Jim says, "Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?"
That makes sense to you and me, Jim. But I doubt that the larger world as a whole will convert to that mindset any time soon. This nation and nations around the world will continue to use increasing amounts of energy derived from one source or another. So the "false choice" you correctly recognize is one we nonetheless have to make, even though the individual druthers of the dozen or so reading this- and our significant but still limited numbers of allies prefer or even demand another choice(s).
In wind energy facility debates, and even in the PATH debates, our friend Bill DePaulo privately insists that all the conservation we can muster and prod others to muster is and will continue to be outstripped by the demands of increasing population and of the "westernizing" of the most populous nations around the world. In the current model of a world with increasing demands for "economic growth", the demand for conservation anathematizes said growth. And so the "false choice" is loathsomely upon us.
And of course if you tell me that I'm wrong about that, I will desperately want to believe you. But what I believe and what I want to believe are often in conflict.
Frank Young
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; "Leslee McCarty" lesleemac1@frontier.com; "Nicole Good" nicolegood.wv@gmail.com; "Frank Young" fyoung@mountain.net; ec@osenergy.org; "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu; "Jim Sconyers" jim_scon@yahoo.com; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:39 PM Subject: Re: nuclear, gas, or coal
This is a classic example of a false choice. By trying to make this a "black or white" issue, we neglect the possibility of green or red or blue. Nothing is more futile than knowing the answer to the wrong question, and to frame the issue as gas versus nuclear is to ask the wrong question.
Electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 cents per kilowatt hour generated (and that is before a carbon tax is added). Wind power is at 7 cents or less. A new nuclear power plant is at 16 cents and rising. Solar is at 16 cents and falling, with some installations under 12 cents.
Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?
Jim Kotcon
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 1/28/2011 1:54 PM >>>
Energy can definitely get complicated! I've been rabidly and actively anti-nuke for more than 2 decades - helped get a waste transport ban in WV, campaigned against it in NH - but pressure is definitely building for nuclear. Unfortunately, most of the proponents neglect life-cycle issues, which are massive, from mining and mining waste to spent fuel rod disposal. It is true that the actual act of generating the electric power - barring meltdowns and other pesky safety concerns - is cleaner for nuclear than say coal. Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
From: Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com To: Frank Young fyoung@mountain.net; jim_scon@yahoo.com; James Kotcon
jkotcon@wvu.edu; dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee McCarty lesleemac1@frontier.com; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 10:38:05 AM Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater thanpreviously reported.
So here's a debate I got into last night: would you prefer natural gas or nuclear?
From what I gather, if fugitive emissions were captured and all the best technology put in place, gas would be twice as clean as coal? It's just that that's currently not the case. I'm with Frank on the support for regulation.
*Nicole
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Frank Young fyoung@mountain.net wrote:
Solution: capture the would be fugitive emissions of methane! And after all, once captured, those too are marketable.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee
McCarty ; Nicole Good ; ec@osenergy.org ; Mary@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells
greater
thanpreviously reported.
Makes one wondr about all the media stories that contain the
seemingly
obligatory reference that "natural gas is much cleaner than
coal."
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee
McCarty
lesleemac1@frontier.com; Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com;
ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 12:26:24 PM Subject: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater
than
previously reported.
The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the
story may
be a couple months old by now. It suggests that methane emissions
from
Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously
estimated.
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural
gas as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing
understanding
of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
More available at: http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doub...
The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) was apparently released in November and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf
In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to
the
emissions factors. Those referencing "unconventional wells"
represent
some changes that are truly astronomical. If each Marcellus well
is, in
fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they
hydro-frack,
then that makes them significant sources of emissions.
Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at
the
site below: http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-g...
I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game changer for the natural gas industry. It certainly changes the
game on
the Wetzel air permit appeal.
Jim Kotcon
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec