News:

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice: for they shall be filled. Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me. The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord. Let sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.

Author Topic: The Big Picture in Renewable Energy Growth  (Read 528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Denmark gets it.
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2023, 05:13:13 pm »
CleanTechnica

January 15, 2023 By Jesper Berggreen


AGelbert COMMENT:
Denmark gets it. They have irrefutable Catastrophic Climate Change reasons to get it.
Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: PART 1 of 3



So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking


1.27.2023


Clean tech investment reaches par with fossil fuels, BNEF says

Renewable energy remained the largest sector in investment terms and hit a new record of $495 billion committed in 2022.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/clean-tech-investment-reaches-par-with-fossil-fuels-bnef-says/
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
CleanTechnica

February 24, 2023

How Much Land Would It Require To Get Most Of Our Electricity From Wind & Solar?

SNIPPETS:

But the big news is NREL found that the total amount of land needed by 2035 to achieve our clean power goals with wind, solar, and long-distance transmission lines (19,700 sq. mi) would be:

equivalent to the land area currently occupied by railroads (18,500 sq. mi)

֍ less than half the area of active oil and gas leases (40,500 sq. mi)

֍ less than one-third of the area currently needed for ethanol production (59,500 sq. mi), and

֍ only slightly more than the historically disturbed land area for coal mining (13,100 sq. mi).
... ...

NREL found that the land area directly occupied by wind and solar infrastructure by 2035 would make up less than 1 percent of the land in 94 percent of the country and less than or equal to 7 percent of total land area in just three states. A key reason why a relatively small amount of land is needed is because only 2 percent of the total area within a wind farm is occupied by wind infrastructure, while the remaining 98 percent is available for agriculture, grazing, or other uses. Offshore wind turbines also have a relatively small footprint and are able to use much larger turbines than land-based projects. Rooftop solar deployment, meanwhile, doesn’t require any land.

Full article:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/24/how-much-land-would-it-require-to-get-most-of-our-electricity-from-wind-solar/

AGelbert COMMENT: This is an Excellent truth filled article! 👍

I've been reading about this for at least a decade, since Robert Kennedy mentioned how small the area is, relatively speaking, that we need to power the WORLD with 100% Renewable Energy.

The 🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn have, of course, yammered endlessly with their the F.U.D 👉 SEE: renewable energy "intermittence", renewable energy "distance from users". renewable energy based fuels "low energy density", renewable energy "high costs", "we are all gonna die in the dark without hydrocarbon fuels", "Hydrocarbon based fuels help the poor", "Big Oil subsidies preserve national security", and many more 24/7 repeated 😈 LIES.

Have you heard the one about the 😇🦖 "high" Energy Return on Energy Invested of hydrocarbon based fuels? Did you know that, not only is that not true, but ALL hydrocarbon based fuels have a NEGATIVE Energy Return on Energy Invested! The game Big Oil played with ERoEI is based on MONEY (i.e. "subsides"), NOT JOULES OF ENERGY! It was a SCAM from the START! 😡

📢 We need hydrocarbon based fuels like a dog needs ticks!

Big Oil has suckered we-the-people for way too long. It is HIGH TIME they went the way of the Dodo Bird.


« Last Edit: February 25, 2023, 04:28:43 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Five Key Findings on Wind Energy Costs in 🌞 Puerto Rico Through 2035
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2023, 01:32:15 pm »
CleanTechnica

February 26, 2023 By 🦅 U.S. Department of Energy

NREL Study Shows Wind Energy Can Help Puerto Rico Achieve Its Clean Energy & ⚡ Grid Reliability Goals

Five Key Findings on Wind Energy Costs in Puerto Rico Through 2035

SNIPPET:

An NREL report shows that wind energy projects like Puerto Rico’s Santa Isabel wind farm, pictured above, can support Puerto Rico in building a resilient, reliable, and affordable renewable energy system. Photo by Tony Martinez Tossas, NREL


1. Wind Energy Can Team With Solar To Meet Puerto Rico’s Energy Needs

Wind energy can take over for Puerto Rico’s abundant solar energy resources after the sun goes down — which is when electricity demand peaks. Working together with solar, wind energy can help Puerto Rico meet its energy demands and reach its renewable energy goals.

