Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold Crossed - July 01, 2009
Many opponents of reducing carbon emissions dispute the science of global warming and rail about the costs to the economy and the average person. Certainly requiring change to anything a business does will likely require additional costs and these costs will likely get passed on the consumer.
The issue should be why wouldn't we want to clean the air we breathe. If you disagree with the 45 scientific societies and academies of science that have linked greenhouse gases to the increase in global temperature you still have to admit that these gases are air pollution. Why would we want to defend continuing to pollute the air?
Certainly the Clean Water Acts have cost businesses and consumers money. But as a society we have benefited by the improved cleanliness and clarity of our waters. Let's clean the air for all our benefit and if it slows global warming so much the better.
David Reinemann
I didn't realize that it was the duty of the U.S. House of Representatives to "send a message" to the American people. I always thought that the message sending was supposed to be in the opposite direction: from the people to their elected representatives in Congress. We speak, they act; not the other way around. If we have reached the point where the House feels it can dictate to the American people then we have indeed crossed a threshold.
By the way: The Democrats were the majority party in the House during much of the Bush administration and so presumably had the votes to do exactly what they have just done in passing the "comprehensive energy bill". So how does the House's approval of the energy bill constitute an Obama reversal of the Bush Administration's "course"? As if the Bush White House stood astride House Democrats' burning desire to pass a "comprehensive energy bill". Obama must think that whatever he says will be accepted as fact. For now at least, he is ! probably right.
Tom King
Thank you for such a thoughtful article and for pointing out that many of the costs of carbon emissions are being borne by the public, but really haven't been neatly quantified since they have broad societal implications. For example, I live in Texas and many of the areas that are currently in non-attainment due to carbon and other emissions have exceptionally high respiratory visits to emergency rooms and local physicians whenever there are high ozone days. How are these costs accounted for in the current analysis of financial impact on households. However, these costs are not felt as much in the more rural areas of Texas where most of the electric generation is sited.
I completely agree with critics of climate change legislation who say that the costs of electric generation and the costs of industry will likely rise. I think it's an absolute certainty. I also agree that the change must come and that the changes should be implemented in a manner that allows generators and industry to absorb those costs and to include it into their costs of operation and to ultimately recover some of those investment costs through their normal course of business.
I am completely baffled by the critics of climate change and those that tout that the emissions are not harmful. A simple litmus test for sincerity for any of these politicians or other proponents of unconstrained energy markets would be to ask "How much money would it take for you live immediately downwind of a coal-fired generation facility?"
Over time new industries will emerge and will serve as a boon to the new greener economy. In the end, while this is being debated as a political issue and an economic issue, the bottom line is that it's a health issue. Fewer emissions mean more breathable air and a better chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the generations to come. Would I spend $100 a year for my household to have better air? You bet I would!
Glenn Garland
President
CLEAResult Consulting, Inc.
There are large misunderstandings on many things in energy. Many believe clean coal means washing it when it really means gasifying coal so it can become a cleaned gas much like natural gas is desulfurized, filtered and made a clean gas. Oil too is a dirty fuel until it is refined and cleaned. Thus, cleaned coal gas is no more of an oxymoron than is cleaned neural gas or oil. Not only that, because CO2 has no influence over climate change or global warming whatsoever, that too needs to be washed away.
Climate change is not CO2 driven. It is agreed it is still warming a degree per 100 years, but no more, but it is not an increasing trend. The 100,000 year climate cycle (4 have been recorded from ice core samples) are solar driven, likely due to the 100,000 year magnetic field cycle of the sun; higher field strength equals more heat energy reaching earth, and more solar energy still is reaching earth per satellite data.
Many of us could support carbon trading if it works well to reduce carbon footprints and promote energy efficiency, which is what all new energy policy should be about. The Nature Conservancy, for example mainly advocates reducing carbon footprint and works with industry to implement practical programs to do this, and they are mainly related to improving efficiency and implementing alternative energy. Did the EU experience show carbon trading increases energy efficiency and reduces carbon footprint? Absolutely not, in fact we did better in the U.S. during that period. If a carbon trading policy worked, people could support it, I would, but it doesn't work.
