The environment thread

[southsider2k5]

That is when profits would be higher - but demand is lower. We are in a circumstance where, just as these industries were starting to see decent growth in purchasing equipment, the recession hit. Not just any recession, but the worst since the Great Depression. So even though the products are generating even greater returns, consumers and governments don't have the cash to outlay.

 

Which is one of the reasons why I argued that, in this particular type of recession with high energy costs, now is the perfect time to invest in this stuff.... but, we wasted the "stimulus" bill on short term garbage instead. If we had done more investing in this field, then when the recovery eventually begins (whenever that is), you will have cheaper products ready for consumers just as they start being able to spend (and as energy prices go up even further, which they likely will as a global recovery takes foot).

 

We have really lost some opportunities with this, we f***ed it up.

 

And yet companies, especially the energy companies who can't find places to invest their money, aren't moving their cash into this area.

[NorthSideSox72]

And yet companies, especially the energy companies who can't find places to invest their money, aren't moving their cash into this area.

Oil-based companies are making huge profits on oil and gas right now, of course they aren't moving more into alt energy (though they are moving some, BTW - they realize what the long term future holds). They are just doing what is smart for them, even if it isn't in the best interests of the country. And the smaller startups are struggling for cash, as they always do. There is VC money out there going into it, but those VC funds have been running dry for nearly everything, not just alt energy.

 

[southsider2k5]

Oil-based companies are making huge profits on oil and gas right now, of course they aren't moving more into alt energy (though they are moving some, BTW - they realize what the long term future holds). They are just doing what is smart for them, even if it isn't in the best interests of the country. And the smaller startups are struggling for cash, as they always do. There is VC money out there going into it, but those VC funds have been running dry for nearly everything, not just alt energy.

 

That's just it. I was reading a while back that Exxon literally can't figure out what to do with its cash.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/276484-exx...to-shareholders

 

If they really thought this was going to be profitable, they would be pushing money this way so that they could control the transition.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's just it. I was reading a while back that Exxon literally can't figure out what to do with its cash.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/276484-exx...to-shareholders

 

If they really thought this was going to be profitable, they would be pushing money this way so that they could control the transition.

Exxon does spend a lot of money on it, by the way. They don't know what to do with the REST of the cash. Companies like Exxon will invest just enough into these alt energy fields to make sure they are set up to slide over when necessary. But they do not want to spend any more than that, because that may hasten the arrival of those new technologies, and cut into their profits. It would be business-stupid to over-invest in that, for them, right now.

 

But the US is not an oil company (waits for sarcastic response from Balta or StrangeSox), and energy policy is an inherently important national security and economic issue. We are doing very little as a government to help protect ourselves, and it scares the crap out of me.

 

[StrangeSox]

We are doing very little as a government to help protect ourselves, and it scares the crap out of me.

 

No need for sarcasm, just agreement with this. Even removing AGW and the huge impacts there from the equation, our energy security is pretty weak.

[Balta1701]

But the US is not an oil company (waits for sarcastic response from Balta or StrangeSox), and energy policy is an inherently important national security and economic issue. We are doing very little as a government to help protect ourselves, and it scares the crap out of me.

 

Thanks! I liked that one.

[NorthSideSox72]

No need for sarcasm, just agreement with this. Even removing AGW and the huge impacts there from the equation, our energy security is pretty weak.

Which is why I am also OK with more drilling, and some nuclear, though I am a little hesitant about the oil shale thing because of the much higher environmental impact of that.

 

[Balta1701]

Which is why I am also OK with more drilling, and some nuclear, though I am a little hesitant about the oil shale thing because of the much higher environmental impact of that.

The right answer on oil shale is to price the externalities (The carbon emissions, the oil spills, and the destruction of a Canadian province or two). If you do that and it remains competitive, then that means oil prices have continued to go up and other options have failed to come online, both of which would be severely disappointing.

[Balta1701]

NY Times editorial staff wants to stop the Canadian XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. Why? "We have two main concerns: the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and the fact that the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does. "

 

So, Canada is going to produce this stuff regardless of whatever enviro concerns you, me or the NY Times editorial staff has. If we block it, they can just sell to our Chinese overlords, and kiss goodbye the thousands of jobs it would create directly and indirectly. And we would continue to pay more for oil from other sources.

Well, first of all, this stuff isn't cheap. It is very, very, very expensive to process this stuff into oil. The companies that began developing the tar sands only hit profitability when oil prices spiked after 2005. So, we're going to pay more for oil from this source; if oil prices were to drop, they'd scale back production at these sites.

 

And secondly, no, they really can't sell this stuff to China. You lose so much mass in the enormous number of processing steps that at current price levels, its not profitable to ship this heavy tar overseas for processing. This pipeline would enable direct shipment of the stuff to the refineries in the gulf area that have already been processing heavy oil (From the gulf), limiting the transport costs.

