below average temps next week, then an Artic blast kicks in.

http://wxmaps.org/pix/dcagfs.png
http://wxmaps.org/pix/dcagfsb.png

This week might be a good time to buy some salt and shovels.  

I find it fascinating that back in the 70's (when all we heard about was global cooling) it was the very people who opposed new nuclear power generation plants who forced the construction of coal-burning plants that have now done so much damage.  Yes, I know that there are other alternatives such as solar and wind, but I ask you this:  if these renewable, free-source alternatives are capable of meeting our energy demands, why do the power companies buy coal and burn it?  And, do you really believe that coal-burning plants with all the emission scrubbers the EPA requires are cheaper to build than solar panels and wind farms?

It is another demonstration of The Law of Unintended Consequences.  Ban nuclear power and solve the energy problem by encouraging conservation.  I wonder how many people who bought into that position don't regularly use air conditioning, dry their cloths outside, and wash their dishes by hand?

BTW, a PS to Mother Nature:  the record high for Richmond today was set in 1950 at 80 degrees.  What caused such high temperatures 57 years ago?

HisRoc, I'd strongly encourage you to find out what the vast majority of scientists are saying on this issue rather than simply repeating the talking points of the climate deniers' network that ExxonMobil spent millions of dollars assembling.

These talking points are just too easy to rebut:

-  It's flat out wrong to say that in the '70s, "all we heard about was global cooling".  Scientists have been talking about global warming since the 1950s (technically, the theory was first postulated in the 1890s by Nobel Prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius, but our ability to gather evidence has much improved in recent decades). Climate change was a prominent enough issue even to the public that is continually referred to, for example, in the 1973 sci-fi movie "Soylent Green."  The climate deniers have taken a few magazine articles on cooling and tried to hype it into a big deal, which it never was.

- You can always point to the weather for a particular day to try to make a point, but you don't confuse daily weather with climate, which is an average of weather conditions over a long period of time.  Today's temperature of 72 degrees in January is significant because it is part of a larger climate trend shown, e.g., by the fact since 1995, we have experienced the ten warmest years ever recorded.

- If you want to talk about what fuel sources are cheaper, let's get rid of all the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and then give the equivalent over all these years to the renewable energy industries.  Then let's see who's cheaper...

Kindler,
You totally misinterpreted my post.  First of all, I am not a "climate denier."  As I indicated in my post, I believe that carbon emissions over the recent past decades have done what is possibly irreparable harm--although the science on that point is far from conclusive.  Yes, the vast majority of scientists are saying that we are undergoing a climate shift.  They do not all agree if it is man-made or cyclical.  Personally, I tend to believe the former since the latter would be too much of a coincidence.  My point was that the same people who halted the advance of nuclear power generation in the 70's were responsible for where we now find ourselves with carbon emissions.  They didn't want nuclear power plants, but they offered no realistic alternatives except "conservation."  That's a bankrupt cop-out akin to when a politician promises to cut taxes without reducing services by "eliminating waste."  It is a fraud and those who buy it are naive to the point of being stupid.

How old were you in the 70's?  Global cooling was a real concern, not just a few crackpot magazine articles dug up by the climate deniers of today.  I graduated from college in 1973 and remember vividly all the well-documented and respected scientific work that compared our climate trends then with those just preceeding the last ice age.  Look up the contemporary literature.  Scientists had discovered that worldwide temperatures had been declining since 1940.  It was several years later when they discovered that it was an anomolous reversal of an overall warming trend that began in 1880.  Nevertheless, global cooling resonated with me at the time because growing up in the 50's and 60's I remembered some record snowstorms here in Virginia that my mother and father said were worse than any that they had experienced in their lifetimes.  

BTW, while your looking up contemporary literature, look up Hurricane Donna in 1960.  It makes Katrina look mild by comparison.  I remember its passage through Hampton Roads.  And it occured after a lengthy period of cooling worldwide temperatures.  Yes, you can always point to the weather for a particular day to try to make a point and confuse weather with climate.  That is exactly what you were doing in your original diary with Mother Nature's reference to today's temperature.  And, I called you on it.  Individual weather patterns have no bearing on climate change and you know it.  But your diary was dishonest on that point, including the picture of Katrina.  As you stated, climate shift represents long-term temperature changes, not individual weather patterns or events.

You want to talk about massive fossil fuel subsidies?  Take a look at the subsidies for ethanol.  The same scientists who agree on climate shift also agree that ethanol is a fraud when you consider the overall carbon emissions necessary to harvast the agricultural product, process it, and distribute it.  Because of massive subsidies for ethanol, the price of corn has increased over 50% in the past five years, resulting in increased food prices.  That's one of the reasons that milk now sell for $4/gallon plus.  And it does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.  Another example of The Law of Unintended Consequences.

