The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

So, remember after the Gulf oil spill, many were warning about the big potential problem if the massive methane gas plumes that would result? And their effect on not only the oceanic ecosystems, but also on the atmosphere as it was released?

 

In June, it looked bad. Real bad.

 

In September, when they went back to look for it... it was gone. One scientist theorizes it was methanotrophs, but another says they don't eat that fast. So, either there is really good news - it was eaten - or really bad news, that its not moved on somewhere else.

 

Good read.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Its a start though, and its definitely a good place to invest infrastructure money into. Huge money and time savings long run, not to mention job creation, increase in tourism spending, etc.

 

But you are right, the GOP in the House will say no. 81 members of the Senate think the money is better spent on oil subsidies - that's how laughably shortsighted they (81 being multple parties) are.

Just for you...

House Transportation Committee Chair Rep. John Mica ® of Florida said previous administration grants to high-speed rail projects were a failure, producing "snail speed trains to nowhere." He called Amtrak a "Soviet-style train system" and said it "hijacked" nearly all the administration's rail projects.

 

Meanwhile, Railroads Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bill Shuster ® of Pennsylvania said Mr. Biden's plan was "insanity," adding: "Rail projects that are not economically sound will not 'win the future' " – coopting the slogan President Obama coined in his State of the Union address.

You're a stalinist.

[Balta1701]

A good read on why Texas's energy de-regulation format played a role in driving the pre-Super-Bowl rolling blackouts last week.

[Balta1701]

There's a cute study about to be published looking at the effectively hidden costs of heavy U.S. coal consumption.

In a groundbreaking article to be released this month in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Dr. Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, details the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion. These costs, between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually, are directly passed on to the public. A full copy of the report is available upon request.

 

In terms of human health, the report estimates $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities, with a majority of the impact resulting from increased healthcare costs, injury and death. Emissions of air pollutants account for $187.5 billion, mercury impacts as high as $29.3 billion, and climate contributions from combustion between $61.7 and $205.8 billion. Heavy metal toxins and carcinogens released during processing pollute water and food sources and are linked to long-term health problems. Mining, transportation, and combustion of coal contribute to poor air quality and respiratory disease, while the risky nature of mining coal results in death and injury for workers.

 

In comparison, other sums related to economic and environmental damage include between $2.2 and $10 billion in impacts from land disturbances and $8.8 billion in related costs due to abandoned mine lands. Qualitative impacts include environmental damages and clean-up costs from toxic spills, declines in property values, timber resources, crop damage (due to water contamination), and loss of tourism.

 

“The public is unfairly paying for the impacts of coal use,” says Dr. Epstein. “Accounting for these ‘hidden costs’ doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar, and other renewable very economically competitive. Policymakers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind. Our reliance on fossil fuels is proving costly for society, negatively impacting our wallets and our quality of life.”

 

Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public

Typical electricity rates are something like $.10-$.15/kWh, with obviously decent variation. So if you compare the full lifecycle cost of coal electricity, renewables are vastly cheaper, but if you consider only the on-site cost, the cost on your electric bill, coal looks cheaper, while people like me cough all the way to the health insurer.

 

This is the fun game of dirty energy; you bear the costs out in health care and the climate, but your raw electricity bill stays down. As long as everyone plays the game, we get to pretend that coal is cheap. If one person switches to a renewable source, it doesn't make much of a difference, so there's no way for you to get that money back except to pretend that the indirect costs are a subsidy given to you to use coal as your main fuel. It takes a large number of people switching to have the economy start realizing those savings.

[iamshack]

A good read on why Texas's energy de-regulation format played a role in driving the pre-Super-Bowl rolling blackouts last week.

This is interesting, because New Mexico had a lot of blackouts as well, due to frozen pipes. As far as I understand, most of this was caused by these states being cheap and lazy in regards to their weatherization procedures.

[iamshack]

There's a cute study about to be published looking at the effectively hidden costs of heavy U.S. coal consumption.

 

 

Typical electricity rates are something like $.10-$.15/kWh, with obviously decent variation. So if you compare the full lifecycle cost of coal electricity, renewables are vastly cheaper, but if you consider only the on-site cost, the cost on your electric bill, coal looks cheaper, while people like me cough all the way to the health insurer.

