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 -----
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-doubt
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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-gas-leakage-rates
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>
>
>
>