“Wind energy can complement solar with evening and nighttime electricity production — especially offshore wind energy,” said NREL researcher Nate Blair, who co-authored the report. “Wind energy can also reduce the need for batteries and other energy storage systems.”

2. Wind & Solar Can Accommodate Puerto Rico’s Limited Space

Geographically speaking, Puerto Rico is small: The territory consists of the roughly 3,500 square-mile main island, along with 143 small islands, islets, and cays, most of which are uninhabited. This means residences, businesses, farms, wild spaces, and power facilities must compete for limited land.

Through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100), a team of national laboratory researchers will use data from “Wind Energy Costs in Puerto Rico Through 2035,” along with data the team will collect from stakeholders, to incorporate land-use concerns into PR100’s modeling. While competing land uses could be an obstacle to meeting Puerto Rico’s ambitious renewable energy goals, having a mix of renewable energy technologies — like wind energy and solar — can help overcome this challenge.

“The limited amount of space in Puerto Rico poses challenges for how to use land and marine areas,” said NREL researcher Patrick Duffy, who led the study. “However, multiple renewable energy sources give Puerto Ricans options for meeting their clean energy goals while balancing their onshore and offshore priorities.”

3. Puerto Rico’s Wind Turbines Must Weather the Storm — Literally 

Full article:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/25/nrel-study-shows-wind-energy-can-help-puerto-rico-achieve-its-clean-energy-grid-reliability-goals/

AGelbert COMMENT: Except for Hawaii, no land area under the US Flag has MORE Renewable Energy Resources (i.e. Mild, but nearly CONSTANT, wind due to the prevailing Easterlies AND 18 degree latitude 365 days a year MAJOR solar insolation) than Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico from Space

EVERY land vehicle and local ocean small craft should be an ⚡ EV. The most you can drive is about 100 miles in any direction. The ocean distances between islands is quite within the range of battery powered small craft. Also, working schooner type sailboats with battery powered electric motor assist, though few and far between at present, are far more cost effective, as well as being totally non-polluting, than the diesel pigs now in use.

The 🦖 Hydrocarbon 😈 Hellspawn have had a stranglehold on energy generation in Puerto Rico for FAR TOO LONG. Puerto Rco needs hydrocarbon based fuels like a dog needs ticks!

It is TIME for Puerto Rico to SNAP OUT OF 🦖👿IT!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2023, 02:04:44 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
🐘 Republican Governor Phil Scott of Vermont tells a WHOPPER!
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2023, 06:46:20 pm »
March 3, 2023

I would like to take this opportunity to clearly and calmly state, with complete certainty, that Republican Governor Phil Scott of Vermont just told a BOLD FACED LIE! The lie is a particularly 😈 cynical one because it makes a pretense of 😇 "concern" for the economic welfare of owners of manufactured homes in Vermont, when, in fact, he is attempting to thwart a proposed Law that would HELP REDUCE costs of manufactured home owners in Vermont. This is the typical Orwellian mindfork used by Republicans for the purpose of defending the 🦕 polluting hydrocarbon based heating fuels status quo from being replaced by electrical heating from renewable energy sources.

This quote from VTDigger: Clean heat standard moves forward on 19-10 Senate vote exposes Republican Governor Phil Scott's LIES:
Quote
He cited mobile homes, some of which don’t have the electrical capacity to rely on heat pumps.

“People in mobile homes often have above ground tanks and have to buy kerosene at $6 per gallon to prevent gelling in the winter,” he said. “And if they want to electrify, they’ll need to make thousands of dollars in upgrades, and this is money they simply don’t have.”

AGelbert Statement: I have lived in a manufactured home my wife and I purchased new in Vermont since September of 2000. I have relied 100% on electricity for ALL my energy needs in the home since 2004, when I stopped using my kerosene fired furnace. Over the last 19 years I have saved MANY thousands of dollars not spent on furnace kerosene fuel, maintenance, tune-up and repair. The increase in electricity costs from using space heaters is much less than what the furnace costs were.