 

This is the fun game of dirty energy; you bear the costs out in health care and the climate, but your raw electricity bill stays down. As long as everyone plays the game, we get to pretend that coal is cheap. If one person switches to a renewable source, it doesn't make much of a difference, so there's no way for you to get that money back except to pretend that the indirect costs are a subsidy given to you to use coal as your main fuel. It takes a large number of people switching to have the economy start realizing those savings.

I'll give you some figures for coal versus what we pay for renewables.

 

Our different coal unit costs are basically between $.020 and .028 per kWh, depending on the price of coal and the O&M costs and age of the unit.

 

Many of our renewable plants cost between $.13 to .20 per kWh.

 

To say doubling or tripling the cost of coal would make renewables vastly cheaper right now is simply not true. Maybe at some point in the future, yes, but now, no.

Edited February 17, 2011 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

To say doubling or tripling the cost of coal would make renewables vastly cheaper right now is simply not true. Maybe at some point in the future, yes, but now, no.

Ok, but you did the math wrong. It's only doubling or tripling the cost if the cost is $.10/kWh. If you're using a cost of $.02/kwh, that means the hidden costs are 15x as much as the up-front costs.

 

And anyway, I'm not making stuff up when I quote a $.10/kwh price for electricity.

The average retail price of electricity for November 2010 was 9.62 cents per kilowatthour (kWh), 2.4 percent lower than October 2010 when the average retail price of electricity was 9.86 cents per kWh, and 2.0 percent higher than November 2009, when the price was 9.43 cents per kWh. Total retail sales between November 2009 and November 2010 increased 3.0 percent led by an 8.1-percent increase in the industrial sector. Over the same period, retail sales in the residential sector increased 0.7 percent and retail sales in the commercial sector increased 1.6 percent. The average price of residential electricity for November 2010 increased to 11.70 cents per kWh from November 2009, a 3.3-percent increase year-over-year, and decreased 1.9 percent from October 2010.

[iamshack]

Ok, but you did the math wrong. It's only doubling or tripling the cost if the cost is $.10/kWh. If you're using a cost of $.02/kwh, that means the hidden costs are 15x as much as the up-front costs.

 

And anyway, I'm not making stuff up when I quote a $.10/kwh price for electricity.

Oh, I know your retail cost is correct. But they are comparing the wholesale market to the retail market.

 

And I am not disputing the fact that there are a lot of hidden costs...that is very interesting. But there are a lot of hidden costs with all sorts of things. It doesn't really change how a utility is going to view things.

 

One thing I can tell you though is that these projections for renewables that you are seeing are very low for what we are experiencing in practice as of the present.

[Balta1701]

Oh, I know your retail cost is correct. But they are comparing the wholesale market to the retail market.

 

And I am not disputing the fact that there are a lot of hidden costs...that is very interesting. But there are a lot of hidden costs with all sorts of things. It doesn't really change how a utility is going to view things.

 

One thing I can tell you though is that these projections for renewables that you are seeing are very low for what we are experiencing in practice as of the present.

How the utility views things though is very different from what is best for society and best for public policy. The utility doesn't care how much it drives up health care costs for people living downstream of its generating sites except in the small increase in its insurance rates.

 

You just gave a good argument, to my eyes, about why we shouldn't be setting policy based on what is best for utilities.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama promises full funding of Land and Water Conservation Fund, for only the third time in its history, as part of his Great Outdoors initiative. He also wants a new CCC-like job corps for young people, working on parks and rec areas so that they are working. Funding will come from existing oil and gas extraction funds, so this doesn't have to pass Congress. Linky.

 

[iamshack]

How the utility views things though is very different from what is best for society and best for public policy. The utility doesn't care how much it drives up health care costs for people living downstream of its generating sites except in the small increase in its insurance rates.

 

You just gave a good argument, to my eyes, about why we shouldn't be setting policy based on what is best for utilities.

Oh I wasn't disagreeing with you. The utility doesn't give a crap about the hidden costs. The utility cares about it's rate cases and revenues, just like any other company. Keep in mind though that the mandated renewable portfolio targets are basically causing a lot of utilities to gobble up any reasonable renewable projects they can, so the issue of renewable costs versus conventional costs isn't really in play yet. It's not a matter of cost as much as it is of integration.

[Balta1701]

Obama promises full funding of Land and Water Conservation Fund, for only the third time in its history, as part of his Great Outdoors initiative. He also wants a new CCC-like job corps for young people, working on parks and rec areas so that they are working. Funding will come from existing oil and gas extraction funds, so this doesn't have to pass Congress. Linky.

