The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Energy Secretary Chu Said to Plan Exit From Obama's Cabinet

Hans Nichols and Jim Snyder, Bloomberg
January 18, 2013  |  47 Comments

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who drew criticism from Republicans over his support for loans to Solyndra LLC before the solar-panel maker went bankrupt, will leave his Cabinet post in President Barack Obama's second term, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Chu’s departure will be announced as soon as next week, according to one of the people. Both requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters that haven’t been announced. The people didn’t identify potential replacements.

The exit will leave the Obama administration with vacancies at the top of the three departments that oversee energy and environmental policy. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Lisa Jackson, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency, have announced their intention to leave the administration.

Chu, 64, was a career scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for physics when he joined the Cabinet in January 2009. Supporters said Chu brought a fresh perspective to discussions often dominated by politics in Washington.

Macondo Well

He led a group of scientists who studied ways to cap BP Plc’s Macondo well, which gushed crude into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days in 2010, and helped create a division within the department dedicated to backing breakthrough energy technologies off the ground.

“Dr. Chu is focused on his job as secretary each day and hasn’t made any announcements about his future plans,” Bill Gibbons, Energy Department spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Some Republicans in Congress said his leadership was tarnished by the Energy Department’s endorsement in 2009 of Solyndra’s $535 million U.S. loan guarantee and other clean- energy projects.

The solar-panel maker collapsed two years later, prompting a congressional investigation of allegations that the award was approved to benefit Solyndra’s biggest investor, an Obama supporter. Thousands of pages of correspondence from the administration and Solyndra’s investors failed to back up the contentions.

Solyndra Failure

Solyndra nevertheless became a frequent talking point for Republicans on the campaign trail last year. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called it a symbol of the Obama administration’s economic failures during a visit to the company’s shuttered factory in Fremont, California.

This resulted in more attention than usually comes to the department, whose budget is largely spent on maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpile. The 2009 economic stimulus provided more than $35 billion to the Department of Energy for clean- energy projects — more than its annual budget. That money financed the loan-guarantee program under which Solyndra received its funding.

In other ways, the loan program was a success. An independent review conducted for the White House found that the programs that had received support were doing better than anticipated.

“What he could have done, he did a great job with, which was implementing the stimulus bill and getting 30 some billion spent out of DOE, and doing it without fraud and doing it effectively,” said Richard Caperton, director of clean energy investment at the Center for American Progress, a Washington- based group that promotes progressive policies.

Renewable Energy

Wind- and solar-power generation doubled in Obama’s first term, and Chu remained a cheerleader for renewable energy.

“Not every company, not every product will succeed,” Chu said in a 2011 speech. “But there’s no reason to sit on the sidelines and concede leadership in clean energy.”

Chu was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a part of the Energy Department, and an applied physics professor at Stanford University in California before he joined the administration.

Chu’s Facebook page says he carried out Obama’s “ambitious agenda to invest in alternative and renewable energy.” He practiced what he preached. He often biked to work, and he has said upgrades to his California home meant he didn’t need to turn on the air conditioning.

Joshua Freed, vice president for clean energy at the Third Way, which says it promotes consensus among the political parties, said Chu deserves praise for promoting the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, a division within the department that backed new energy technologies.

Chu sought to reorient the department to work more closely with industry to bring the technologies to market, Freed said.

“There is a practical and future edge to it that we haven’t always had with the department,” Freed said in an interview.

Copyright 2013 Bloomberg

47 Comments

Register To Comment
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
January 25, 2013
Thanks for fighting the good fight against the trolls, Mr Wallace. Regarding the actual subject of the article, Mr. Chu has done a pretty good job. Sorry to see him go, but it's a burn-out type job; he has the right to leave.
william payne
william payne
January 24, 2013
Impressed by so many neat posts and thoughtful responsess.

Bombing of Iran's nuclear generation of electricty off topic or not?.

But this is a subject we must deal with.

http://www.prosefights.org/energypulse/energypulse.htm#sahar

And recovery of our stolen $22,036 from Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union NCUSIF insured retirement protected savings account. :(
Vane Lashua
Vane Lashua
January 24, 2013
In all these comments and the article, not one mention of geothermal. A geo or EGS electric plant is more than twice as productive per square meter as solar PV, solar reflective, or wind AND provides constant, consistent delivery. Funny also that Steven Chu, once a strong proponent of geo, never got Obama to mention it in any major speech. Let's hope we start Project Hades (replace coal, oil, gas, nuclear with EGS in the next four decades) before solar and wind become part of the commodities industrial complex ... though they have a good start.
ANONYMOUS
January 22, 2013
One more thing Mr Bob Wallace must realize his is a blog and every one is entitled to his own opinion.