[Balta1701]

The people I read who actively work on clean energy policy are aghast at that NYT article that Mr Genius cited. In particular they're frustrated at the part I've bolded, how in their efforts to write an article saying that green jobs haven't shown up, they limited themselves to 1 city in the san fran area, but then missed massive job growth throughout the rest of the eare.

With some colleagues, I recently drove through parts of Michigan and Ohio, stopping in at various companies connected to the new clean energy economy. (my colleague Lauren Kubiak is blogging the tour here). I toured factories that are manufacturing wind components, energy efficient roofing products and light fixtures and even a refrigerator recycling facility. In some of the areas hit hardest by both the recession and long-term outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing, the new clean economy is bringing jobs back. More importantly, these aren’t jobs that involve sitting at a desk all day pushing paperwork around (like, say, my job), but good-paying factory jobs for working class Americans, where things get built or made, and then sold.

 

Astraeus is in Eaton Rapids, Michigan, a town of about 5,000, and has developed innovative ways of manufacturing wind components quicker and cheaper. They’ve been able to hire back nearly all of the 100 workers that lost their jobs during the recession (and expect to create hundreds more jobs as their high-tech wind components are used by wind companies). In a community that size, that has real impact. Full Spectrum Solutions is based in Jackson, Michigan, another small town, and makes efficient lighting products. They’ve doubled in size during a tough recession.

 

There are literally dozens of stories just like this in the Midwest. We’ve got a backlog of companies we’ll be going back to visit on our next roadtrip and I look forward to sharing them.

 

Which is what makes this article so frustrating. First, I’ve read the Brookings report multiple times (and its great technical appendix) – and it’s not the depressing story the author makes it out to be. (my colleague blogged it here.) First – it was measuring the entire “clean economy”, not just clean technology (so analyzing 40 industry segments, including everything from public transit and types of farming, to pollution reduction and recycling). But if you just want to look at the “clean technology” segment of this clean economy, then you’ll see “explosive growth” per the report – wind and solar jobs grew anywhere from 10%-18% annually the past 8 years (see page 22). Overall, the clean economy accounts for 2.7 million jobs, making it a larger employer of Americans than the fossil fuel energy sectors.

 

Second – the point of this study was to analyze job growth across the U.S. So for example, while the South Bay (San Jose, Sunnvale, Santa Clara) lost 492 jobs from 2003-2010 (as referenced in the article), the region of San Francisco/Oakland/Fremont area increased total clean economy jobs from 2003-2010 by more than 44% in that time, adding 15,700 new jobs. (from the data downloads in their interactive map here). Nationally, similarly impressive stories are everywhere. During that same period, Knoxville, Tennessee added nearly 10,000 green jobs, as did Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina – tripling the size of jobs in their clean economies, while Little Rock Arkansas more than doubled the number of jobs in its clean economy.

 

Third, in terms of addressing broader, structural issues within the U.S. economy, according to the Brookings report, one quarter of all these jobs in the broader clean economy are manufacturing, with several segments (including those in energy efficiency, electric vehicles and chemical segments) more than 90% manufacturing. Further, these clean economy jobs pay median wages that are 13% higher than median U.S. wages (and for workers with less formal education).

 

So yes, looking at one community with 10.5% unemployment, you can write a story that the clean economy has not produced significant growth in the past 7 years. And looking at small sub-segments within the broader clean economy that are heavily exposed to construction and home building also probably won't paint a great picture. But looking across the nation, in areas and industries hit hardest by a tough economy, the story is much, much more optimistic. And if you don’t believe me, I’ve got some growing companies out in Michigan and Ohio that I can send you directions to.

First, the core inaccuracy:

 

A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.

 

Talk about a bait and switch. The NYT cites the Brookings study, but then pulls out one tiny piece of it to make the exact opposite argument of the study. As Climate Progress wrote, Brookings actually found nationwide:

 

From 2003 to 2010, the clean economy grew by 8.3% — almost double what the overall economy grew during those years….

 

“The pace of growth really is torrid in that sector,” says Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metropolitan Program and a co-author of the report. “This confirms the intuition that these exciting industries really are growing as fast as we think they are.”

 

On top of that, median salaries for cleantech-related jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy. But you’d never know that from the NYT hit job.

Link2

[southsider2k5]

The people I read who actively work on clean energy policy are aghast at that NYT article that Mr Genius cited. In particular they're frustrated at the part I've bolded, how in their efforts to write an article saying that green jobs haven't shown up, they limited themselves to 1 city in the san fran area, but then missed massive job growth throughout the rest of the eare.