I use small Vornado Electric Space Heaters. They are inexpensive. The DO NOT "overload" the electrical panel circuitry of my manufactured home. They have an excellent warranty. I have had Vornado replace some units in warranty that failed at no cost or hassles. They are easy to clean and FAR cheaper than MAINTAINING a kerosene fired furnace, never mind the HUGE cost of a new kerosene fired furnace AND the periodic Big Oil PRICE GOUGING for kerosene. This is without even considering the fact that electrical space heaters DO NOT pollute. Of course you don't want them too near something that may catch fire from heat, but you will never die of CO poisoning as long as you use electrical space heaters. Another HUGE plus is that, unlike when a furnace fails in the middle of a Vermont winter, when you are out of heat and out of luck for as much as 24 hours, and your water pipes can freeze, adding another huge cost, small portable space heaters ALWAYS provide enough heat as long as you have power. If one goes out, you have three others that will take up the slack. They never all fail at the same time. And, by the way, my kerosene furnace would fail if the power went out because it has to send a continuous spark to the electrodes in the burner.
 
Governor Phil Scott is a LIAR!

Sure, it would be nice to get a split-system heat pump for my manufatured home, but THAT isn't the PROBLEM. 🦕 Scott wants to make it look like the cost of a ⚡ heat pump "is the problem". The COST of EVERYTHING associated with heating your home with 🦕 hydrocarbon based fuels IS the PROBLEM! Heat pumps are just part of the answer. As things are RIGHT NOW for low income people like yours truly, all the State has to DO is make sure the ⚡ JUICE we get is from Renewable Energy Sources. There is a LOT of open space available for Solar AND wind in Vermont, even if this state is 74% forested. HUNDREDS of miles of right of way through forests where the power lines are now CAN be used to harvest Solar, and in higher places, wind. The State or the ⚡ Power company OWNS that land already! Then there is all that space in the middle of the major expressways. It is just plain STUPID to not use 20 or 30% of that SPACE to provide ALL the Renewable Energy Vermont needs, PERIOD!

We need hydrocarbon based 🦖 fuels for heating like a dog needs ticks! I will celebrate when Scott's veto of this 🎍 GOOD 🌞 Law is overturned (Progressives have enough votes to DO IT! 🗽).
« Last Edit: March 03, 2023, 11:05:30 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
🌞 The Clean Energy ✨ BOOM is HERE! 🤠
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2023, 04:25:03 pm »
Climate Power

Mar 7, 2023, 12:32 PM



   
https://twitter.com/ClimatePower/status/1633138185206218752/
« Last Edit: March 08, 2023, 04:27:27 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Clean energy hits over ⚡ 40 percent of U.S. ⚡ electricity.
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2023, 08:14:47 pm »

March 8, 2023

Chart: Wind, solar, and ⚡ batteries increasingly account for more new U.S. ⚡ power capacity ⚡ additions

Learn more:
https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/renewable-energy-news
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking


March 15, 2023

2022 emissions reduction too little 😕 to put Germany on track for 2030 target 🤦‍♂️

A slight reduction of German greenhouse gas emissions last year is not enough to put the country on track to reaching its 2030 climate target. The country would have to triple the annual reduction from 2 percent in 2022 to 6 percent from 2023 onwards, the head of the environment agency (UBA) Dirk Messner said in Berlin. Preliminary data by the agency showed that more coal use during the energy crisis fuelled by Russia’s war against Ukraine led to rising emissions in the energy sector, while high prices pushed down emissions in industry. The transport sector remains the “problem child” of German climate action efforts, said Messner, and failed its annual target yet again. NGO NABU called on chancellor Olaf Scholz to put his foot down and force transport minister Volker Wissing to introduce effective measures.


Read more:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/2022-emissions-reduction-too-little-put-germany-track-2030-target
« Last Edit: March 15, 2023, 01:46:04 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Yes, this is 8 years old, but even more valid in 2023 than it was in 2015.

October 10, 2015 

AGelbert comments written to Vermont State Government Officials in regard to The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP)

"The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) addresses Vermont's energy future for electricity, building heating, industrial processing, transportation, and land use. The 2016 CEP sets specific goals and strategies for Vermont to obtain 90% of our total energy from renewable sources by 2050."