Never have understood why claims of wind turbines being noisy; (noise pollution) and killing birds.

On solar panels check the NREL website on usable sunlight.

New figures have proven Americans have already decrease their CO2 out put.

The next major source of alternative energy will be HYDRO KINETICS OR HYDRO POWER
ANONYMOUS
January 22, 2013
Quick response to comment 3 not all solar energy figures is usable due to energy conversion and efficiency factors of the light spectrum and OHM'S law
ANONYMOUS
January 22, 2013
ADD exploding batteries and new chemical reactions to produce energy changes green energy to rd energy.

We all must learn to recycle food and all trash to conserve raw materials but also produce new energy from trash.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
You're right John. The regulation easing that started under Reagan continued with Clinton and continued through Bush II. Clinton bought into Reagan's BS, unfortunately.

I hope we've learned our lesson.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
CO2 levels in Europe have been falling for a several years.

The US peaked in CO2 emissions in 2005 and has been falling slowly since then.

None of us are pulling down emissions quickly enough, but we've started.

Remember, I did say "some". I did not say "all".

China has stated that they will start reducing CO2 emission in 2017. So far China has met every renewable energy goal they've set early and set a new higher one. They're now going for 150 GW of wind and 40 GW of solar by 2015.

There are some other countries which have set impressive goals. I just don't have the names and dates at hand right now.

Germany plans on being essentially CO2 free by 2050. I remembered one....
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
Bob_Wallace wrote:

"John, we really don't know if significant cuts will be made. Some countries have put themselves on track to make significant cuts in fossil fuel use"

Are you kidding? Not only have CO2 levels risen to their highest point in recorded history. The level of increase is also growing.

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/acceleration-of-atmospheric-co2.html
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
@Bob_Wallace

The "stupid loan" program started under Clinton:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?src=pm

And the man testifying for MORE regulations of the GSEs here in 2004, was from the Bush admin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

According to the Dims, there was nothing wrong.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
How about I give you a "partially correct"?

One of the five, the TVA reactor (Brown's Ferry?) is not exactly a new build. It's a reactor which was 80% finished several years ago when TVA decided they didn't need more power and stopped construction.

Two of the five, the Vogtle plants, stand a decent change of being completed this decade. I'd give them about a 50:50 chance, but they are (last I heard) running behind schedule and over budget.

The two South Carolina reactors, I doubt they'll be running in seven years. We've lost almost all of our reactor building experience. Look at the problems the most experienced European reactor builder is running into in Finland. They're going to be lucky to get that one done in 13 years.

But at the same time the Kewaunee reactor is shutting down this spring. Oyster Creek is closing in seven years. San Onofre and Chrystal River are down and may not come back up. We could have a net gain of zero this decade and perhaps only a gain of one in the next 15 years.

Then, on top of that, about one quarter of our existing reactors are in danger of going bankrupt due to the low cost of wind and natural gas generation. All it would take is a single expensive repair to kill off any one of them.

If we get cheap storage (which looks likely) and the price of solar keeps coming down(which is pretty much guaranteed) then those twenty-five or so reactors may simply get priced out of business in the next ten years.

If the price of fuel goes up for reactors, as you seem to be suggesting, then things are going to get very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/economics-forcing-some-nuclear-plants-into-retirement.html?_r=1
william payne
william payne
January 20, 2013
Hey Bob,

Corect or not?

Five new generators are on track for completion this decade, including two reactors approved just a few weeks ago (the first new reactor approvals in the US in over 30 years). Those will add to the 104 reactors that are already in operation around the country and already produce 20% of the nation's power.
Those reactors will eat up 19,724 tonnes of U3O8 this year, which represents 29% of global uranium demand. If that seems like a large amount, it is! The US produces more nuclear power than any other country on earth, which means it consumes more uranium that any other nation. However, decades of declining domestic production have left the US producing only 4% of the world's uranium.

With so little homegrown uranium, the United States has to import more than 80% of the uranium it needs to fuel its reactors. Thankfully, for 18 years a deal with Russia has filled that gap. The "Megatons to Megawatts" agreement, whereby Russia downblends highly enriched uranium from nuclear warheads to create reactor fuel, has provided the US with a steady, inexpensive source of uranium since 1993. The problem is that the program is coming to an end next year.