You see, Kindler, that is my whole point here.  Newton was right:  for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  You can't approach complex environmental issues with a cookie cutter solution.  Ban nuclear power generation.  Ban coal-burning power plants.  End global warming.  Fine.  But how are the people going to stay warm and eat?  

One by one:

- If you think conservation is a cop-out, then you must not be aware of the massive percentage of our energy resources that are routinely wasted.  Over half of the energy we used is wasted (per Livermore Natl. Lab).We could wring enormous savings out of that waste, and it is often the most cost-effective approach -- cheaper than building either new coal or nuclear plants.

- While it is true that any one individual event cannot be attributed to climate change, increased warming is consistent with an increase in high-intensity weather events like Katrina.  

- I'm not a fan of ethanol subsidies (especially for corn growing), but even so, they don't begin to come close to the magnitude of the untold billions of dollars in subsidies that the oil, gas, coal and yes, nuclear industries have received over many decades.

- I'm not in favor of simple-minded solutions, but the first step in putting out a fire is to stop pouring gasoline on it.  A moratorium on new coal-fired plants therefore needs to be part of an overall solution involving efficiency, new sources, etc., etc.

- Nuclear is looking better these days partly because designs have improved safety (though it doesn't help much when the guards are sleeping on the job).  But there were serious questions about the old designs, and yes, Chernobyl really did happen.

BTW, for someone criticizing others for lacking solutions, I haven't heard you propose one yet...

You haven't been listening.  Nuclear power generation.  BTW, do you know anything about the inherent design flaws of the Soviet graphite carbon reactors that caused Chernobyl?

Your citation of 50% wasted energy usage is interesting.  Again, how many people are willing to forgo air conditioning?  How many peole will dry their laundry on a clothesline?  How many people will handwash their dishes?

Bye-bye, now.  You seem to know it all, regardless of contrary points of view.  

...then I wouldn't provide links to so many sources that know a lot more than me.

A lot of environmentally-oriented people, including myself, have become more receptive to the possibility of nuclear as designs have improved safety and climate change has risen as a concern.  Still there are concerns that need to be addressed, including what to do about nuclear waste, security from terrorist attacks, and cost.

In terms of electricity, the amount of loss is calculated by the difference b/n total power generated and amount of retail sales.

Most of this lost electricity is attributed to the conversion process to turn heat energy into mechanical energy which turns turbines and generators.  This is primarily in steam-heat and nuclear generation.  The process of exhausted steam and heat loss is a necessary part of the conversion process.   The only way this percentage will decrease is by eliminating these generation sources or improving their design, but the output generated would still be unchanged, so there's no potential for savings here.    

Other losses, I guess can be commonly described as, idling generators on standby either from peak usage or as a fallback source for alternative resources such as wind or solar <--- another fine reason for DR, Miles!

The amount of electricity lost in these processes is about 2/3 of all electricity produced.  Once electricity is meant for the market, appx 15% is lost in power plant use and from delivery, with appx 2/3 due to transmission & distribution.  

Overall there's much less "recoverable" electricity than you are led to believe from that chart, Kindler.  The recoverable waste is from aging and inefficient T&D equipment.  That's only 10% which seems small, but that's  some 37 billion kilowatt hours nationwide.  I forget the conversion ratio from kwh to MW, sorry, but its a heck of alot of MW's.  

Solution:  DG, EEC, Smartgrid, and upgraded T&D equipment will take a decent chunk out of this 37bkwh and make it usable.  

Yes, I am aware that EEC can not stop baseline growth and eventually grid expansion is necessary.  But even our friends at the PJM say modest investments in EEC can put off grid expansion investments by 7 years.  Imagine if they were really being truthful with us; would that # then be like 10 years???

---------

Regarding Katrina, you really can't say that Kindler.  For one, of the storm's 3 characteristics, the intensity at landfall was b/n 3-4.  And while our hurricane stats only go back some 80 odd years, there were other more intense hurricanes at landfall.  New stat taking methods also favor more modern era hurricanes as more intensive.  This is because of new data collecting tools are more precise and use mph at the main measure of intensity, unlike pre-1992 hurricane stat records which used more estimates and the combination of mb, mph, and tidal surge.  It is interesting, however, that the # of hurricanes and the # of intense hurricanes which occurred during the 2004/5 tropical seasons, but there again, our historical stats are the smallest of pinhead sample of history, so how can we even be sure of those years' uniqueness?  And lets not forget, we all associate Katrina with NOLA and what happened there wasn't truly a direct result from just Katrina.  

