|
Below are
a few letters we received on topics that appeared in the past few weeks.
They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
Threshold
Crossed - July 01, 2009
The
problem is that this bill does not guarantee a reduction in CO2 emissions,
just creates an increasing revenue stream for the federal government. There
currently is no known technology that is deployable today to reduce emissions
from power plants. With caps coming into play in 2012, there is no way
technology can be found to achieve the CO2 reductions in time. Therefore,
this is really all about generating revenue.
If it were
meant to reduce CO2 emissions, instead of being all supply side-oriented,
it would provide for more efficiency measures in buildings, manufacturing,
etc. Although “green” jobs are promised, reality is that higher energy
costs, along with existing labor costs, will drive these jobs oversees. Why
would anyone manufacture solar panels in the U.S.
(this is an energy-intensive process) where energy costs are high when they
can be off-shored to China
and India
where energy and labor will be less expensive? The only CO2 reduction that
will occur is due to the loss of additional manufacturing jobs and the loss
of quality of life with those jobs to foreign markets with no CO2 or other
emission standards. The reality is that worldwide emissions of CO2, SOx and NOx will actually
increase.
If we
really want to reduce emissions, we need a two-pronged approach, demand
side efficiencies and money going towards technology, both for clean coal
and nuclear. This bill puts forth a pittance towards these.
Bryce Cramer
District Office and Member Services Manager
Egyptian Electric Cooperative Association
Natural
Gas Moves Cars - July 17, 2009
The
CNG-powered Honda Civic GX is available here in North
Carolina and, to the best of my knowledge, in all U.S.
states. There are also natural gas-fueled alternatives offered by Ford
including the compact Focus and the mid-size Fusion. For specialized fleet
uses there are many choices of CNG including sedans, pickups, vans
(including offerings by GM and Ford), medium- and
heavy-duty trucks. Natural gas may seem a limited offering to the general
public but it is re-emerging as an excellent alternative fuel choice for
transit, refuse haulers, and municipalities. It is an excellent fuel for
school bus fleets since a CNG engine operates more cleanly and quietly than
a diesel. There is no one single best answer to solve our reliance on
petroleum. CNG is an excellent choice for many applications.
Joseph O'Neill
Transportation Program Specialist
North Carolina Solar Center
NC State University
Nothing
new here. When I worked in Chicago in the
‘70s, DOE had several hydrogen-powered vehicles that employees used for
commuting and then parked in the Federal
Center plaza for
people to look over. When I worked in Vancouver,
B.C. in the ‘90s all commercial vehicles operating within the city were
required to use alternative fuels and natural gas was the most popular. I
recall sitting in a taxi while the driver refueled at the depot. Hearing
the fuel tank make funny pinging noises while being pressurized was an
interesting experience. Here in Denver,
natural gas conversions for Ford pickups are available for a few thousand
dollars. All it takes is for the price of gasoline to get sufficiently
high.
David S. Galpin, PE
Your
article on natural gas-powered vehicles is a good one, but I wonder if the
sources are really objective about the possibility of plug-in electric
cars. I also think that hydrogen will never be more than a niche since it
is hard to make, store and transport. Only if you make it at point of use
does it make any sense and then you need to use it quickly. Fleet
applications make sense but individuals not so much.
Thanks for
showing all that is already being done to address "global warming"
without excessive government regulation or a "cap and trade"
system that is very expensive and has not proved effective for CO2 where it
is currently being used.
Barry Alexander
You wrote:
"As
for AT&T, it says that it will spend $350 million converting the
original 8,000 vehicles. It will then spend another $215 million phasing
out 7,000 additional cars and replacing them with those that are more fuel
efficient. It's an investment that the company says will pay off in the
form of lower transportation costs."
You know,
I don't understand large numbers; and whenever I see two large numbers
related to the same phenomenon, I divide one by the other. In this case,
$350 million to convert 8,000 vehicles comes out to $40,000 per vehicle.
And to replace 7,000 cars with more efficient comes out to $30,000 per car.
(That's money from my telephone bill!)
And take
10 years to do this? Do their cars last longer? They ought to just replace
the cars as they wear out and buy LNG vehicles then -- do LNG (CNG) vehicles
have a $30K-$40K premium over gasoline? Detroit ought to be able to crank that
down by a factor of 10 in the next 10 years.
And where
is the government in this picture? GSA surely has the largest fleet in the
country (world?) except maybe for the Department of Defense.