The Upside to a Natural Gas Downturn
Marin Katusa, for The Daily Reckoning
Monday April 2, 2012
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
"The financial industry too, as we know it, would not exist either. Much of it would have been swept away in the financial storm of 2008-09. "

Correct again Bill.

We screwed up. We screwed up very badly.

We listened when Ronald Reagan told us that "We don't need no stinkin' regulations", that the market would police itself. All that good libertarian thinking.

We let the financial industry run wild. They made stupid loans and stupider bets. It all came crashing down on them.

President Bush was faced with a choice. Either pump a lot of public money into the financial system or risk a world-wide depression.

Then, when President Obama got into office, he and the Democratic Congress made some changes to the system. They wrote legislation so that, if we have a crisis like that one again, the federal government will be able to step and take over the monster bank/financial corporations just like they already could take over a smaller, normal bank that was failing.

That means that we can isolate the parts of the business that have screwed up, let the good parts keep on functioning, and protect taxpayers against the sort of losses that too little regulation created.

They also set up a new government organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been given the job of watching for emerging problems and waving the flag before things get so out of hand.

Capitalism is great as long as you keep reigns on the most greedy of us....
william payne
william payne
January 20, 2013
Neat reponse.
http://www.prosefights.org/xmas2012/xmas2012.htm :)
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
"Without subsidies, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct giveaways, the industry as we know it would not exist."

You are correct Bill. We've used public money to bring wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies to life.

We've also used public money to built the railroad system, the electric grid, the oil industry, the coal industry, air travel, modern medicine, the telephone system, computers, the internet and to bring a heck of a lot of other technologies to life.

We've been subsidizing oil and coal for 100 years. Their prices keep going up.

We've been subsiding the wind industry for about 30 years. The price of wind generated electricity has fallen from $0.38/kWh to $0.06/kWh. A 6x price drop.

The wind industry has asked for support for only through 2017. They want full 2012 level support in 2013 and 2014 and then a phase out with no additional support starting in 2018.

We've been subsidizing the solar industry for about 39 years. The price of solar panels has fallen from $100/watt to just above $0.50/watt. A 200x price drop.

Subsidies for solar go away in 2017 and the solar industry is asking for no more going forward.

You think the coal and oil industry are going to voluntarily give up their subsidies?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
John, we really don't know if significant cuts will be made. Some countries have put themselves on track to make significant cuts in fossil fuel use.

We are experiencing a higher and higher rate of extreme weather events. It is true that there is no way to tie a single flood, drought, heat wave or monster storm to global warming, but what we are seeing is as the planet gets hotter we are getting slammed by more "100 year", "500 year" and "we've never seen that before" events.

Each significant weather event makes people more willing to do something rather than sit back and wait it to be 100% certain that a warmer planet is already hurting us.

We seem to be really close to the first meltout of the Arctic sea ice. It looks to happen in the next four years. That is going to astound many people when/if it happens.

We have been floating through heat-wise for the last few years because we've been in a prolonged La Nina and ENSO-neutral stage. If we get a normal El Nino then temperatures are almost certain to knock our socks off.

If sea ice melt and more extreme weather hits us I think we'll start to work very hard to get our CO2 and other GHG emission under control.

And, remember, climate change denial is largely an American phenomenon. I travel a fair amount. One simply doesn't discover climate change deniers in Asia and Europe. I get asked what is wrong with Americans. Why don't they understand?

BTW, your poll is quite out of date. It's from three years ago when people were still very concerned about their short term financial problems. Understandably they pushed climate change concerns to the side for a while. That has now turned around.

"Nobody cares, because nobody believes the hype."

No, John the vast majority of the people in the world accept that climate change is happening. A very small minority, mostly Americans, have bought into the hype that it isn't.
william payne
william payne
January 20, 2013
Hey bob,

Comment?

But the feds are not only creating individual zombies, they are also creating corporate zombies. An obvious example: "green" energy. Without subsidies, loan guarantees, tax benefits and direct giveaways, the industry as we know it would not exist. Nor would the ethanol industry in the Midwest. Nor the security industry in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

The financial industry too, as we know it, would not exist either. Much of it would have been swept away in the financial storm of 2008-09. That story is well-known, but not well understood. Most people believe the authorities acted heroically, saving the nation from a depression. But what the authorities really did was to take the public's money and give it to cronies on Wall Street in order to prevent them from suffering the losses they deserved. The government transferred nearly $2 trillion in various forms from the public purse to the pockets of the financial industry. With that kind of backing, most of the old investment firms survived. The new ones that might have replaced them never saw the light of day.