 

 

 

Talk about a bait and switch. The NYT cites the Brookings study, but then pulls out one tiny piece of it to make the exact opposite argument of the study. As Climate Progress wrote, Brookings actually found nationwide:

 

 

 

On top of that, median salaries for cleantech-related jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy. But you’d never know that from the NYT hit job.Link2

 

How do they compare to other energy sector jobs in pay?

[StrangeSox]

The people I read who actively work on clean energy policy are aghast at that NYT article that Mr Genius cited. In particular they're frustrated at the part I've bolded, how in their efforts to write an article saying that green jobs haven't shown up, they limited themselves to 1 city in the san fran area, but then missed massive job growth throughout the rest of the eare.

 

 

 

Talk about a bait and switch. The NYT cites the Brookings study, but then pulls out one tiny piece of it to make the exact opposite argument of the study. As Climate Progress wrote, Brookings actually found nationwide:

 

 

 

On top of that, median salaries for cleantech-related jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy. But you’d never know that from the NYT hit job.Link2

 

LIBERAL BIAS!!!

 

But more seriously, what's with the ridiculously slanted article there?

[EvilMonkey]

Well, first of all, this stuff isn't cheap. It is very, very, very expensive to process this stuff into oil. The companies that began developing the tar sands only hit profitability when oil prices spiked after 2005. So, we're going to pay more for oil from this source; if oil prices were to drop, they'd scale back production at these sites.

 

And secondly, no, they really can't sell this stuff to China. You lose so much mass in the enormous number of processing steps that at current price levels, its not profitable to ship this heavy tar overseas for processing. This pipeline would enable direct shipment of the stuff to the refineries in the gulf area that have already been processing heavy oil (From the gulf), limiting the transport costs.

Those are issues for them. They will extract this oil regardless of our participation. It seems to me that the opposition to the pipeline will do nothing except shift jobs elsewhere. The oil WILL be processed, WILL be used and jobs WILL be had, why can't America be the beneficiary.

[NorthSideSox72]

The people I read who actively work on clean energy policy are aghast at that NYT article that Mr Genius cited. In particular they're frustrated at the part I've bolded, how in their efforts to write an article saying that green jobs haven't shown up, they limited themselves to 1 city in the san fran area, but then missed massive job growth throughout the rest of the eare.

 

 

 

Talk about a bait and switch. The NYT cites the Brookings study, but then pulls out one tiny piece of it to make the exact opposite argument of the study. As Climate Progress wrote, Brookings actually found nationwide:

 

 

 

On top of that, median salaries for cleantech-related jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy. But you’d never know that from the NYT hit job.Link2

 

Which would explain the 2% number nationally, which is actually a huge number, that they tried to make sound small.

 

[EvilMonkey]

The people I read who actively work on clean energy policy are aghast at that NYT article that Mr Genius cited. In particular they're frustrated at the part I've bolded, how in their efforts to write an article saying that green jobs haven't shown up, they limited themselves to 1 city in the san fran area, but then missed massive job growth throughout the rest of the eare.

 

 

 

Talk about a bait and switch. The NYT cites the Brookings study, but then pulls out one tiny piece of it to make the exact opposite argument of the study. As Climate Progress wrote, Brookings actually found nationwide:

 

 

 

On top of that, median salaries for cleantech-related jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the broader economy. But you’d never know that from the NYT hit job.Link2

So the NYT doesn't like clean energy, AND they don't like shale oil. Where do they think energy comes from? Unicorn farts? Wait, that would probably release methane and contribute to 'global warming'.

[StrangeSox]

Climate cycles linked to civil war

Cyclical climatic changes double the risk of civil wars, with analysis showing that 50 of 250 conflicts between 1950 and 2004 were triggered by the El Niño cycle, according to scientists.

 

Researchers connected the climate phenomenon known as El Niño, which brings hot and dry conditions to tropical nations and cuts food production, to outbreaks of violence in countries from southern Sudan to Indonesia and Peru.

 

Solomon Hsiang, who led the research at Columbia University, New York, said: "We can speculate that a long-ago Egyptian dynasty was overthrown during a drought. This study shows a systematic pattern of global climate affecting conflict right now. We are still dependent on climate to a very large extent."

 

Hsiang said that pre-emptive action could prevent bloodshed because El Niño events could be predicted up to two years ahead. "We hope our study may help reduce humanitarian suffering."

 

Global warming caused by humans, with the continual ramping up of temperature and extreme weather, differs from the natural El Niño cycle, the scientists are careful to note.

 

Mark Cane, a member of the team, said global warming would have greater climatic impacts than El Niño, making it "hard to imagine" it would not provoke conflicts.

 

Hsiang, S.M. et al. (2011) Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature, 476, 438-441.

