Green Sacrifices

[neonlyte]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7075759.stm

Here's an interesting survey about consumers and energy sacrifices. Suprisingly high numbers, from across the world, prepared to make personal sacrifices to help conserve energy.

Even allowing for a probable tendency to answer positively in the face of such questions, halving these numbers would still indicate a considerable ground swell of support for lifestyle change.

 

[cantdog]

Higher energy costs are kind of inevitable, anyhow, for a generation, I would think.

I worry when politicians want to be seen to "do something." Hysterical crap gets legislated. The best solutions are not centralized ones, anyway. The Malmö model, for instance, where the energy plant is small and local, and the waste heat is used for heating. Distributed systems.

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's an interesting survey about consumers and energy sacrifices. Suprisingly high numbers, from across the world, prepared to make personal sacrifices to help conserve energy.

Another example of how things get "altered" by each reporter: Neither the BBC article you linked, nor the actual questions shown on the graphics say anything about people being prepared to make sacrifices, only that sacrifices would be necessary -- and they are necessary for many reasons.

ETA: my bad: The BBC article does claim people are ready to make personal aacrifices, but the ample question in the graphics don't support that conclusion.

I, personally, am absolutely convinced that "sacrifice are necessary," but I'm NOT convinced that I am the one who has to make them; at least not if I have to make them while someone else can choose not to make them.


All 1.4 MB of the actual study can be found here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_07bbcclimatesurvey.pdf and I suspect that the result are not exactly how the author of the article or you have interpreted them.

 

[trysail]

Gore Nightmare Wins as Europe Pays to Ship U.S. Coal
By Christopher Martin

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Now that the price of coal is at a historic low relative to oil, there's no stopping consumers and producers alike from embracing Al Gore's nightmare.

A ton of U.S. coal is so cheap at about $47 that European utilities will pay $50 to ship it across the Atlantic, according to Galbraith's Ltd., a 263-year-old London shipbroker. While oil and coal cost the same as recently as 1998, West Texas Intermediate crude is five times more expensive after climbing to a record $96.24 on Nov. 1.

Peabody Energy Corp., Consol Energy Inc. and Arch Coal Inc., the three biggest U.S. coal companies, forecast the largest increase in exports in 20 years, degrading the call for a moratorium on coal plants by former U.S. Vice President and this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore. Coal use worldwide has grown 27 percent since 2002, three times faster than crude, said BP Plc. U.S. East Coast coal has risen 71 percent, while oil tripled on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

``Coal is by far the cheapest fuel because there's no price on how much damage it causes,'' said John Holdren, a Harvard University professor of environmental science and director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. ``Unless you get policies to put a price on carbon dioxide and other emissions, no other plants can compete.''

U.S. coal prices are equal to $1.98 for each million British thermal units of energy, compared with $12.51 for fuel oil and $6.91 for natural gas, data compiled by Bloomberg show. A million British thermal units is the equivalent of eight gallons of gasoline.

Coal Companies
``There is a huge advantage with coal, and this will continue indefinitely,'' said Gianfilippo Mancini, the head of fuel purchasing for Enel SpA, Italy's largest power company, which is spending 4 billion euros ($5.8 billion) to convert oil-fed plants to run on coal.

Gore, 59, said five months ago the U.S. should adopt a ``complete moratorium'' on new coal-fed power plants unless all of the carbon dioxide from them can be buried underground. Government efforts to subsidize coal as an alternative to oil would be a ``serious mistake,'' he said in a June 1 interview on ``Conversations with Judy Woodruff'' on Bloomberg Television.

U.S. coal exports to Europe for the first nine months of this year were 11.4 million tons, up 15 percent from the same period in 2006, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Coal generates 41 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for the warming of the Earth's climate, Gulf of Mexico hurricanes and rising sea levels.

Stock Forecasts
The increased demand for coal boosted Peabody, Arch and Consol 36 percent from Aug. 3 to Nov. 2 in New York trading, according to Bloomberg's U.S. coal index. Among Wall Street analysts, 76 percent recommend buying shares of Peabody and 62 percent recommend Consol, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Consol shares may gain 41 percent to $78, forecasts David M. Khani, the head of research at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. whose call on the stock last year provided 50 percent returns for investors, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. He expects Peabody to increase 25 percent to $64 and Arch Coal by 48 percent to $58.

``Consol is in a great position to take a big share of the new demand from Europe,'' said Bill Wolf, an analyst at John T. Boyd & Co. in Pittsburgh, which advises coal buyers and mining companies. Consol operates a port in Baltimore that can handle more than twice the 6.3 million tons it shipped last year.

