Well-intentioned Math from Mark Jacobson

I read Mark Jacobson's report for NY a few months ago. He mentioned it on the Letterman program last night (10/9/2013). I admire his work, his intentions and the visibility he brings to the issues. But though the math may be correct, the vision presented in the report is near-sighted.

Like many past visions for the future (our present), the report presents a vision somewhat like the universally popular Eisenhower era vision for the automobile, the interstate highway system, exploitation of and reliance on our unlimited(?) fossil fuel resources and the pollution-free potential of nuclear power. Self-sufficient. Secure. Connected. Commerce. Wonderful! Woops.

Windmills have been called "train engines with propellers atop Washington Monuments". Impressive. More and more of them and mile-square mirror farms appear in the oceans, through the plains or deserts and on mountain ridges. Meanwhile, we forget continuous technical & engineering progress and alternatives; forget construction, support and maintenance access; forget new roads, wires & gridworks, and environmental impacts that come along with them. Props on mountaintops and across the horizon aren't pretty to me. (But they do produce "pollution-free" and "renewable" electricity and the politically renewable magic: JOBS!)

For regional generation of electricity, that is, to replace all of our nuclear and fossil fuel electrical generation plants -- possibly often in place -- he completely ignores the potential of EGS and deep geothermal power. In the interview, Letterman & Jacobson mention that solar panels, windmills and residential geothermal pay returns for homeowners -- but only in the long run -- though they do eliminate GHGs immediately.

Likewise, after the initial investment, deep geothermal -- using the forever, constant heat beneath our feet virtually anywhere on earth -- is the least costly, least environmentally impactful, and net least GHG- emitting form of electrical generation -- today! Just like a mortgage to pay for a home rather than perpetual and ever-increasing rent payments, investments in deep geo pay off after 15 or 20 years ... and the heat is free forever thereafter. There is less net GHG emission than any other "renewable", the maintenance is minimal, technical progress can be administered in place and externalities are fewer and less costly.

The Department of Energy (DOE), Argonne National Labs (ANL), National Renewable Energy Laboratoy (NREL) and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) have produced many reports that support this contention, among them are

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
http://geo-energy.org/events/Air%20Emissions%20Comparison%20and%20Externality%20Analysis_Publication.pdf
http://thnktnk.net/drill.net

watercolorsinc wrote:

> > Subject: Professor Mark Jacobson on Letterman Tonight!
> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:10:35 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Gasland The Movie

War: You deserve it! You pay for it.

Boycott BP?

First written, June 10, 2010

An interesting discussion on Alternet recently suggested that one way we may demonstrate our anger at BP is by boycotting BP -- buying our gas at a different dealer. This led eventually to the assertion that individual gas stations are owned by private individuals who have "nothing" to do with where BP drills, &c. The boycott would simply hurt the wrong people -- our neighbors and local taxpayers. Besides, it's not just gasoline that comes from oil and it's not just BP who screws up. Along with coal, oil powers electrical generators and IS the plastic that delivers our beloved bottled water, soda, styrofoam cups, energy drinks, toys and beauty products. So, gosh, everybody's sorry, everybody wants to demonstrate indignation, but boycotting BP gas stations might not be the best answer.

So how WOULD we show our righteous indignation with those who created the oil spill in the Gulf -- if we really meant it? Or for that matter, our anger with mountaintop removal for coal? Or oil shale drilling and water pollution, dirty air and global warming (only if you believe the science, of course)?

BOYCOTT THEM ALL! Stop using coal, gas and oil, Stupid! And how might we do that? Stop using coal, gas and oil! Really, it's just that simple.

But nothing is just that simple ... we're addicted to oil, plastic and electricity, fast food. We think we have no alternatives. And as addicts of all sorts, without outside help, we're likely to stay addicted. We'll find a dealer, no matter what ... and we'll pay the price to get a fix. (Now, I know I'm not speaking to you, dear reader, for you and I are the most environmentally aware people on the planet and we NEVER act irresponsibly.)

BP's oily pelicans, dead shrimp and sticky beaches got you pissed off? Turn to Exxon. Exxon's crashing tankers piss you off? Turn to Shell or Mobil. That'll work! We can promise to stop -- or at least cut down -- soon, like we always have. But we all know that as long as there is a dealer, we'll find the drugs.

Now ... since we are all addicted, and most of us know that we need help, we could ask our clean and sober government to help set us on the path to recovery. But we need it to do more than to tell us to just say "no". We need a hefty tax on carbon-based fuels. It's basic market economics: higher prices, less consumption. It's working with our tobacco addiction, isn't it? Those who want it, pay up appropriately, and the revenue goes back into research, prevention and treatment.

Such a recovery proposal has been on the table for many years. It's a tax that bases its rates on the relative amount of carbon in the fuel supplied. Fuels with greater potential negative impact are taxed at higher rates. It's called CARBON TAX (not "cap and trade on wall street"). Those who sell or use the most and most destructive fuels, pay more. Those who reduce consumption, use less destructive sources of energy or use less energy absolutely, profit the most. Included in the plan is a national per capita redistribution so that an equal share of revenue from the tax is returned to every household (or similar).

It's a long road. Take a step. Look further into Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/). Call (202) 224-3121 and tell your Congressperson what you think.

GHG-free Electricity & Heat -- A Not So Modest Proposal

Complete elimination of green house gases (GHGs) from regional electricity and district heat production in the US over the next few decades is a real possibility supported by current research. The creation of, finding partners in or joining a project whose mission is to define policy statements, create project plans and economic models, and promote legislative action to enable that prospect is my personal goal.

Current political, policy and legislative impediments would obviously be part of its scope.

Based on objective and achievable research, science and economics, it would include

• goals and impacts,
• an open, dynamically modifiable project plan,
• on-going research and engineering needs,
• quantitative and qualitative measures of progress/change,
• alternative models and measures
• transition issues

Transition issues include current and on-going impacts on local, regional and national economies and populations. The plan would envision positive modes for the transition of and impacts on population centers, families, health, education, businesses, industries, infrastructure and, of course, jobs currently involved in the exploration, creation, packaging, delivery and burning of nuclear, coal, oil and gas for production of heat and electricity.

The project would NOT be advocacy for a particular technology or resource though personally I AM an advocate for expanded support and use of geothermal for electricity generation as well as for integrated household, commercial and district energy savings.

The New, New Deal for further explication and references.
To sponsor or support this effort, contact me via email.

James Hansen, The American Party

The American Party
29 May 2013
James Hansen
My remarks when receiving the Ridenhour Courage Award were written in Union Station on my way to the event. But my concluding comment -- that we are near a point when the American people should contemplate a centrist third party -- was not an idle spur-of-the-moment reflection.

I was in government 40 years, long enough to understand how aging organizations can evolve into self-licking ice cream conesa, organizations whose main purpose becomes self-perpetuation rather than accomplishment of their supposed objectives. The public can see this tendency in our politicians, our Congress, and our major political parties.

Our government has failed to address climate, energy, and economic challenges. These challenges, addressed together, actually can be a great opportunity. Our democracy and economic system still have great potential for innovation and rapid adoption of improved technologies, if the government provides the right conditions and gets out of the way. Complete paper (pdf)

New Paltz Sustainability Day, SUNY New Paltz

Canadian Geo Promotion