But...that takes money out of the land-purchase program.

[mr_genius]

Obama promises full funding of Land and Water Conservation Fund, for only the third time in its history, as part of his Great Outdoors initiative. He also wants a new CCC-like job corps for young people, working on parks and rec areas so that they are working. Funding will come from existing oil and gas extraction funds, so this doesn't have to pass Congress. Linky.

 

waste of money

[Balta1701]

waste of money

[DBAHO]

Earthquake in Christchurch, NZ's 2nd biggest city has killed 65 so far.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/quake-aftersh...i-1226009960218

[NorthSideSox72]

Earthquake in Christchurch, NZ's 2nd biggest city has killed 65 so far.

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/quake-aftersh...i-1226009960218

Jeez - seems like the September quake set the table for this one. I was in Christchurch about 3 years ago at this time of year. This is high tourist season for the area.

 

[DBAHO]

Jeez - seems like the September quake set the table for this one. I was in Christchurch about 3 years ago at this time of year. This is high tourist season for the area.

My folks were on holiday in Christchurch exactly 1 year ago to this day, so it's definitely tourist season for sure.

 

Sounds as if 200 people are still trapped in buildings, so that's pretty horrific to say the least.

 

For AUS and NZ, it's been a pretty bad 3-6 months for disasters like this, and unfortunately they're probably going to become more common into the future.

[NorthSideSox72]

My folks were on holiday in Christchurch exactly 1 year ago to this day, so it's definitely tourist season for sure.

 

Sounds as if 200 people are still trapped in buildings, so that's pretty horrific to say the least.

 

For AUS and NZ, it's been a pretty bad 3-6 months for disasters like this, and unfortunately they're probably going to become more common into the future.

New Zealand lives under constant geological threat from earthquakes and even volcanoes, along with the side effects from those (slides, tsunami, etc.).

 

[Balta1701]

New Zealand lives under constant geological threat from earthquakes and even volcanoes, along with the side effects from those (slides, tsunami, etc.).

I'm surprised that an event of this size did this much damage in an area like NZ...which is ridiculously earthquake-prone.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm surprised that an event of this size did this much damage in an area like NZ...which is ridiculously earthquake-prone.

So... why is it surprising then?

 

By the way, even though this quake was "only" a 6.3, it looks like it was quite shallow, and Christchurch sits on a plain of silty soil (causes the liquefaction, I think).

 

[Balta1701]

So... why is it surprising then?

 

By the way, even though this quake was "only" a 6.3, it looks like it was quite shallow, and Christchurch sits on a plain of silty soil (causes the liquefaction, I think).

Because usually the magnitude of damage is a very, very strong function of the building codes and their enforcement. I always sorta thought of NZ as a fairly modern area where they know quakes are coming.

[DBAHO]

Because usually the magnitude of damage is a very, very strong function of the building codes and their enforcement. I always sorta thought of NZ as a fairly modern area where they know quakes are coming.

Don't think there was any warning at all that this was coming, happened about 10-11AM local time.

 

It wasn't that big of a quake obviously only being a 6.3, it just did the majority of the damage in the city centre and with it being a weekday, you had people at work in buildings etc. who are still now trapped.

[Balta1701]

Don't think there was any warning at all that this was coming, happened about 10-11AM local time.

 

It wasn't that big of a quake obviously only being a 6.3, it just did the majority of the damage in the city centre and with it being a weekday, you had people at work in buildings etc. who are still now trapped.

The lack of warning shouldn't matter.

 

Let me give you an example...the Northridge quake hit the L.A. basin directly, with a magnitude of 6.7 (quite a bit more intense than this...it's a logarithmic scale), with building codes that were up to date for the U.S. 20+ years ago. It killed 57 people, mostly in the collapse of a single brick apartment building.

 

Edit: and multi-story, "Office" buildings are generally the safest type of building to be in during a quake like this...because the force that it exerts on them is similar to the force exerted on them by an extreme wind event. Building codes for wind usually wind up being enough to protect modern office buildings.

[Balta1701]

After a bit of reading, Christchurch is described architecturally as having a number of classic, gothic-style buildings. Probably without any sort of seismic retrofit.

[Balta1701]

I just test drove a Nissan Leaf