"First, the CEP is intended to inform readers of the many challenges and opportunities facing Vermonters in our mutual efforts to maintain a safe, reliable, affordable, environmentally sound, and sustainable energy supply across all sectors ..."
I suggest you add entrenched fossil fuel industry influence counterforce to the preface. When you use the word , "challenge", it sounds like it is just a matter of doing a cost benefit analysis. Renewable Energy includes that, of course. But to ignore the consistent, and successful, efforts made by the fossil fuel industry for the last 60 years or so to prevent Congress from funding solar and wind energy R & D and provide Renewable Energy subsidies on an equal footing with fossil fuels and nuclear power, instead of the pittance Renewable energy has received, clouds the issue. This is not merely a challenge; it is a war with predatory capitalist welfare queens degrading out democracy and our biosphere for short term gains.

Fossil fuels are environmentally and economically unsound. That is blatantly obvious. Any preface summarizing the challenges we face should state that a huge part of our challenge is to stop them from being subsidized.

A goal of 90% Renewable Energy by 2050 assumes that climate change will not dictate 100% long before that. If you read the Hansen et al 2015 paper just published, you will note that a plus 2 degrees Centigrade world, now baked in, is not amenable to comfortable political expediency.

When you are in a hole. you are supposed to stop digging.

On the issue of per capita energy use, let's talk. A CEO of a corporation that pollutes should have his carbon footprint, above and beyond that of his home and personal vehicle, include his share of the corporate carbon footprint. If you own a mall or a hospital or a moving company, you own that carbon footprint too. I am just a little tired of the "it's everybody's fault" approach to carbon taxes. More on that later.

It is also hypocritical for the state to encourage utilities to give businesses that use a lot of electricity a discount because they allegedly "benefit" the economy, while urging people like myself, that live in a 980 sq. ft. home,  to lower my carbon footprint.

The climate will dictate the path forward, not the politicians. If you find that too "lockstep", then you are not cognizant of the existential threat humanity faces from global warming. You need to take your direction from climate scientists, not economists or lawyers.

-----------------------------------
"The four years since the completion of the 2011 CEP have seen significant progress in advancing the recommendations and goals established in that plan."

Sure. But that is because the goals were too limited. This is a circular argument used by lawyers and/or politicians, whether they are lawyers or not. They create a set of goals that are "realistic" within the confines of political expediency, while ignoring the urgency of addressing the pressing need to eliminate dirty energy in order to ameliorate the effects climate change.

Had Vermont given a 50% or more discount on sales tax for electric vehicles, some real progress on reducing transportation emissions would have been made. Even now, the state is mute about that.

Why aren't people who drive internal combustion powered cars rewarded for low annual mileage and why aren't people carbon taxed above 5,000 miles a year unless they drive an EV? Why doesn't Vermont connect state employees to Montpelier computers directly in their homes so they can telecommute? Why can't meetings be by telecommute? Why travel 30 or 60 miles round trip to a place where you work a computer and talk on a phone when you can do that from your home? Why isn't more of education done over the internet to save on school heating costs and bus fossil fuel use? This is just a small sample of the missed opportunities in the 2011 goals.

Where is the statewide zoning ordinance exception for people wanting to put passive geothermal systems in so they don't have to pay for permits and go through a lot of red tape? Ground sourced passive geothermal heat pumps are far more efficient with modern heat pump technology than the air sourced heat pumps. Where are the sales tax exemptions for home Renewable Energy infrastructure?

Where are the incentives for people to heat and cool smaller spaces? Where are the carbon taxes on homes larger than 500 square feet per occupant? And yes, people that heat and cool less than that should be paid for their frugality and contribution to a low carbon economy in rebates, not tax credits (the poor would not benefit from tax credits because they pay low taxes - a tax credit, like the $7,500 tax credit on EVs, helps mostly the well to do who pay at least that much in taxes - that's unfair). The needs of the poor, more impacted by climate change than the well to do, are unfairly ignored.

In short, there were several incentives for the everyday Vermonter that would have made a huge dent in our collective carbon footprint, but were left out.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is only one way to measure "Progress". And that is because there is only one real goal. That goal is taking our parts per million of carbon dioxide back to 290. I am not surprised that goal is not ever stated in these types of programs. Even the 350 PPM goal of Bill McKibben would be more realistic.

