaneously. (The system is not perfect and large blackouts do occur, as in the northeast some years ago.)

At an annual rate of increase of 2% per year, demand for electricity will double in 22 years; if only 1.5% per year, the demand will double in 46 years. Considering that our total demand for energy of all kinds and forms is steadily increasing, population is increasing, and the fraction of energy provided by electricity is also increasing, we must plan for the higher rate of growth. We must plan for significantly greater demand for electrical power in the years to come.

Our electricity is produced by coal (50%), natural gas (20%). nuclear (20%) and most of the remaining is water power with very small amounts from solar and wind. These (especially coal) will carry the load for some time to come, but because of problems mentioned above, coal is out of favor and nuclear, wind and solar are candidates. While we have enough coal to last for at least a couple of centuries, the objections to burning more coal are numerous, so we will consider the remaining three sources--nuclear, wind, and solar--quantitatively, as well as we can. We will consider what is required to replace the electricity currently provided by coal--in the US, approximately 300,000 megawatts--with cleaner sources.

We will start with wind power. T. Boone Pickens has proposed to build wind turbines of 1.5 megawatts. More powerful wind turbines have been built, but his proposal is the first one to be considered seriously. In order to produce 300,000 megawatts, 200,000 turbines would be required. However, the operational history of wind turbines has not been good. Operational power is obtained on average only about 1/3 or less of the time, so this means that 600,000 or more would be required in differing locations to replace the electricity now produced by burning coal. The area required for each turbine is about 4 acres, indicating that the turbines would take up 2.4 million acres (3700 square miles). These numbers are enormous. At an estimated cost per turbine of 4 million dollars, the total cost is very large. This cost does not even address costs of revising the gigantic and costly electric power distribution grid to collect power from remote locations and transmit it to population centers one to two thousand miles away, or to maintain backup sources for periods of time with little or no wind. This eventuality is a failure for which we see no solution if we wish to depend on wind. Some of the criticisms of the power grid may derive from problems of this sort.

The wind option is impractical for these, as well as other, reasons.

Solar power has some obvious advantages. Enthusiasts point out that the distributed power over the entire area of the earth is enormous, the intensity is constant, it never fails, and will last for the indefinite future. It seems to be perfect, except for several weaknesses: the power is small per unit area, the earth rotates with nights as well as days, and the seasonal effect must be considered. Further, concepts for storing energy for periods when the sun is not shining are inadequate, very expensive, and do not exist for large arrays.

We will quantify, at least in part, by estimating the area required with the sun directly overhead as occurs on the equator or between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics states that the solar intensity, all frequencies, at the spot facing the sun, vertically overhead is 2 calories per square centimeter per minute. Translated into units more familiar to most of us, the intensity is 1.17 kilowatts per square yard. This energy density is reduced when passing through the atmosphere by molecular absorption, dust, and clouds. The best estimates we’ve found suggest half or a little less reaches the ground. Solar cells, at their current best, convert only 15% of the solar energy to electrical energy. Further, a solar array must include space for maintenance workers and equipment, frames to hold and secure the solar panels, and for equipment to collect and convert the direct current to alternating current. Allowing for all these factors reduces the 1.17 kw per square yard to about 0. 055 kw per square yard for the array of solar cells. (For a rooftop installation of, say 50 square yards, the power output could be up to nearly three kilowatts, enough to power the home comfortably at the middle of the day, but with little for late in the day and nothing, of course, at night without storage). An array of a square mile could produce about 170 megawatts. To replace the power generated by coal (300,000 megawatts) would require 1765 square miles, an impossibly large area. Further, this number is calculated with the sun directly overhead. Allowing for other times of day, and for winter as well as summer, as in the US, would increase the area required by a factor of five to ten or more--and this still does not consider periods of darkness. In short, solar power is completely impractical for large-scale power production, and should be reserved for special applications or for remote sites for which connection to the grid is too expensive. (A quantitative evaluation of costs for solar installation in a home was published in the Albuquerque Journal, January 15, 2009. The cost was prohibitive.)

This leaves nuclear power: We will assume that each new power plant will provide about 1500 electric megawatts. (The French and the Finns are each building pressurized water reactors of 1600 megawatts, and two similar plants are planned for China. The economies of scale keep driving the unit power level higher). In order to replace 300,000 megawatts from coal, construction of 200 such new nuclear power stations would be required. The record of the last century (and recent history) clearly demonstrates that this is feasible. For example, the French built 50-55 nuclear power plants in 20-25 years starting in the mid-1970s, all of which operate steadily and safely, and provide about 80% of their total electrical power supply. The US constructed 112 in about the same time; 104 are still operating. Since the turn of the century more than 30 new nuclear power stations have been completed worldwide and more are planned.

Some problems must be resolved in order to make such an expansion possible in the U.S. A problem (really a perceived and artificial problem) is that of spent fuel. Two possible solutions have evolved. The first and operative solution is to store the fuel, first in fuel storage pools for a few years until air-cooling is adequate, then move the spent fuel to concrete pads and place it in concrete and/or steel containers. The containers are too heavy to move without the heavy equipment, and the fuel is too hot, both thermally and radioactively, to work with without special equipment. This reduces the concerns regarding security. The area required for such a system is miniscule and the cost cannot be large. This is the current solution.

The second solution is to bury the fuel, suitably contained, in sites such as the one under construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project has been underway for years at a cost of billions of dollars, and is still incomplete. It is not a workable solution. No fuel has been stored here, nor will any be for years to come--especially now that Obama has killed the project. The authors regard Yucca Mountain as a complete waste and a mistake.

The best solution is to store fuel at the site of creation (the power station) or at a central storage facility, placed where a recycle or reprocess plant will someday be constructed. This process has been satisfactory for decades (certainly since the 1960s) and will continue to be satisfactory for decades and decades more. Ultimately, the fissionable materials remaining in the fuel (primarily uranium and transuranics) will be used in fast neutron reactors after recycle to remove the fission products. The country can not afford to throw away the 90+ % of the energy from the original fuel which remains in the "spent” fuel.

During the presidential campaign, Senator McCain presented a proposal for 45 new nuclear power stations. In this light, his proposal was far too modest. By the time 200 nuclear power stations are built to phase out coal-fired power, more will be needed, but that can be faced when the time comes. The first few plants will be expensive as, essentially, a specialized, new construction industry must be recreated. Welders, pipefitters, electricians, etc must become accustomed to the rigorous inspections conductedby the nuclear regulatory industry. A forging plant for pressure vessels must be built.

The conclusion of this brief study is that humanity has only two choices for the large scale production of electricity. These two are coal-fired or nuclear power. It should be obvious that our national choice should be the same as the one made by France about 35 years ago. We should build nuclear power stations as fast as practicable. The first few plants will be expensive and will require time. Creating a power system that is pollution free and emits no carbon dioxide will require at least a half century. We can start no sooner than now. We can do it; we must do it.

Bill Stratton has a PhD from the University of Minnesota. He is a retired reactor safety expert with extensive advisory service to the Nuclear Regulatory Commision. As a consultant to the President's Kemeny Commission, he was instrumental in explaining the minimal radiation release from Three Mile Island.

Don Petersen has a PhD from the University of Chicago. He is a retired radiation biologist involved with health effects of radiation, neutron dosimetry and effects of neutrons and alpha particles. He has had first hand experience with investigation, description and reporting of radiation accidents involving injury and fatality.