Pittsburgh-based Consol will open its largest metallurgical coal mine by Jan. 1, with as much as 5 million tons of annual production available to overseas buyers.

Climate Changes
More than 1,000 coal-fed power plants will be built in the next five years, mostly in China and India, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. China, the world's biggest coal producer, became a net importer for the first time this year, taking supplies from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa and reducing the amount available for Europe.

``If those 1,000 plants get built without any controls on carbon emissions, we will careen into unmanageable changes in our climate,'' the 63-year-old Holdren said in an interview. ``We need to motivate carbon capture and storage through policy. We will still be using coal, but in much smarter ways. It doesn't have to be an economy buster.''

India needs to add 40,000 megawatts a year, or 30 percent of current capacity, to maintain its 8 percent economic growth, said Jayarama Chalasani, director at Mumbai-based Reliance Energy Ltd., India's second-biggest utility.

`Growth Is There'
``What we're seeing right now is just great,'' said Sipho Nkosi, chief executive officer of Exxaro Resources Ltd., the South African coal and zinc producer. The rally in prices ``will continue because if you look at the projections in China, the growth there is just phenomenal. Whether you're talking America, Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia, all economies are doing well. The growth is there.''

To be sure, proposed U.S. coal plants may not be completed because of regulatory and environmental opposition. Kansas regulators last month rejected a permit for a coal-fueled plant because its carbon emissions were deemed a health hazard.

New cleaner-burning technologies for coal, such as one that converts the fuel to a synthetic gas, have been delayed or rejected as too costly. Financing new coal plants may also become more difficult as environmental groups step up efforts against lenders including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp.

Coal producers in the U.S. say sales in emerging markets are rising.

U.S. Exports
``I didn't know how to get coal to Romania a month ago but I do now,'' said Michael McQuillen, chief executive officer of Alpha Natural Resources Inc., the coal miner in Virginia formed by First Reserve Corp., the largest private equity firm focused on energy assets. Russia, Ukraine and Romania are all looking to buy from the U.S., he said.

U.S. coal exports have increased 37 percent this year and will continue to climb because of record global demand and a weaker dollar, analysts and executives say.

Port operator Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, a U.S. pipeline operator, plans to expand its capacity to handle more coal as China, the world's largest producer, becomes a net importer and Australian exports are delayed.

``We see increased interest in coal exports at all of our locations,'' said Emily Thompson, a spokeswoman for Houston-based Kinder Morgan.

 

[sr71plt]

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean a lot for people to say they are "prepared" to make sacrifices for the environment. It only means something if they actually do it.

 

[neonlyte]

Unfortunately, it doesn't mean a lot for people to say they are "prepared" to make sacrifices for the environment. It only means something if they actually do it.

I don't think many are in a position to do it, hybrid cars remain expensive, solar energy systems appear stuck on a 20 year payback cycle despite conventional energy price rises and most governments in Europe are reluctant to invest in the kind of transport infrastructure that would encourage populations to switch away from there cars. Our cities in Europe, let alone the USA, don't lend themselves to low energy alternatives, we can't just junk the out of town shopping malls overnight.

On WH's point... thanks for providing the link to the full documentation, by the way. I'm pretty surte if those questions were being asked of me, I'd understand it was me that was being asked to make the sacrifice.

 

[Weird Harold]

On WH's point... I'm pretty sure if those questions were being asked of me, I'd understand it was me that was being asked to make the sacrifice.

I suspect you're probably in the minority on that point, but the point is more that the way the question is worded -- without explcitly stating the personal nature of the proposed sacrifices/cost increases -- makes a positive response more likely because it leave that bit of ethical "wiggle room."

They did make a point in the article of noting that China's high positive response rate was almost entirely from the phone interviews and they chinese seem reluctant to depart from the official party-line when they're on a party line (or what might a well BE party line with the government.)

They did NOT note any possible differences arising from translating the survey questions into multiple languages -- and that is another probable area of inaccuracy because of shades of meanings lost in translation.

I'm with Cantdog in a concern that this might push politician into being brave enough to propose that we "Do Something."

 

[neonlyte]

I suspect you're probably in the minority on that point, but the point is more that the way the question is worded -- without explcitly stating the personal nature of the proposed sacrifices/cost increases -- makes a positive response more likely because it leave that bit of ethical "wiggle room."

They did make a point in the article of noting that China's high positive response rate was almost entirely from the phone interviews and they chinese seem reluctant to depart from the official party-line when they're on a party line (or what might a well BE party line with the government.)