I realize that Vermont is just a state and the problem is global but the effects are local. So, while percentages of this, that and the other carbon footprint reductions are good metrics, our progress can only be realistically measured by how we preserve the biosphere for future generations. The only proxy Vermont has available for reducing the ppm of CO2 is renewable energy percentage. As long we are not at 100%, we are making things worse.
------------------------------------------
"The CEP strives to further the state’s economic, environmental, and human health goals, which are summarized in this chapter."

As I said in regard to Chapter 2, I realize that Vermont is just a state and the problem is global but the effects are local. So, while percentages of this, that and the other carbon footprint reductions are good metrics, our progress can only be realistically measured by how we preserve the biosphere for future generations. The only proxy Vermont has available for reducing the ppm of CO2 is renewable energy percentage. As long we are not at 100%, we are making things worse.

The conflict between the economy and the environment is artificial. It is imperative that, in discussing goals, the enormous pressure on our government exerted by polluting corporate interests is considered as in defining the action needed to achieve those goals.

Every advance in the percentage of Renewable Energy used by Vermonters equals less profits for the fossil fuel industry. Their deliberate corruption of our government energy policies for the purpose of continuing to privatize profits and socialize the costs is endangering the welfare of future generations. Their product is a liability, not an asset. It's high time that the State of Vermont admitted that.

If you do not, at the outset, state that fossil fuels are damaging our environment and, contrary to the propaganda, hurting the economy too, then you have not properly framed your guiding goals.

Of course you need to maintain revenue for the government. But not at an intolerable cost to the environment. And continuing to provide tax benefits for fossil fuels, be they gasoline, heating oil, kerosene or natural gas is counterproductive in two ways:

1. It perpetuates the myth that we can continue business as usual with fossil fuels as long as the state gets it's cut from the user.

2. It defends a dirty energy status quo condemning future Vermonters to the "externalized " costs the fossil fuel industry happily socializes on all of us.

The state of Vermont needs fossil fuels like a hole in the head. There are a plethora of revenue streams from renewable energy sources that can more than replace every regressive tax now in place for the user of fossil fuels.

I do not advocate increasing taxes on gasoline simply because the poor are the most impacted by regressive taxes. What I do advocate is incentives in the form of rebates for people that reduce their fossil fuel use. The lowered health care costs for the state resulting from a cleaner environment will not show up on a balance sheet right away. So there will be people claiming this is "voodoo" economics. But it's not. Within a couple of decades, the benefits will clearly justify the costs.

This what leadership is supposed to be about. Policies should look at the big picture, not engage in hand wringing over how much loss for state revenues incentives for cutting gasoline, heating oil and gas (no matter what Vermont Gas says) use would represent.

The goals should be to reverse GHG emissions, not just reduce them. They need to be stopped completely followed by action to sequester CO2 in order to lower our parts per million below 350ppm. This is not hyperbole. Read the Hansen et al 2015 climate change paper.

The biosphere is not going to accept politically motivated half measures designed to avoid stepping on entrenched polluting industry toes. The only real world that we must look to for a standard of behavior is the Biosphere.

The so called "real world" of politics is not now, or ever was, the "art of the possible"; it's the product of profit over people and planet. We need to act now because climate change is not going to adjust to political expediency.

Eliminating all fossil fuel use in Vermont should be part of guiding goals.
-----------------------------------------
Nice graphics. The elephants in the GHG room are transportation and distillates for heating and residential. State incentives for ground sourced geothermal heat pumps would take care of the heating distillate pollution.

In regard to transportation, as I mentioned before, there are a host of missed opportunities, by the State of Vermont, to rein in the use of these polluting fuels that the owners of gasoline stations and heating oil are quite happy about. Brazil has been using E100 for several years. There is no reason, beyond concern for fossil fuel industry profits, why Vermont could not have legislated gasoline out of existence with E100.

All present internal combustion engine vehicles can be modified to run on E100. In fact, because an internal combustion engine that runs on ethanol runs so much cooler (you can put your hand on the manifold or block and keep it there without being burned), engine wear is reduced and longevity is increased. Although that is beyond the scope of this discussion, an engine designed to run specifically on E100 would weigh 2/3 less because the metal alloys would not have to be engineered to handle the high waste heat from gasoline. That engine would be ruined by burning gasoline. That engine would have a higher compression ratio (like light aircraft engines). That engine would get better mileage. Those are the thermodynamic facts, regardless of what you may have heard to the contrary.