GW yes, but AGW...I don't know and I don't think anyone knows.  If we are sane, fairminded, apolitical John Q & Mary Publics, we would listen to and read all sides and viewpoints.  I don't know about you but I am drunk on GW info.  It all sounds good to me so that can't be right.

---------

To wipe out all future coal power plants (lets say for the next 50 years) that would be unfortunately, nonrealistic.  #1, coal makes more than 1/2 of all electricity produced for good reason - Americans demand the power.  Top that with the # of aging power plants (mostly coal and petrol) that will be decommissioned w/i the next 25 years, and you'll sickened.  This is why once again, Wise Co is happening.  The amount of MW to meet demand growth and replace aging power plants is too great to delete all new coal.  If you need #'s so you can see them, I can find them in a bit.  

Coal is here to stay like it or not ( and don't call me an apologist for that Lo-well), especially here in Va, WV, and KY.  Some town is going to get these new clean coal plants which will be popping up every few years.  Unfortunately, Wise Co. will be the receipent of this first of its class clean coal powerplant, and a leading Dem in Congress who happens to be from SW Va has made it all possible.  Who says WV Sen. Robert Byrd should get everything all the time!?  And Lowell, don't tell Boucher or Byrd "there ain't no such thing as clean coal".  

-----------

I'm sorry to babble on but I know I'll get some ignorant replies from the same few, but our electricity in Va which was once ample by NERC standards as late as 2005, is being imported to the NE.  That's the problem our state has been facing since mid-2006.  The PJM grid is near crippled!  Urban city folks from DC up I-95 (our democratic friends) are demanding our electricity!  Environmentalists in NYC and close to home here in DC and in Alexandria have been pushing for the shutdown of 8 old power plants.  By 2012 they'll get their wish and despite the fact that our state has just installed 1800 MW of new generation just since 2000, with another 800-1100MW in the proposal queue, all because the NE isn't efficient, hasn't conserved, and hasn't found alternative resources within their state (because there isn't enough time basically), DVP has gotten the green light to shipping out our electricity supply, requiring further transmission expansion in our state and new generation proposals in Wise, Caroline and Spotsyvlannia counties.  

Implement EEC now!  Its here, its cheaper, its faster to implement, no footprint, no geographic constraints and it will buy the NE ~7 years to find solutions.

Miles, throwing up 3000 wind turbines in the Chesapeake Bay isn't going to cut it, unless you can make that 300,000 3MW turbines 12 miles off the mid-Atlantic shore.  

Arguing what alternative renewables will work is overdone and more for stock message boards.  I can't tell you how many times I've read about a continental wind farm and solar array for the US just because some energy mag published an article of a similar concept stretching across North Africa and Europe.  The market will make it happen when the technology has matured and it is viable to do so.  You and I arguing about when and how is pointless.  In the meantime, aside from getting higher fuel efficient car, all we can do is Get Efficient!

------------

2007 State of CA Demand Response Award Winner
Unilever Foods North America, Unilever's margarine-manufacturing plant has adjusted HVAC temperatures, turned off non-essential lights and equipment, and explored a pre-cooling process that allows them to turn off an ammonia refrigeration line on high-demand days. Average demand reduction has been approximately 300 KW - 25% of site demand. Unilever also installed a high-efficiency boiler, replaced metal halide with high bay linear fluorescent fixtures, and initiated rigorous energy conservation. The company has been a consistent participant in PG&E and CPP demand response programs. Unilever voluntarily participated in a PG&E integrated audit and is currently pursuing the incentive applications that the auditors recommended.

http://www.fypower.org/feature...

Example websites from utilities regarding the a/c switches I mentioned previously.

NOVEC (NOVA electric coopoerative)http://www.novec.com/page.cfm?id=544
faq http://www.novec.com/documents...

San Jacquin (CA) http://www.easygreensavings.com/

PG&E (CA) http://www.pge-smartac.com/

Dominion Power doesn't have a smart ac switch program yet!  Can you believe that?  Its in the works but I guarantee it will only be for some 8,000 homes until their 5 year study period is over.  That's bullcrap.

* Chap Peterson isn't my rep, but his new clean bill, which has DSM provisions does not appear to address this Smart ac switch program.  He needs to incorporate a massive smart switch ac program for all state utilities.  If you can get one installed for yourself, you can have it removed it you don't like it, but you and your family won't notice it, you'll help lower the cost per kwh for everyone, and you'll help stop the next Wise Co. from happening.  

Yes its small, its simple, but if everyone from NYC to Hampton Roads does it, its affect will be HUGE energy savings.  

chicka-CHOW...that's for you Green Milo.