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
Bob_Wallace wrote:

"No, we don't need to get rid of everything that is powered by fossil fuels. But we do need to make significant cuts. We don't need to cut CO2 emissions to zero in order to avoid the worst. But the more we do cut the better off we will be."

And "significant cuts" aren't going to happen. I thought that we had already agreed on that point? So what is the point of all the blah, blah, blah?

Pew Research shows global warming at the bottom of Americans' priority list:

http://www.people-press.org/2010/01/25/publics-priorities-for-2010-economy-jobs-terrorism/

Nobody cares, because nobody believes the hype.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
"At least the Republicans are honest enough to say they don't believe it."

(Actually in the latest PEW poll 48% of Republicans said that climate change is happening. I'd imagine even more accept the fact, just don't want to admit it out of party unity. I'm pretty sure less than half of all Republicans are climate change deniers.)

See, right here is the big point. Some people have decided that they don't "believe" that the climate is warming.

That means that they have to turn a blind eye to what is happening around them.

There is no doubt at all that the climate is changing and that, overall, the planet is getting warmer.

There is almost no chance that the observed warming is due to anything other than humans burning fossil fuels.

We've got tons and tons and tons of evidence.

It's like the old flat-Earthers. Even when we had pictures of a round Earth from space they had to deny that people were actually up in space, they had to insist that the pictures were faked.

After a while people who continue to hold beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence become jokes.

When the outlier drops below 10% they're getting really close to just being the residual crackpots.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
I got the point a long time ago John. Yes, not all Democrats would vote for a good climate bill. On the other hand No Republicans would.

I long for the good old days when reasonable people could come together and make reasonable decisions.

"And that's what you would need to reduce C02 emissions. No more gasoline driven cars, planes, trains. No more fossil fuel power plants. "

No, we don't need to get rid of everything that is powered by fossil fuels. But we do need to make significant cuts. We don't need to cut CO2 emissions to zero in order to avoid the worst. But the more we do cut the better off we will be.

"Few people actually believe in the global warming horror stories."

Actually a large majority of Americans accept that global warming is happening, that humans are the cause, and that we need to do a lot more to minimize it. Only ~10% believe that global warming is not happening and that humans are doing nothing wrong.

"If Gore actually believed his own nonsense, he wouldn't be flying around in a Lear Jet, and selling his companies to OPEC."

John, if you continue to get your information from Fox you're going to keep on filling your head up with these incorrect bits and pieces.

There aren't any 100% green ways to travel long distances. Al does what others of us do, minimize travel and use carbon offsets to cancel out the fuel burned.

And he did not sell his company to OPEC. He sold it to the Al Jazeera Media Network.

"I think you'll find that most of the "scientists" producing climate papers, use fossil fuels as much as anyone else. "

Actually the scientists I know generally do what they can to lower their carbon footprint. They tend to drive fuel efficient cars and many have solar panels on their roofs.
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
Bob_Wallace wrote:

"BTW, even those 96 days that there were 60 Democratic votes in the Senate not all Democratic senators would have voted for a strong climate bill if it hurt fossil fuel interests. Landrieu of Louisiana would have protected oil and Rockefeller would have protected coal."

Well finally you get the point. But in reality, more than 2 Dims would have voted against a serious bill.

And that's what you would need to reduce C02 emissions. No more gasoline driven cars, planes, trains. No more fossil fuel power plants.

I for one think it is certainly possible to replace fossil fuels relatively quickly, but it's not going to happen. Few people actually believe in the global warming horror stories. If Gore actually believed his own nonsense, he wouldn't be flying around in a Lear Jet, and selling his companies to OPEC. I think you'll find that most of the "scientists" producing climate papers, use fossil fuels as much as anyone else. Even though there are alternatives available.

So there you have it. At least the Republicans are honest enough to say they don't believe it. The Democrats don't believe it either, they just say they do in order to garner some votes.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
"The fact that you'll never find skeptical positions in any of the left wing press, only adds to the argument that global warming is politics."