I also wish the junk science on CO2 would disappear as well. CO2 will not stand any test as a policy objective, either scientifically or in any practical way. We need to get beyond CO2 foolishness if we are to agree on national energy policy. It should be carbon alternatives and efficiency objectives we follow, not arbitrary carbon trading, already proven to be ineffective in the EU. And carbon footprint reduction goes way beyond energy and includes how well we use building materials, how fast we implement electric vehicles, etc. And focusing just on the coal industry (based on the bogus CO2 argument) because it is a carbon fuel is absurd. Yes, we need to perfect coal gasification systems (clean coal), which we have not yet done cost effectively or in a practical way due to the wasteful spending on CO2 sequestration and because sequestration has detoured us from practical research and development on achieving clean coal in a broad way.
I like Obama's thinking on energy. He's on the right track on everything except advocating CO2 as a climate change agent. He should abandon the carbon trading scheme as well and eliminate all CO2 sequestration research just as he did the impractical H2 program and focus directly on wind and other alternatives and efficiency measures as policy, these are where the real jobs will come from. That is what Obama's Treasury Grant energy program is doing, it's specific and will get real work in energy efficiency and alternatives done, and over a broad spectrum of energy issues.
Lloyd Weaver
Here's the crux of the whole matter, nicely summed up by the EPA:
"The Environmental Protection Agency projects that the bill would cost American households $80 to $111 a year."
If this is, in fact, a true statement, then the bill will have failed.
No American household is going to change their lifestyle if it only costs them $2.20 a week to keep doing what they're doing. The whole point of Carbon Cap and Trade is to force consumers and businesses to change their ways. Businesses will simply pass costs on to consumers. If those costs to consumers only add up to $2.20 per household, forget it.
We have seen the price of a single gallon of gasoline go up that much in the last decade, and I would hazard a guess that the driving habits of most Americans haven't changed very much. So the whole legislative exercise is nothing but a waste of time. Or are these estimates of actual costs wildly wrong?
Paul Stevens
Investors Burned - July 08, 2009
I just read and re-read the article on Madoff. However if you explained how this applies to the energy industry, I sure missed it.
Rick Hemphill
KS: I probably should have included some tie to Enron and the early 2000 time period with respect to power marketing. But I figured readers would implicitly make the connection and therefore didn't want to remind them of this earlier, uglier time. In any event, we all need to be reminded to "do unto others..."
Thank you for putting this sickening episode in perspective.
This kind of scam will never be stopped as long as there are people willing to have greed trump common sense. The only sure way I can think of that will serve to minimize victimization in the future is if in every instance folks cannot avoid the fact that they could actually loose their money. This reality concentrates the mind like no other way.
Compensating folks who made poor judgments or in the case of the banks, conducted deceitful actions, only serves to promote new debacles. Insolvency is the price we should all pay if we are careless about our financial affairs. In my opinion there should not even be bank deposit insurance provided by the taxpayer. We all know that we should or must insure our homes, cars, health and other important assets. Bank deposits should be no different. If it were so, the discipline of the open market would impose itself on the banks in a way they would be forced understand. Either manage prudently or suffer the inability to offer your depositors insurance coverage; i.e. have no ability to attract deposits.
More regulation is not the answer. A reading of your article makes that blindingly obvious. More regulation is just the way folks use to escape personal responsibility, the "blame game" approach to life.
Erik Andersen
One thing that I am surprised to see is that no one has yet realized that a scheme of this magnitude is more than "extraordinarily evil", but an actual act of terrorism. Particularly in a time after the financial collapse the world yet again had an extremely large financial hit, rocking investors' faith in our global financial system. Had this type of "evil" been manipulated by someone with ties to Al-Qaida or to any other terrorist faction, we would have done more than call it a bloodless crime.
We do need to send a message to those who perpetuate these types of crimes. Our world is getting smaller and the harm done is not limited to those who have lost monies -- although they bear the ultimate burden for the scheme. The harm done has hit our whole global financial system like waves and rivulets expanding outward from a large stone tossed into a pond.
Michele Cook
We ALL were "burned" by the illusionary "profits" reported and the hidden very risky practices of many financial institutions. Bernie was an extremely blatant perpetrator, but thousands of times more "ordinary people" have been bankrupted by the flim/flam financial charlatans.
Thus far, nothing has changed there. Our "leaders" seem to be playing the same tune as before -- "they are too big to allow them to fail" which is balderdash. We should nationalize those corrupt and bankrupt institutions and companies, clean them up, fire all the senior executives, and sell them back to the private sector is smaller pieces.