They did NOT note any possible differences arising from translating the survey questions into multiple languages -- and that is another probable area of inaccuracy because of shades of meanings lost in translation.

I'm with Cantdog in a concern that this might push politician into being brave enough to propose that we "Do Something."

I'm odd that way, WH
Translations bothered me as well, the Chinese response is almost suspiciously high.

As for government action - it is difficult to know where to start. Building standards are an obvious starting point, but barely touch the scale of the problem. You can price people away from transport to a degree (fuel duties, etc), but you can't price people into using mass transport systems without colossal infrastructure investment. My guess is nuclear power generation will rise to the fore (with all its inherent problems) because it is an easier way of maintaining status quo.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm odd that way, WH
Translations bothered me as well, the Chinese response is almost suspiciously high.

Which is why they hinted at the possibility (probbility?) of the telephone respondents being afraid of the phones being monitored.

As for government action - it is difficult to know where to start. Building standards are an obvious starting point, but barely touch the scale of the problem. You can price people away from transport to a degree (fuel duties, etc), but you can't price people into using mass transport systems without colossal infrastructure investment.

Two possible approaches for government intervention that might be better starting points than building code -- or in conjunction with building codes:

1: Tax breaks/incentives for choosing a more expensive "Green" option or to offset the added expense imposed by "Green" building codes.

2: Starting with just a few blocks, ban motor vehicles or internal combustion engines from city centers -- set up (or expand) "Park And Ride" lots with adequate security to make leaving a car sit all day feasible. Make some sort of provision for parcel transportation from city center to the Park & Ride and provide sufficient "Green" alternative transportation -- "Drive and Drop" golf carts, bicycles, and/or those two wheeled, pogo-sticky "Things"; Disney-style Trams (100--150 passenger trackless trains from parking lots to ticket windows,) or conventional busses and light rail mass transit systems. A mix of all those possibilities would probably work best.

The ony real infrastructure needed would be expanded Parking at the edges of the no traffic zones and for the "Drive and Drop" vehicles.

NOTE: "Drive and Drop" is a theorietical rental system that allows someone to rent a vehicle, drive it to where they need to go and just park it with the keys in it for omeone ele to use while they conduct their business. They just pick up one somebody else dropped when it's time to go home. It been tried with varied success for beach-bike rentals and the like, but I don't know of any place that has tried it on a large scale where it's the primary (or even a major) means of transport.

My guess is nuclear power generation will rise to the fore (with all its inherent problems) because it is an easier way of maintaining status quo.

I don't think Nuclear is going to get much of a boost because, despite it's undeniably "Green" nature, it's a political and security nightmare. Solar,Tidal, Wind, and fuel cells will be developed to the very edges of theoretical maximums before Nuclear is reconsidered for widepspread use.

 

[neonlyte]

I don't think Nuclear is going to get much of a boost because, despite it's undeniably "Green" nature, it's a political and security nightmare. Solar,Tidal, Wind, and fuel cells will be developed to the very edges of theoretical maximums before Nuclear is reconsidered for widepspread use.

We have a new programme of legislation announced today in the UK. Paving the way for new Nuclear plants is on the agenda.

Lot of 'park and ride', 'drive and drop' and tramway schemes in the UK, they've done diddly squat to reduce congestion. The only thing that has worked (in London) is road pricing. At 17$ a day to take a car into Central London fewer people bother, but the trains are packed solid with a 30min ride costing a city worker an annual 2500$ for the privilage of standing packed like sardines in a can.

 

[Weird Harold]

Lot of 'park and ride', 'drive and drop' and tramway schemes in the UK, they've done diddly squat to reduce congestion. The only thing that has worked (in London) is road pricing.

The problem I see with existing schemes is that they're optional and you can still drive into the city centers with private vehicles. For Park and Ride, Drive and Drop, and tramways to reduce congestion, any other transport has to be banned.

The problem of providing adequate capacity (without committing excess resources) is a serious sticking point for popular acceptance of wider use of "traffic free zones."

I'm not exactly sure how to implement it over an entire city the size of London, but the problem of commuters and standing room only is to spread the commute out with "flex-time" and "staggered shifts" -- stop trying to cram an entire city's workforce onto the 0600 train.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think many are in a position to do it, hybrid cars remain expensive, solar energy systems appear stuck on a 20 year payback cycle despite conventional energy price rises and most governments in Europe are reluctant to invest in the kind of transport infrastructure that would encourage populations to switch away from there cars. Our cities in Europe, let alone the USA, don't lend themselves to low energy alternatives, we can't just junk the out of town shopping malls overnight.