That makes no sense. It's far more likely that you don't see denier arguments in the left wing press because those on the left basically accept the scientific method. (There are some exceptions. You can, for example, find some anti-vaccine and anti-fluoride nuts on the far left.)

I'd say that since most climate change deniers are Republicans strongly suggests that dismissing scientific facts is more common on the far right. The moderate right is a lot more rational.

For some weird reason the far right has bought into a number of positions which cannot be supported by scientific evidence. That has led them to become anti-science, apparently without even thinking about what science is.

On the part of the far right it's become pretty much a knee-jerk "If the left likes chocolate cake then we hate chocolate cake."

It's a position without reason.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
You've got things a bit wrong John. During PBO's first two years the Democratic controlled Congress did pass a climate bill but that bill was blocked in the Senate by Republicans. Only for a few days late in that first two years did Democrats have enough votes to override a filibuster.

And you're pretty much asking the Democrats to predict the future.

If you will remember back American presidents did not have their personal lives used as a weapon against them. FDR, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush I and other presidents messed around outside of their marriages and the other party let it be. Reagan got Nancy pregnant while still married to Jane. Nancy went down the aisle with a bun in the oven. No one said jack about that.

Then, when Clinton became president his past behavior was used against him. That was the first time that had happened in the modern era.

Prior to a couple of years ago increasing the debt ceiling was a non-event except for the Newt fiasco. After that it seemed like things would return to normal, which they did. Until after Republicans regained control of the House.

Now, I'm not sure why you think Democrats in '09 and '10 should have foreseen Republicans deciding once more that destroying the country's economy in order to get their way might be a good thing.

No one expected/predicted the sort of behavior that we've seen from Republicans during these last two years. If it had been suspected then laws would have been purposed and hopefully passed.

BTW, even those 96 days that there were 60 Democratic votes in the Senate not all Democratic senators would have voted for a strong climate bill if it hurt fossil fuel interests. Landrieu of Louisiana would have protected oil and Rockefeller would have protected coal.
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
Bob Wallace wrote:

"Now you want us to look at Fox News link? An organization that has lied over and over and over about climate change?"

The fact that you'll never find skeptical positions in any of the left wing press, only adds to the argument that global warming is politics.

But surely you must recognize the hypocrisy. Obama and the Dims had complete control of the federal government for 2 years. They could have passed any bill they wanted to. They could have passed any budget. They could have removed the debt limit altogether, and spent any amount of money. They could have passed a carbon tax, and/or cap and trade. They could have made CO2 production illegal altogether.

What exactly did they do about global warming? Absolutely nothing.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
You could start your search here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon

"The term black carbon is used to imply that this soot component is primarily responsible for the absorption of visible light as shown by Yasa et al.[7] and Rosen et al.[8]"
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 20, 2013
I wonder who determined the effect of soot concentration on infra red absorption.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
There are several green house gases. CO2 and methane are two of them. Methane is a greater blocker of heat but is short-lived in the atmosphere compared to CO2. CO2 is particularly problematic because it stays in the atmosphere so many years and accumulates over the years.

Another problem is carbon black (soot). It's probably second to CO2 in causing the global heating we are experiencing. And that we are producing.

If you want to know more about the relative forcings of the many GHGs you can check this table -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

Unfortunately it is somewhat dated but if you would like a more current accounting I'd suggest checking the latest IPCC report.
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 20, 2013
Bob methane is rated as 15 times more damaging as CO2. The real question is "How damaging is CO2 actually?" Methane in the parts per billion, and CO2 @ 400ppm causing no discernible addition to the heat load above that of our waste heat.
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 20, 2013
John-Bronson I totally agree with you. That is the point I have been trying to make regarding NOAA's statement that CO2 caused the temperature to rise and that "climate sensitivity" to CO2 can thus be determined. The fact that temperatures drop with decreasing CO2 is further confirmation to me that conversion of CO2 through photosynthesis removes 5000 btus of solar energy per pound of CO2.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
John - I'm guessing that you have been mislead by those who take the very high global temperature of 1998 and try to spin it into a tale of how global warming has stopped.

Now, let's be very clear. These people know exactly what they are doing. They know they are lying. It's been pointed out too many times for them not to know.

1998 was very hot. It was also a year in which we experienced an extremely intense El Nino event which, combined with other heat sources caused the global temperature to spike.

Global temperature can be affected by ENSO events (El Nino, La Nina currents), by changes in solar input, and by volcanic activity (dust blocking incoming heat). The real measurement of global temperature resulting from green house gases is determined by teasing out these none GHG heating and cooling events.

