Some of the best arguments against the US capping CO2 can be summed in a single word.  These words are: India, China, Brazil and Indonesia.  The long winded version of these arguments go something like this:

Even if the US and Europe cut emissions by 100% there are still 3+ billion people, half the world living in the in those countries and they are increasing their CO2 at a stagering pace.  The cost of “green energy” is so much higher than carbon based energy that these and other developing countries will chose the cheaper carbon choice.

So, what can be done about this?  Should we subsidize these developing countries so they go with green power? Should we give up?  The short answer is that we (North America, Europe, Japan, Korea) need to push for deployment and development of wind, sun and hydropower solutions at home, now.  We need to help reduce the cost of these technologies, by supporting this young industry. 

Yes, the old rules of the marketplace work here, the more solar and wind generation is deployed, the faster the cost of these power sources decline.  The early affect of Germany’s efforts to encourage solar and wind power has helped to both reduce the cost of solar panels and wind turbines with increased the demand for these technologies. Much in the way that VCRs, PCs, microchips and Flat Panels have dropped in pricing as a result of increased demand and sales, economies of scale and competition, solar and wind technologies have followed that model.  When the cost of these new technologies create power for less than the cost of fossil fuels, we’ll see developing countries choose green.

So if you want to keep the developing world from building 1000s of fossil fuel power plants, tens of millions of gas powered vehicles and 100s of millions of carbon burning homes, it’s best to encourage the developed world to increase the speed of green energy deployments here.  Let’s hope the US either leads the way, or follows germany’s lead.  Fortunately with the exit of the Bush administration, the US has gotten out of the way.

If you watch television you’ve seen the ads with oilman Boone Pickens promoting switching our vehicles to run on natural gas/renewable fuels.  If not, the plan is based on 1 fundamental point: that relying on foreign oil is dangerous to the US economy and it’s position in the world.  In short, we should switch to natural guess to power vehicles instead of using oil.  The plan itself is under attack for substituting one carbon based fuel for another, when CO2 levels need to be reduced.  Further the is under attack because it’s creator/backer, 80 year old oilman T. Boone Pickens, has substantial investments in the various components of the plan.

The Good

The plan is about reducing dependence on oil and the transfer of wealth from the US to oil producing countries.  Keeping our energy spend at/near home is something that i support with my environmental, nationalist and capitalist values.  Environmentally the plan calls on substituting natural gas for gasoline that is mainly made from imported oil and substituting the electricity that is generated by natural gas, with wind power. This is a net gain for the environment. First, natural gas generates 30%+ less CO2, per mile than gasoline.  Further switching to wind from natural gas power plants eliminates the emissions from 16%+ of the power generation and about 11% of overall emissions for electrical generation (nat gas generates 33% of the CO2 of coal plants) due to it’s cleaner burn.

The Bad

The Pickens’ Plan encourage changing the entire US truck fleet to natural gas, since trucks use 25% of all gasoline.  Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels corp. a company that runs natural gas filling stations.  Pickens’ plan calls for wind power to replace natural gas generated power, to make the fuel available for transportation.  Pickens has ordered over $2 Billion worth of wind turbines to help produce that electricity.  The plan calls for the government allow emergency use of eminent domain to create right of ways for high voltage links between wind farms and electric users; Pickens is seeking to have power lines built to his wind farm.  While the plan may help the country, it is Pickens, more than any other individual, who will benefit from his plan.

The Ugly

Boone Pickens has been around for years and has acquired a number of friends and enemies.  Many enemies in the environmental movement base their stand on the effects of his business on the environment.  We all know about the environmental issues of an oil based economy and as a the ultimate Texas wildcatter, Mr. Pickens has made his fortune(and lost it and made it back) in the Oil and Gas industry.  More recently, Mr. Pickens has acquired the majority of water rights, for his Mesa Water, in his county in texas and intends to pump ground water for sale to Dallas, which is over 200 miles away.  Not only does he intend to pump water to sell, he intends to do so at a rate which empty the aquifer in 20 to 30 years.  In June he manage to get his ranch declared a public water district which gives him considerable power in using eminent domain to take property need for his 200+ mile pipeline.  Finally is you are a democrat and/or some one angry over the Swift Boat ads directed at John Kerry in 2004, it was Boone Pickens that spent over $7 million to bankroll the activity.