Finally,
Honda is blowing smoke about hydrogen: where do you get it? (cracking methane); how do you transport it and store it?
See Romm's "The hype about hydrogen."
Sorry to
dump on you -- your stuff is always so good that this one just stands out
and asks to be shot down.
Berol Robinson
Formidable
Force - July 20, 2009
Good
article.
If Exelon
wants merchant generating capacity, why not invest its more than $7 billion
in building new wind farms. That adds value to our economy through
manufacturing, construction and ongoing maintenance jobs; provides a large
dose of green energy and provides revenue streams for some landowners. In
other words, from a nationalistic point of view, we need new investment in
our economy, not mergers and acquisitions.
Charles R. Schaul
Unfortunately,
such mega-mergers seldom benefit shareholders or the public. The
beneficiaries almost always are limited to a few top executives in each
company, the many lawyers involved, and the “financial services” parasites.
Real company value gets sucked out again.
Keith E. Bowers
High-Powered
Wires - July 22, 2009
Wouldn’t
distributed generation reduce the need for long transmission lines and
increase reliability by diversifying supply?
Even with
slightly higher line loss there would be much higher efficiency when the
thermal output can be put to productive use (district heating, absorption
cooling, etc.).
This would
have a much lower net cost: probably why the utility companies with their
guaranteed rate of return do NOT want to pursue this concept.
Lee Parker
Although
total losses in transmission and distribution are 7 percent or 8 percent,
the figure for transmission is only around 3 percent. Unless we get to room
temperature superconductors, I am doubtful that the energy required to cool
the superconducting line would be less than the average losses. There are
specific applications for high temperature superconductors that make a lot
of economic sense, but replacing bulk long-distance lines with
superconductors does not make sense to me.
Also, a
small point, transmission lines are made of aluminum and steel, not copper.
Ross Baldick
Wired
for Broadband - July 24, 2009
You should
reconsider the statistics in this article, since FCC says 92 percent of
American homes are offered broadband by a telephone and/or cable operator
(and often have wireless broadband options as well). Utilities who don’t
want to “bet the farm” should consider partnering with existing broadband
providers to carry smart grid traffic, as several have announced.
Investment in automated monitoring of substations, transformers and other
elements to improve electric grid reliability is surely higher payback.
Bill Blessing
Executive
Pay Cuts - July 27, 2009
The pay
for company executives at publicly traded companies and especially those
who provide necessary basic serviced are way too high. After working in the
utility industry for years and watching the lack of key decision-making and
beneficial decision-making is just unbelievable. I think the greed doesn't
start at the bottom like minimum wage, but at the top. There has to be a new
way for measuring the success and reward for such executives, but I do not
understand why we need to pay the base salaries and bonuses in millions of
dollars when the number of people capable to handle the job for much less
is a mile long.
Sorry, the
greed isn’t only in Wall Street, but just down the street. Hard working
small business owners and entrepreneurs can’t make nearly that amount and
they are the backbone to an expanding economy. When investors want 20
percent plus returns on capital investments, the greed is also too high.
Something better give soon or the lifestyle we know of is going to move
offshore.
Marty Buckley
The
Color of Oil – August 05, 2009
I think
you might need to alter the title of the article to "The Color of
Money". The simple fact of the matter is that Chevron, ExxonMobil or
any other “major’s” first responsibility is to its shareholders.
Ninety-nine percent of the new green technologies have resulted in an
enormous waste of taxpayers’ money, and were nothing more than pork-barrel
spending. A business must earn profits to continue operations. That is
something that the "Greenies" seem to overlook or simply have no
interest in discussing.
We did not
have to spend billions to realize that ethanol would not work as an
alternative to oil, but the "Greenies" crammed that debacle down
our throats! Biodiesel, yet another "Greenie" home run, simply
did not work either -- there are plants idled all over the world.
Anyone
willing to look subjectively at any new energy technology can determine
whether it is financially feasible on the front end before sinking billions
of dollars into a technology that simply is scalable.
Christopher L. Headrick
President & Co-CEO
Americas Energy Company
They are
oil companies! What makes you think they would be successful doing anything
but oil? I think the premise that they would be good at these other energy
sources is a fantasy driven by the fact that they have money to invest. Let
other companies step up to be the new “Shell” or “ExxonMobil” in the green
industries. These companies did not become billion-dollar companies
overnight.
Mark Hatfield
Principal Consultant
|