You do that and you get a temperature graph that looks like this -

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/adjusted.jpg

That's what green house gases are doing to the temperature of our planet. The 1998 El Nino spike and current La Nina slump are simply noise in the system.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
You are correct John.

Science is very harsh with those who alter or misuse data in order to support statements which are untrue. Those who are found to be faking data are thrown out of their jobs and are very unlikely to ever work in their field again.

It's too bad we rarely hold journalists to the same standards.

Take, for example, the emails stolen from climate scientists. Bits and pieces of those emails were taken out of context and their meaning twisted in order to attack the scientists and mislead the public.

Multiple high level reviews found the climate scientists innocent and the journalists and pundits who misused the bits of emails guilty. But those journalists and deceivers continue to ply their trades.

A review of Fox News by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 93% of prime time Fox News' discussions of global warming were inaccurate. And on another Murdoch publication, the Wall Street News, the inaccuracy rate was 81%. But none of the people who presented falsehoods as facts lost their job.

Now you want us to look at Fox News link? An organization that has lied over and over and over about climate change?

Thanks, I'll pass....
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
Science that alters data isn't science, it's politics.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 20, 2013
John - your CO2 trailing problem - I dealt with that in #14.

Remember, this is the first time in the history of the Earth that one group of animals have become so dominate and changed to the Earth to the extent that humans have. Things are simply going to run a different course when massive changes occur.

Science doesn't laugh at climate change deniers. It shakes its head in sorrow over the stupidity....
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 20, 2013
@billp37

Peak solar irradiance on Earth amounts to about 1,000 watts/sq meter. Current PV on the market have efficiencies ranging from 12 to 18 watts, so that would give you 120 to 180 watts per sq meter.

I don't know where you're getting the 5 to 6 watts figure from.
John Bronson
John Bronson
January 19, 2013
@Philip Haddad,

If you've ever seen Al Gore's movie, he shows the audience a huge graph of CO2 vs. Temp over time. What he fails to mention is that Temp increases precede CO2 increases, and also temp decreases precede CO2 decreases. Logically, if CO2 increases were the cause of temp increases, there would be no reason to ever have the temp decreases we see in the ice core measurements. And in fact, that is exactly what global warming alarmists are suggesting will happen in the near future. It helps to have a sense of humor.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
Phillip - when you claim that that NOAA and thousands of climate scientists are wrong and you're right - well, I'll leave that for history to decide.

BTW, I think if you look more closely, in the past CO2 increases have followed temperature increases as one would expect if something like Earth orbit or increases in solar output was driving the temperature. It would take a period of higher heat to cook out the CO2.

This time around we humans have done something unique in the history of the planet, we've extracted stored carbon and burned it into CO2 and the temperature increases have followed. Watch what happens next, we'll probably be cooking out a lot of methane along with higher rates of CO2 as we melt out the permafrost and thaw the methyl hydrates.

At least that's what thousands of climate scientists and hundreds of scientific organizations are telling us.

Remember, the first time something happens is the first time it happens. It's going to be unique since it's the first time. Things won't happen in the old sequence.

We don't need to discuss this any further. Publicly or privately.

But you charge on, you crazy diamond....
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 19, 2013
I included the heat lost to glacial melting without which the atmospheric temperature would have risen 0.17*F. The earth generates 44 TW energy as geothermal heat flow starting from 10,000*F at its core. This flow continues no matter how high the atmospheric temperature gets, so the temperature of the rest of the earth increases due to the geothermal heat flow to maintain the same temperature differential.. The energy from fossil fuels alone is more than enough account for the rise as I have already mentioned. So how can any be needed from increased GHGs, methane, or soot. Any temperature increase credited to CO2 is an artifact of models using so called "climate sensitivity' to CO2 based on the false assumption that CO2 is the cause of temperature rise. There are no data, past or present, for which it can be shown that CO2 is a cause rather than a result of the real cause. The NOAA was particularly insistent on classifying the temperature rise in the Paleo period as being caused by CO2 when it was actually caused by increased solar heat due to shifts in the earth's orbit in cycles of 80 to 130 thousand years(Malenkovitch cycles). If you study these cycles you will note that CO2 and temperature rise together, but temperature falls much faster,(CO2 neither causing nor supporting higher temperatures). A 20*F rise in temperature caused a 100 ppm rise in CO2, not vice versa. If you are interested in discussing this offline give me your e-mail address and we can continue without imposing on the rest of the bloggers.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
25% of the Earth's heat is lost to evaporation, 5% to convection and 17% to thermal radiation. Did you adjust your numbers for the heat lost?

