The Koch brothers are making the rounds again, enticing people with free food to sit through more dreary lectures on the merits of Putinesque oligarcho-capitalism:
“…not using fossil fuels will ultimately be disastrous for humanity—especially the poorest of the poor”—hmmm… given that fossil fuels are finite, there must logically come a point when we will not be using fossil fuels. The Koch Brothers must thus believe that humanity is headed for disaster. Or maybe they mean to say that only the increasing ranks of the poor will meet disaster, since the Kochs and other oligarchs who make themselves rich on the unrestricted extraction and consumption of of fossil fuels will use their petrodollars to build giant mined fortresses with stashes of oil, caviar, and Ivanka clones while the rest of us eat each other by campfire.
The Kochs used to charge $5 for these bull sessions. Last year they decided that sitting and digesting their astroturf was price enough. And really, there could be no more appropriate meal to symbolize wealthy fossil-fuel barons proposing a moral case for fossil fuels than a free all-you-can-eat buffet.
Tuesday, May 29, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Aberdeen Americinn—pig out while it lasts!
Grow some lumps, fuels. If you mean coal, just say coal. We know you own Peabody Energy and most of the lesser coal conglomerates.
PS … Why is gasoline so high? It’s hurting the poorest of the poor.
Carbon capture would require 40-50% extra energy to capture and compress the CO2. Ohio State is researching “coal-direct chemical looping” to capture the CO2. And advanced coal plants may push up the efficiency.
None of these approaches are quite ready yet. Using fossil fuels more efficiently and pairing them with energy storage is the best one can do for the moment.
Historically fossil fuels were cheap and they delivered all the energy we needed whenever we wanted it. But that never took into account the true costs of eliminating or reducing emissions and wastes.
Ironically, we do a much better job at recycling coal fly ash and lead batteries today than we do solar panels and wind turbine blades. We recycle all of the lead, and about half the coal fly ash.
Fossil fuels really have to show they can cheaply deliver the energy we need while reducing life-cycle costs on the order of hydro, wind, and nuclear. Heck, I would even take solar energy levels, which are 4 times hydro/wind/nuclear before considering emissions from recycling.
I just read a report that consumers will be spending an average of $200 more for gasoline this summer because of Trump violating the Iran nuclear deal.
Putin is probably wearing a happy face.
Also, Roger … if Pres. Trump gets his way and emission standards are lowered every refinery will formulate a new fuel blend, which will add another half buck to each gallon until the costs are recovered.
So you’re going to attend, eat their free food, and report back to us Cory?
Check closely for koch bros disclaimers about eating their food surrenders your rights to sue them in the future.
koch bros millions to George Mason U apparently have strings which are being exposed. Beware of koch bros bearing gifts.
https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2018/05/a-step-too-far/
The Trump Administration may push small modular coal plants in order to boost coal. Going small is one way to reduce upfront costs, and perhaps this is an attempt to help coal make power when renewables are not available.
If they can get carbon emissions below those of natural gas, then they stand a better chance. The precedent has been unfortunately set by supporters of renewables that natural gas levels of carbon are OK in the support of renewables when energy storage is not viable.
So it will be interesting to see what happens if natural gas levels are not OK and energy storage does not come to fruition…will small modular coal plants drive support for more flexible nuclear energy?
As usual, Cory, you have drilled to the heart of the issue:
“…will use their petrodollars to build giant mined fortresses with stashes of oil, caviar, and Ivanka clones while the rest of us eat each other by campfire.”
And all without ketchup!
https://rctom.hbs.org/submission/how-climate-change-is-impacting-an-american-icon-heinz-ketchup/
Too late doc, Mother Russia has already modulated nuke plants. you guys all want to destroy the earth, but she will beat you…one way or another.
Jerry, Chernobyl would not have been approved by the NRC. So please answer the question. Are the levels of carbon emitted by natural gas OK or not?
Without natural gas today, you will run out of electricity at different times of the day. So how will you make up the gap?
The U.S. has had small modular plants for years…but they have been powering ships in the Navy instead of being used commercially. And those are not used in a baseload capacity either.
We may be growing renewables today, but we are also growing natural gas at the same time.
See the bottom of the following page from the energy information administration.
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/#itn-tabs-1
Doc, where have you been? Anything you want approved can be approved. You can even get caught doing the bribe. A cabinet member can openly say that if the lobbyist did not come with the right amount of money in hand, that he would not meet with them. Chernobyl would have easily passed as would 3 mile.
We are even preparing to build more nuke bombs and delivery systems. The problems with nukes are not the power, it is the spent fuel. That is the problem doc. You can build one the size of a toaster, but you still have to find a way to get rid of the spent fuel.
Smart folks could figure ways to make carbon more or less neutral with planning. Carbon farming could pull the carbon out of the air and put it into the soil. In short, agriculture could save the planet.
mfi-“The activist group UnKoch My Campus noted that the George Mason documents evidencing the arrangement are strikingly similar to agreements the Koch Foundation made with Florida State University–agreements that recently caused an uproar at that institution. (There’s a lesson here for Ball State University, here in Indiana, which has accepted Koch dollars to establish an economic Institute.)”
so nice Koch bastards are crawling all over SD. money is the social lubricant in the partisan halls of this lil’ state
Hi Doc- schlepping” true costs of eliminating or reducing [fossil fuel] emissions and wastes ” is the business plan of Kochs et al. But you support this strategy concocting that “natural gas levels of carbon are OK in the support of renewables when energy storage is not viable”, aren’t you? Just wondering out loud:)
Hi Leslie,
My statement is more of a political assessment of the success or failure of coal. If they can achieve natural gas levels of carbon emissions, new coal plants stand a much better chance. Can they do that more cheaply than natural gas does? Probably not at today’s natural gas prices.
I am fine with nuclear energy competing with energy storage or fossil fuels to supplement renewables. But we don’t have to wait for energy storage or carbon capture to work to reduce carbon. If they work as intended later, great, but get the carbon down first and then implement additional solutions.
Jerry,
The problem of spent nuclear fuel is political, not scientific. But that tide may be turning.
You will note in the House bill that passed recently regarding Yucca Mountain that Nevada submitted an amendment for consent-based approaches. It was voted down by a heavy majority.
So that vote tells me that when push comes to shove, the House will vote to remove nuclear waste out of their own state. The consent-based approach is terrific in principle, but unless it generates an actual solution, the waste still stays in all of those other states.
The Senate is a different beast altogether, so who knows what will happen there. But if a bill passes both the House and the Senate, get ready for more interest in reprocessing or advanced reactors to reduce the volume and radioactivity of any waste to be isolated.
Leslie,
I don’t think their emphasis will be on carbon at all. It will largely be on keeping energy costs low and producing whatever the demand dictates. Low costs are possible if you ignore any long-term costs that other people in the future will have to deal with.
Robert, I have to agree that more-and-more, US policy is driven by immediate gratification and selfishness. I want mine NOW — Ignore that this is all a zero-sum game and that what is taken has to come from the pocket (or quality of life) of another.
jerry, scratches head. You are telling me that spent fuel is a political problem? That is a good one doc. You betcha, nuke waste is a state problem that no state wants in their state. The reason for that is Nuke waste will kill ya man.
Carbon farming can be used to take the carbon out of the atmosphere as a proven fact.
“Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, agricultural practices and animal
husbandry have released an estimated 135 gigatons — 135 billion metric tons — of
carbon into the atmosphere, according to Rattan Lal, a soil scientist at Ohio State
University. Even at current rates, that’s more than a decade’s worth of carbon
dioxide emissions from all human sources. The world is warming not only because
fossil fuels are being burned, but also because soils, forests and wetlands are being
ravaged.”
Carbon can be our friend and instead of destroying us, we can build with it safely. Nukes are not the answer, renewable’s are.
Drumpf shut down NASA’s carbon tracking program.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts
Jerry,
If you want to bury the spent nuclear fuel as is, you can do that. Finland is moving ahead by encasing the spent fuel in clay surrounded by granite.
A better solution is to extract what energy you can before burying the remainder. You get extra value, and you avoid building additional Yucca Mountains because the volume and radioactivity would be reduced.
I’m not saying don’t do renewables, just do them in the right way. Either have a working means of energy storage, or don’t emit carbon when you back them up.
With regard to natural forms of carbon removal, less land surface is being allocated to agriculture or natural reserves every day. The key is really the RATE of carbon removal. And that is not in our favor at the moment.
O,
Long-term we should be looking at 100-year costs and outcomes and make wise investments, not be stuck within a 2-year election cycle.
If anybody hears of one of these events in Rapid City, or perhaps even Piedmont, please blog about it here.
And then there is this- https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/emails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950
New EPA study shows chemicals hurt people at much lower levels than previously reported, so it was hushed up.
MIke,
You left out the good parts.
Soon after the Trump White House raised concerns about the impending study, EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson reached out to his HHS counterpart, as well as senior officials in charge of the agency overseeing the assessment to discuss coordinating work among HHS, EPA and the Pentagon. Jackson confirmed the outreach last week, saying it is important for the government to speak with a single voice on such a serious issue.
“EPA is eager to participate in and, contribute to a coordinated approach so each federal stakeholder is fully informed on what the other stakeholders’ concerns, roles, and expertise can contribute and to ensure that the federal government is responding in a uniform way to our local, state, and Congressional constituents and partners,” Jackson told POLITICO via email.
Pruitt has made addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, a priority for EPA. The unpublished HHS study focused on two specific chemicals from this class, PFOA and PFOS.
States have been pleading with EPA for help, and experts say that contamination is so widespread, the chemicals are found in nearly every water supply that gets tested.
Shortly after Dourson’s nomination was dropped, Pruitt announced a “leadership summit” with states to discuss the issue scheduled for next week.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/emails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950
I always love the misleading headlines of news people.
It’s going to start getting real cold soon.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=inerglacial+temps&atb=v77-2_u&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fopentextbc.ca%2Fgeology%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F110%2F2015%2F07%2FGlacials-and-Interglacials-.png
Jason, I don’t think your post does what you wanted it to do. You may be dumb enough to believe wingnuts care about the environment, but you’d be in the minority.
The only voice wingnuts in EPA want heard is from the chemical industry.
MFI … I agree. I read the politico story and it’s a piece about how the Trump EPA is withholding information about poison in our water. Using the article to tout a gathering of gov’t criminals getting together to get their lies straight hardly supports a position of government competency.
https://www.axios.com/cooling-the-earth-without-cooking-it-3a9b3cd1-b6fb-4efa-aa70-cacf0389c530.html
“The International Energy Agency forecast Tuesday that the number of air conditioners in buildings worldwide will more than triple by 2050, reaching 5.6 billion as demand surges in India, China and elsewhere.”
Air-conditioning is expected to be the second largest factor in global electricity growth. So you will need better efficiency in the AC units that are sold around the world, and you will need to produce the requisite energy without any carbon emissions.
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-working-poor.html
The great philanthropists of our time.