 

It has been proposed that changes in global climate have been responsible for episodes of widespread violence and even the collapse of civilizations1, 2. Yet previous studies have not shown that violence can be attributed to the global climate, only that random weather events might be correlated with conflict in some cases3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Here we directly associate planetary-scale climate changes with global patterns of civil conflict by examining the dominant interannual mode of the modern climate8, 9, 10, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Historians have argued that ENSO may have driven global patterns of civil conflict in the distant past11, 12, 13, a hypothesis that we extend to the modern era and test quantitatively. Using data from 1950 to 2004, we show that the probability of new civil conflicts arising throughout the tropics doubles during El Niño years relative to La Niña years. This result, which indicates that ENSO may have had a role in 21% of all civil conflicts since 1950, is the first demonstration that the stability of modern societies relates strongly to the global climate.

[mr_genius]

the NY Times article about 'Green Jobs' was excellent, you guys just need to admit you were wrong. you'll feel much better.

Edited August 25, 2011 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

favorite poster.

[Balta1701]

Well, that's good to know.

A new Army Corps of Engineers rating system for the nation’s levees is about to deliver a near-failing grade to New Orleans area dikes, despite the internationally acclaimed $10 billion effort to rebuild the system in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, corps officials have confirmed.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, that's good to know.

Weren't THEY the ones responsible for either rebuilding those or approving the plans for whoever did?

[Balta1701]

Weren't THEY the ones responsible for either rebuilding those or approving the plans for whoever did?

The Corps does everything. By mandate of Congress for nearly a century, they control that river.

[Balta1701]

The earthquake that prompted the shutdown of a Virginia nuclear power plant last week may have been more severe than the plant’s reactors were designed to withstand, federal regulators said.

 

The revelation is likely to put increased pressure on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to quickly implement a series of safety recommendations intended in part to protect plants from major natural disasters like earthquakes.

 

NRC said Monday that its preliminary analysis indicates that the ground motion caused by the magnitude-5.8 earthquake near the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Va., exceeded the maximum level the two reactors at the plant were built to handle.

 

But the commission noted in a statement Monday that “data is still being collected and analyzed to determine the precise level of shaking that was experienced at key locations within the North Anna facility.”

 

NRC decided to send additional inspectors to the North Anna power plant after conducting the analysis, the commission said Monday.

 

“The fact that we’re sending an [augmented inspection team] should not be interpreted to mean that Dominion staff responded inappropriately or that the station is less safe as a result of the quake,” NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree said in a statement. “An AIT provides us with the resources needed to completely understand all the effects at North Anna and gather important information for the NRC’s continuing evaluation of earthquake risk at all U.S. nuclear plants.”

 

Analysis conducted by plant operator Dominion echoes NRC’s findings.

 

"We have informed the NRC that preliminary reports from instruments show the earthquake potentially exceeded the design basis," Dominion spokesman Ryan Frazier said. "All reports are not final, and probably will not be until the end of the week."

 

Frazier stressed that inspections have found no major damage to the plant.

 

"All safety systems operated as designed and built," he said.

 

Dominion told The Hill last week that the North Anna reactors were designed to withstand the equivalent of a 5.9 to 6.1 magnitude earthquake. The company said the reactors have additional safety measures in the event of a larger seismic event.

 

But these numbers are just estimates because the NRC and the nuclear industry use ground motion, not earthquake magnitude, to determine the threat to nuclear power plants from seismic activity.

 

The two reactors at the North Anna nuclear plant shut down Tuesday after the earthquake. The plant lost offsite power and ran on diesel generators through much of the day.

The idea that this fairly weak event could have slightly exceeded the design-basis event for this plant is deeply disconcerting. There's no reason at all why this event is the worst possible event that could hit this region.

[StrangeSox]

But these numbers are just estimates because the NRC and the nuclear industry use ground motion, not earthquake magnitude, to determine the threat to nuclear power plants from seismic activity.

 

That's the important takeaway. You don't design for a "6.0 magnitude earthquake," you add a seismic acceleration factor into your calcs. So it's not the specific magnitude but the actual accelerations experienced that form the design criteria.

 

edit: but it still apparently exceeded the design basis so that's no good.

Edited August 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Edit: but it still apparently exceeded the design basis so that's no good.

There have now been 2 events of approximately this size in this region in the last 100 years. That suggests to me that there is a finite probability of a substantially larger event in that area.

[StrangeSox]

There have now been 2 events of approximately this size in this region in the last 100 years. That suggests to me that there is a finite probability of a substantially larger event in that area.

 

"Approximately this size" in magnitude or actual ground motion?

 

FWIW the plants I've seen use standards that are at least as conservative as IBC and go by the USGS seismic region ratings. So once again, it's those lying fraud geologists that are to blame. Maybe if you actually figured out some EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE instead of just banking on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX we'd know for sure!!!!1!!1