Umbra on incendiary topics

Dear Umbra, Your investigation for the raw milk advice apparently didn’t trip over the Real Milk Campaign of the Weston...

Big Coal's far-out proposal for an economic stimulus

Last week the coal lobbying group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity held a press conference to announce a study of the employment and other economic benefits of building new coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

The plan, developed by Denver-based BBC Research and Consulting, looks at the effects of building 38, 122, or 188 new coal plants, each with 90 percent CCS.

Since "jobs" and "stimulus" are the watchwords these days in Washington, ACCCE decided to emphasize the "6.9 million total job-years of labor" that would be created by building, fueling, and operating these new coal plants.

Well, maybe. But there's a problem with the time frame. The "stimulus" jobs being trumpeted by the ACCCE would not begin to appear until around 2020, according to what the utility industry's own research institute, EPRI, told Congress in May [PDF].

In short, this is vapor employment, jobs that won't start to materialize for several presidential administrations down the road -- maybe during the second term of Huckabee/Palin.

What's depressing is that ACCCE actually talked leaders of four major unions into being its sock puppets at the press conference. One was Abraham Breeley of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, who said, "This study demonstrates that [coal with carbon capture and storage] has the potential to create literally millions of jobs for workers across the country, in every region -- and I think it's very important to point out that these are jobs that can sustain families."

Message to Breeley and comrades: Stop hanging out with the coal boys. Instead, go down the street to the American Wind Power Association, which just reported that 83,000 people were building and operating wind farms in 2008. Or check out the Solar Energy Industries Association, which just reported that the newly signed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create 110,000 jobs in the solar industry in the next two years.

Compare those 193,000 solar and wind power jobs to the 174,000 jobs currently provided by coal mining (83,000) + coal transportation (31,000) + coal-fired power generation (60,000).

Not only is combined solar/wind employment beginning to move past total coal-related employment, but the gap is expected to widen.

Confident Obama: Senate will pass climate bill, “we can do even more” than ACES’s targets

President Obama gave a very lengthy “must-read” interview to the several reporters Sunday in which he spelled out a great...

Sea levels to surge at least a metre by 2100, scientists warn at Copenhagen meeting

COPENHAGEN — Months before make-or-break climate negotiations, a conclave of scientists warned Tuesday that the impact of global warming was...

A smart grid, yes. A new national grid, no.

The new mantra in energy circles is "national smart grid."

In the New York Times, Al Gore insists the new president should give the highest priority to "the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid." President Barack Obama, responding to a question by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, declares that one of "the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid ... a smart grid."

We lump together the two words, "national" and "smart" as if they were joined at the hip, but in fact each describes and enables a very different electricity future. The word "national" in these discussions refers to the construction of tens of thousands of miles of new national ultra-high-voltage transmission lines, an initiative that would further separate power plants from consumers, and those who make the electricity decisions from those who feel the impact of those decisions.

The word "smart," on the other hand, refers to upgrading the existing network to make it more resilient and efficient. A smart grid can decentralize both generation and authority. Sophisticated electronic sensors, wireless communication, software and ever-more powerful computers will connect electricity customers and suppliers in real time, making possible a future in which tens of millions of households and businesses actively interact with the electricity network as both consumers and producers.

Advocates of a new national ultra-high-voltage transmission network offer three main arguments:

1. New high-voltage transmission lines are needed to decrease electric grid congestion and therefore increase reliability and security.

There is indeed congestion on some parts of our distribution and transmission networks. Congestion reveals a problem; it doesn't demand a specific solution. It can be addressed by reducing demand through increasing energy efficiency or by increasing on-site or local energy production. Both strategies are often less costly and quicker to implement than building new transmission lines. An analogy from the solid-waste sector may be appropriate. Exhausting nearby landfills does not inevitably require us to send our garbage to new and more distant landfills. We can emphasize recycling, composting, scrap-based manufacturing and reuse.

2. A new national high-voltage transmission network is necessary to dramatically increase renewable energy.

President Obama wants to build new transmission lines because, "I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago." Writing in Vanity Fair, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants a new high-voltage transmission system to "deliver solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy across the country."

But do we really need to deliver renewable energy across the country? The distinguishing characteristic of renewable energy is its availability in abundant quantities virtually everywhere.

A useful summary of Waxman-Markey

The Energy and Commerce Committee finally released a summary (here) of the American Clean Energy and Security Act as reported...

Cool Companies, Part 1: How the best businesses boost profits and productivity by reducing GHGs

[Please send me any case studies of companies, buildings, and factories in the last 10 years that have cost-effectively reduced...

Memo outlines history and success of 'clean coal' propaganda campaign

Ever wondered about the inner workings of the "clean coal" propaganda campaign? Wondered how the rancid sausage was made?

Lucky for you, the Hawthorn Group -- the PR firm hired by ACCCE to mount and run the campaign -- recently published a memo "to friends and family" merrily laying out the details.

Even in a communication-saturated environment we achieved, even exceeded, our wildest expectations (and we believe those of our client!). Not only did we raise the awareness of the issue, but we got the major candidates on both sides of the aisle talking about the issue in the debates, at campaign rallies and in interviews. We did this by finding creative ways to increase the visibility of the issue and by demonstrating strong voter support. We successfully integrated traditional communication and grassroots tactics with online strategies and tools.

The presidential campaign concluded with both candidates, their running mates and surrogates talking about and supporting clean coal technology. The issue was mentioned in all four general election debates. This was a 180-degree turn from earlier in the campaign when none of the candidates were focused on this issue.

The program also had an impact on the perception of coal among public opinion leaders. In September 2007, on the key measurement question -- Do you support/oppose the use of coal to generate electricity? -- we found 46 percent support and 50 percent oppose. In a 2008 year-end survey that result had shifted to 72 percent support and 22 percent oppose. Not only did we see significantly increased support, opposition was cut by more than half.

Wheee!

Images of an evolving world by artist Don Simon

These images are from a series of drawings titled “Unnaturalism” by artist Don Simon. His work examines the impact of...