On WH's point... thanks for providing the link to the full documentation, by the way. I'm pretty surte if those questions were being asked of me, I'd understand it was me that was being asked to make the sacrifice.

I was refering to taking any thought of saying you are willing to do it as evidence that you would actually do it. Your post substantiates that view. There is a lot that can be done on the margin by anyone--recycling, conservative water use, enviormentally sound landscaping, restricted gasoline use, taking your own bags to the grocery store for reuse, carpooling, etc, ad nauseum. And hybrid cars are getting cheaper and more plentiful. (Just recently I gave up my preference for a Toyota Avalon for a Toyota Camry Hybrid--same price; I was going to spend that anyway).

If excuses continue to be made that it can't be afforded and isn't available yet while there's a whole raft of smaller help means available that aren't put into play (although I suspect that most put these into play and don't even think about doing it anymore), saying we're "willing" to start cleaning up means squat.

 

[trysail]

Duke Says Climate Measure Might Raise Power Bills 53%
By Jim Polson

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Duke Energy Corp., the third-largest U.S. producer of power from coal, said electricity bills for its customers would rise by as much as 53 percent in 2012 under terms of a climate-change bill introduced in the U.S. Senate.

Costs to buy allowances for emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, as required under the legislation, would result in a surge of power bills in the 25 states that get more than half their power from coal, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke said today in a statement.

Duke and other power producers that rely mostly on coal for generation oppose the sale of allowances included in the bill introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent, and Virginia Republican John Warner. Initial allowances should be given to generators based on historic emissions, Duke said.

``This bill unduly penalizes consumers in the Midwest, Great Plains and Southeast who depend on coal for much of their electricity,'' Duke Chief Executive Officer Jim Rogers said in the statement. ``It should be called what it is, a disproportionate tax on consumers in the 25 states that depend on coal.''

Duke supports the goal of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, he said.

The legislation would accelerate mandated emissions cuts, encourage investment in climate-technology and create a multibillion-dollar emissions cap-and-trade system, according to its sponsors.

Technology
With no commercial technology currently available to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-fueled plants, buying allowances would be the only alternative to shutting the plants if the legislation is enacted, Duke spokesman Tom Williams said today in an interview.

The measure, at least the seventh on climate to be introduced in the Senate this year, was endorsed by Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, which would have to approve it.

The bill would require Duke to buy as much as 57 percent of its allowances beginning in 2012 at prices as high as $45 per ton of carbon dioxide, Williams said. The company's plants produce about 108 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to Carbon Monitoring for Action, a not-for-profit database.

Coal
Coal is used to generate 71 percent of the power Duke sells to its 4 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. Electricity bills would rise the most in Indiana, Duke said. That state relies on fossil fuels such as coal for 95 percent of its power, according to Carbon Monitoring for Action.

Imposing such a system in 2012 would double Indiana power bills, Duke said today. Electricity bills in North and South Carolina, where Duke's nuclear plants are located, would rise 46 percent, the company said.

The issue of whether carbon dioxide allowances should be granted or sold divided utility owners, largely by region and by their reliance on coal.

The Lieberman-Warner bill ``is far too favorable to coal producers,'' Ralph Izzo, chief executive officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., New Jersey's largest utility owner, said on Nov. 1. ``It gives the lion's share of emission credits on the basis of emissions and fuel use as opposed to electric output, which is the approach we would prefer.''

 

[trysail]

Environment Be Damned, Oil Prices Light Fire Under Wood in U.S.
By Robert Tuttle

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- More American households, faced with an 83 percent increase in home heating-oil prices over the past year, are turning to an alternative as old as the Stone Age: wood.

While the typical wood stove emits as much as 350 times more pollution than an oil furnace, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, some homeowners find the economics compelling. Firewood costs less than half as much as heating oil in terms of energy produced, based on prices from the U.S. Energy Department and firewoodcenter.com.

``I got nearly a $2,500-a-year saving by putting in a wood boiler,'' says Wendy Wells, a 39-year-old New Hampshire bookkeeper who replaced her oil furnace two years ago with a $3,700 wood-oil combination.

Sales of wood-pellet stoves, the least environmentally harmful wood-heating devices, more than tripled since 1999 to 133,105 last year, according to the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association in Arlington, Virginia. At Thayer Nursery in Milton, Massachusetts, owner Josh Oldfield says firewood sales are 15 to 18 percent higher than a year ago.

``As oil creeps up toward $100 a barrel, firewood sales have increased dramatically,'' Oldfield says. ``There is definitely a correlation.''

Business also has picked up for sellers of wood stoves, boilers and ovens used to dry wood, or kilns, says Sherri Latulip, co-owner of Mountain Firewood Kilns in Littleton, New Hampshire.