And I notice that you calculated only the atmospheric temperature increase. You've got to use ocean temperature rise as well since that is where most of the heat goes. Over 90%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhereIsTheHeatOfGlobalWarming.jpg


There's no doubt that burning fossil fuels increase the overall heat balance. But that alone is not sufficient to account for the observed warming. You've got to add in GHGs including CO2 and methane. And you need to include carbon black (soot).

Of course moving away from fossil fuels would help both fuel-created heat and GHG.
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 19, 2013
Bob Wallace we have been receiving that much solar heat for millions of years. We are concerned with the effect of a relatively small increase in the heat balance. If you will bother to calculate the effect of an additional 16 terrawatt annual increase in energy you will find that my calculations are correct. The question is: did the additional CO2 effectively increase the insulation effectiveness of the blanket, or is the additional heat emitted from our energy use the cause of the increasing rise in temperatures and glacial melting. How much heat will be radiated by an increase in temperature of only 0.04*F? Radiant heat loss is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature. When you figure this out get back to me.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
billp - a roof, a parking lot or a landfill are non-performing assets. Makes no sense to include their real estate cost when calculating the cost of solar.

As for wind, ranchers and farmers are making very major "per acre" returns for the land they lease out for wind turbine foundations and wind is coming to market at a very competitive price, so perhaps there's a problem with your math. At least your assumptions.

I suspect you might be using 100% of the area of a wind farm. Turbines use less than 2% of the farm area, the other 98%+ is still available for original use - farming, grazing, whatever.

To state that there is no economy of scale, well, Shirley you jest....
william payne
william payne
January 19, 2013
Large-scale solar and wind generation of electricity may be a scam?

fast neutron
Santa Fe, NM
January 12, 2009

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-fe-new-mexican/T0QVJ5UD3R25C8HRL
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
m-

Remind me to never use your grandpappy as an authoritative source.
M. SIMON
M. SIMON
January 19, 2013
Bob_Wallace,

As my grandpappy used to say, "They are ALL crooks."
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
"Some Republicans in Congress said his leadership was tarnished by the Energy Department's endorsement in 2009 of Solyndra's $535 million U.S. loan guarantee and other clean- energy projects."

Republicans used Solyndra - which was funded by a Bush/Republican Congress program, initiated during the Bush administration, supported by the Bush administration, and given the final approval by the very same individuals who reviewed the proposal and asked for additional information during the Bush administration - to bash Chu and President Obama.

The approval of the Solyndra loan guarantee was nothing more than a piece of unfinished Bush administration business which ran its course and was completed in the early weeks of the Obama administration.

No Obama "bundlers" were invested in Solyndra. The very conservative Walton (Walmart) family were investors. The CEO of Solyndra was a Republican.

It was a masterful piece of political attack. And totally supported by the media.

Even this pro-renewable energy site doesn't point out crap that was shoveled out by Republicans.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
January 19, 2013
Philip, that heat would have been radiated off into space had not we installed a nice thick CO2 blanket over our heads.

Do some math. You've calculated the amount of of heat added to the system by burning fossil fuels. Now compare that to the amount of energy fed in from the Sun in 2008.

Here's some help...

12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year of solar energy reach the Earth.

12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth's surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million "quads" of Btu energy per year.

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
January 19, 2013
I tried to tell Dr. Chu 18 months ago that the heat emitted from combustion of fossil fuels, not the by-product CO2, was the cause of global warming. I did not even get an acknowledgement of having received the letter. In 2008 16 terrawatts of energy use added 50x10E16 btus into the environment, enough to raise the atmospheric temperature 0.04*F and melt 750 billion tons of glaciers. Recognition of this fact should have made a significant difference in our short and long term objectives for our national energy policy.
Vyacheslav Mammadov
Vyacheslav Mammadov
January 19, 2013
You sacrifice individual ambition!
Not who does not want free energy, we are all sinners before God!

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • American Solar Energy Society
  • Leybold Optics
  • SolarEstimate.org
  • RBI Solar Inc.
  • Everblue
  • Solar Electric Power Association
  • Solar Power International 2013
  • Enphase Energy
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information