The Conclusion?

I think it’s a good idea to switch transportation to natural gas, from oil, but to put a bunch of government subsidies to make this switch when we are just a few years from plug-in rechargeables with reasonable cost and range isn’t wise.  Better we should subsidize, non-carbon technology with government money or tax credits.

Anthony Rubenstein discusses the plan and California Prop 10 at his site www.AnthonyRubenstein

A Homeowner in Beach Haven Terrace, NJ is facing a number of legal problems from his neighbors and local government over a 12 foot diameter wind generator mounted on a 32 foot high post in his backyard.  This generator manufactured by Southwest Windpower  is reported to have cost Mike Mercurio, the homeowner, green ethusaist and seller of alternative power generation for local homes, $15,000 to generate 25% of his power needs, the remaining power comes from 56 solar panels on his roof, about $50,000.  The main problem cited by his neighbors is the noise from the windmill.  According to the lawsuit, the sound, given off by the mill exceeds that of 50 decibels, considered the level of noise generated by light traffic on the street.  The lawsuit also complains of strobing (flashing) shadows caused by the mills spinning blades.

These are the sort of issues that make solar a more viable solution for urban and suburban area.  But with Mercurios system, likely costing $65,000, is it financialy benefitial?  His gas and electric bills were “as high as $340″ a month, or about $4100 a year.  Paying 8% for using a home equity loan, you would be paying $300 in monthly interest for the loan, which would result in you saving nearly $500 in each year if you never payoff the loan.  As long as the system lasted 15 years without maintenance expenses, it kinda works, but to pay off the loan within the 15 years. This likely pushes the monthly cost of the loan $700

When you look at an all solar system, that has a 25+ year lifetime, it brings the loan servicing to about $550 a month for a 10 kw solar solution, about 50% more than the cost of power in Beach Haven Terrace, New Jersey

If you read this blog religiously, which of course everyone should, you heard me discuss the use of a solar “chimney” designed to use a downdraft to push turbines.  The idea being: Spray water over the top opening of the chimney and the cold air generated by evaporation will drop to the bottom of the stack, creating a vacuum that will cause a downdraft.  This is a new and untested idea, but the solar chimney is not.

The “Solar Chimney” runs in reverse, a tall tower can be attached to a greenhouse like, heat sync, which would cause the heated air to rise in the stack producing an updraft thru the tall stack. Placing turbines at/near the bottom of the stack will generate electric power as the tower sucks the warmed air up the stack.  Also called a solar updraft tower, this technology has been tested.  The tower, built by Germany, in Spain was 195 meters high, with a stack with a diameter of 10 meters.  The collection greenhouse covered 11 acres and could generate a maximum of 50 kW, it ran from 1983 until 1989, when it was shutdown due to structural damage from the vortices caused by the updraft. 

Scientists today, envision a much larger tower that is capable of generating 40 MW of electricity, enough to power about 40,000 homes. Unfortunately, estimates for the cost of building such a plant, lead to estimates that range from an affordable 7 cents per Kw/hrs to an unacceptable rate of 35 cents per Kw/hrs.  Much of the cost can be attributed to the cost of land, glazing and labor needed to build a collector “greenhouse” that covers nearly 2 sq/miles.

While not a solar chimney, this updraft concept can, in theory use any heat source to cause the updraft.  This technology should be viable anywhere/anyplace/anytime that the ambient temperature is lower than the heat being sent up the chimney.  Whether this can be financially feasable, it seems quite straight forward from the standpoint of physics and civil engineering.