`They Start Buying'
The company's sales have tripled, says her husband, Bill. Mountain Firewood's kilns retail for $21,800, and combination wood-oil boilers, for as much as $6,490.

``We really started getting the run on them at the end of August, early September,'' he says. ``When people hear oil is going to get expensive, they start buying.''

Crude oil, which accounts for about 60 percent of heating oil's retail price, rose to a record $98.62 a barrel on Nov. 7 in New York, before declining as demand eased. Crude oil for January delivery rose $3.39, or 3.6 percent, to settle at $98.03 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange yesterday.

Heating oil futures, which represent wholesale prices, have gained 61 percent in the past year, pushed higher by crude oil. The retail price of the fuel averaged a record $3.21 a gallon on Nov. 12, the most recent available, according to the Energy Department. Natural gas prices have fallen 6.8 percent in the past year through yesterday.

Wood prices have increased more slowly than oil because of abundant supply and people's ability to gather and split their own wood, particularly in the Northeast where usage is concentrated.

Primary Heating Source
Ray Colton, owner of Colton Enterprises Inc. in Pittsfield, Vermont, says he sells kiln-dried firewood for $220 a cord, the same as last year. A cord, 128 cubic feet (3.6 cubic meters) of stacked firewood, is about equal to the amount that can be loaded onto two full-sized pick-up trucks. The national average is about $160 a cord, according to firewoodcenter.com.

Wood was the primary heating source for about 1.3 percent of U.S. households in 2005, according to the most-recent Energy Department data. That was down from 7.1 percent 20 years earlier. Seven percent of homes use heating oil, 58 percent natural gas and 30 percent electricity. Propane and other fuels account for the remainder.

Pollution is the big drawback. Even stoves that burn dog- food sized pellets of compressed sawdust emit about 40 times more particulate matter, similar to soot, than an oil furnace, according to the EPA.

Federal Regulations
The emissions can contribute to respiratory illnesses such as asthma, says David Wright, a supervisor with Maine's Department of Environmental Protection. Wood burning for residential heating accounted for 57 percent of toxic air emissions in the state, he says.

The federal EPA issued regulations for woodstoves in 1989, mandating that they emit no more than 4.1 grams of smoke an hour for catalytic stoves, which convert particulates and harmful gases into less-polluting exhaust, and 7.5 grams an hour for ordinary stoves. Manufacturers that fail to meet those standards may be fined as much as much as $100 a stove, says John Dupree, supervisor of the EPA's wood heater program.

Several states, including New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, also have regulations to control pollution, says George Allen, a senior scientist at the Boston-based Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a nonprofit association of state air-quality agencies.

New Jersey, Connecticut
New Jersey has a law, enforced by fines, that forbids use of outdoor wood boilers that emit smoke, says Lisa Rector, senior policy analyst for the group. States including Connecticut and Vermont have rules that require wood boilers to be placed a given distance from a neighbor's property.

Wells says air quality isn't a major concern for people in her part of New Hampshire, where the temperature falls to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 29 degrees Celsius) for weeks at a time. Almost everyone burns wood, she says.

``It is very expensive to heat our houses up here because we are so far north and the climate is so cold,'' Wells says. ``We live among the trees, where the deer and antelope play.''

-- With reporting by Mark Shenk in New York. Editor: Wiegold (djs/rls/ecw)

 

[impressive]

Couldn't find the thread on this topic, but this is interesting:

http://www.alternet.org/stories/70475/?page=entire

 

[Weird Harold]

Couldn't find the thread on this topic, but this is interesting:

http://www.alternet.org/stories/70475/?page=entire

A relatively factual diatribe against "clean coal" but seriously biased by a NIMBY -- or more precisely No MORE In My Backyard -- concern over the coal producing regions like apalachia.

There are some good things about coal gasification as a short-term (50-75 years or so) solution to our energy problems but it still a non-renewable fossil fuel in the long run.

 

[oggbashan]

My computer, home and my town are powered by wind turbines, whenever the wind blows out at sea, which it does almost every day.

In the next couple of years another wind farm will be built out at sea, out of sight of land in shallow water. That wind farm will supply enough electricity for about one third of London's needs but if wind technology continues to improve as it has done in the last five years might supply between one half and two-thirds.

When we don't need the wind power, we supply it to France. When the wind doesn't blow, we get nuclear-generated electricity from Dungeness, or from French nuclear stations.

And I've turned the thermostat down - and wear more layers in winter. Air conditioning? I open a window to use the sea breeze.

Og