(Read the IMF prescription for dealing with this kind of monopoly-oligopoly in countries that come to them for help.)
We HAVE to break up that cozy playground if we are going to recovery.
Keith E. Bowers
Co-Ops on the Cutting Edge - June 18, 2009
Nice job of outlining why electric co-ops have been successful.
Electric co-ops have also been successful because they are resourceful and innovative. One cooperative resource that will help cooperatives succeed in the new "smart grid" era is the Cooperative Research Network (CRN). This is essentially the R&D network for electric cooperatives organized under the umbrella of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
One of the really exciting examples of CRN's work is MultiSpeak, an industry-wide software standard that facilitates integration of a wide variety of automation applications. It allows co-ops to pick best of breed solutions that fit their specific needs and be able to make sure solutions from different vendors will be able to "speak" to each other. Vendors and cooperatives have worked very hard to make MultiSpeak a real success story.
Integration of various automation solutions is a critical part of the smart grid. MultiSpeak has real traction and acceptance and is a great example of the cooperative principles. Innovation is crucial to the future success of electric cooperatives and all electric utilities.
John Lowrey
Manager of Information
Association of Illinois Electric Co-ops
I agree that rural co-ops have been and will continue to be critical service providers for rural America. However, their ability to influence economic development in the most agricultural of counties is very limited. The Waxman Markey Bill passed by the House of Representatives represents the largest potential economic development package for rural America in my lifetime (64 years). So, the response of the NRECA was to get almost all the coops exempted from the bill; therefore virtually eliminating this economic possibility for the rural communities to get their fair share of what is likely to be in excess of $500 billion of capital investment.
The co-ops have done a great job in serving, but they also have the mission to create economic development. In the near term, the elected officials of these rural counties are going to be educated and then there will be a very serious debate as to whether they want the badly needed tax basis or do they want the co-ops doing the same old thing. In Colorado, this debate occurred and the vote was for economic development. There are some very notable exceptions such as Basin Electric in the Dakotas, but other than that, Generation and Transmission Coops are married to fossil fuels as your announcement said. In the end, when this administration eventually gets to passing the carbon tax in whatever form it comes, rural America will suffer along with everyone else. I think it will make the gasoline prices of a few years ago look miniscule by comparison.
Dale Osborn
President
Distributed Generation Systems, Inc.
Natural Gas Quandary Widens - June 15, 2009
I strongly agree that natural gas should play a major role in transforming the U.S. power generation system. Widespread replacement or repowering of coal plants with natural gas combined cycle will cut CO2 by half as stated in the article. This is off-the-shelf technology available now.
Additional the new breed of fast-start combined cycle plants (MWs in 10 minutes) provides renewable backup with non-spinning reserve type startups. These plants are now available as three pressure reheat steam cycles with F class gas turbines giving efficiencies around 57 to 58 percent. The fast start capability improves average 24-hour efficiency in cycling service (start, run 16 hours, shutdown) by more than a percentage point.
When configured as an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) system daytime fuel efficiency can be around 65 percent with a reasonable size solar field -- 250 acres, a small single family farm.
A critical issue with solar is storage. This need is eliminated with ISCC because clean burning natural gas can supply the nighttime load with no additional equipment or cost.
Fast-start ISCC fueled by natural gas is an optimum approach to our current national energy situation. We should be building them as fast as possible.
Gordon Smith
GE Infra, Energy
Thanks for your informative article on unconventional natural gas supplies. Actually, the climate benefits of natural gas are even greater than expressed by CO2 per unit of thermal output, because gas power plants may have an efficiency of 55 percent or more, compared with coal at a current maximum of 45 percent, and generally much lower. In practice, coal emits about three times the CO2 per generated kWh of electricity compared with a gas-fired plant.
Natural gas is also more amenable to coupling with renewable energies, as you have indicated. Solar and wind energy projects are becoming an indispensable part of future supply strategies, and no one even seems to have noticed that the rooftop solar sector is still in its infancy. By comparison, there are over half a million solar installations in Germany, and well over 90 percent of the capacity is located on people's homes, commercial buildings, and schools. The large-scale projects are largely restricted to former military airfields, brownfields, and the like, since space is extremely limited in the country.
Jeffrey Michel
Respond to the editor.