The fact that we do not have E100 engines or E100 sold routinely in the USA is not an accident or an oversight. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the fossil fuel industry would not like the idea of car engines running exclusively on E100, never mind why Detroit hasn't made a lighter engine that runs exclusively on E100.

If you do not believe what I am saying, send somebody to Brazil and the government there will calmly set up an appointment with an engineer that understands the benefits of E100 over gasoline. 100% Ethanol (E100) is just one chemical. It burns evenly and has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline.

Do you know why there isn't chemical name for gasoline? It's because there are many different types of hydrocarbon chains in it. The fact that it does not carry its own oxygen, like ethanol, causes uneven burning and high waste heat. The claim, used to argue that gasoline has a higher energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) than ethanol, that the enthalpy of gasoline is higher than ethanol is a clever deception. Yes, the enthalpy of gasoline is higher. But enthalpy is an external combustion calculation determined by heating water. Thus, all the waste heat of gasoline is considered, incorrectly, as contributing to the energy needed to do the work of moving a vehicle. When an internal combustion process is calculated, the waste heat from gasoline actually detracts from its efficiency. Thus, ethanol is a superior fuel. This was known as far back as 1906 by the work of Thomas Edison and the U.S. Navy. The new ethanol efficencies from lighter, high compression engines is a recent development in Brazil.

And the claim that major ethanol use would take food out of people's mouths is another myth. Vermont does not need gasoline. But the owner of Maplefields gasoline stations does. And we all know that he, like others that profit from fossil fuels, will try to keep this liability on our biosphere from being outlawed.

So let's cut to the chase. We are headed for a very difficult and dangerous climate because the increased concentration of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is overheating the oceans and the atmosphere. We need to stop burning them as a matter of personal responsibility to future generations. Theresa Morris wrote about it and I summarized her excellent essay.

Why Dianoia, Aristotle's term for "Thinking Things Through", is sine qua non to a Viable Biosphere

Here's a snippet:

One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan ahead to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny some liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system to limit even proven 100% liability.

When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdes oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers know how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation..

While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. distorted Fragmentation of Agency).

This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, aren't non-profit organizations. If they were not profiting, then, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."

Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.

Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.

They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".

They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.   

As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.

The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental Law fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).

This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.

When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures are not sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it.


-----------------------------------------
Land use for siting Renewable Energy is important.

I have often wondered why this is such a political football in Vermont. For example, the winds on mountain ridges near ski areas can be rather fierce. In fact, they are pretty constant. Yet those areas weren't the first to have wind turbines put on them.

I find it absolutely irrational for people to complain about aesthetics when fossil fuels are quite literally endangering the welfare of future generations. Where do some people get the idea that it's okay to drive a gas guzzler but it's not okay to see a wind turbine on a mountain top? They think wind turbines are too noisy but roads full of gas guzzlers aren't? Ask anyone that drives an EV what it's like to have to listen to internal combustion engines all around you in traffic.

And then there are those bothered by seeing a lot of solar panels. There is definitely a disconnect between the scientific consensus of the urgency to transition to 100% Renewable Energy and the lack of perception of that urgency among too many Vermonters.

There is no excuse for anyone in government to sugar coat the existential threat we face. The people of this state need to understand the stakes. This is not about whether something looks "Vermont" or not; this is about whether you care for future Vermonters or not.

But for those who don't want to see all those "ugly" solar panels ( I think they are cool, myself), I propose a land siting solution with more than enough acreage to really boost our solar harvesting.

There is a lot of land out of sight of 99% of the public that is made to order. The State does not need to ask anybody's permission and has access to all the right of ways with no issues except some coordination with electric utilities.
 
Swaths in the forests are cut across mountains all over Vermont for transmission lines. Why don't they put solar panels in those areas? The transmission lines are right next to them for hundreds of miles. The workers that keep the forest and undergrowth trimmed will have less work because the solar panels will block the sun. This is called common sense. let's see more of it.

You could go all out and roof in several miles of railroad track. That would keep snow off the tracks along with producing lots of solar energy while reducing land trimming costs in summer. Those tracks run nearby many neighborhoods that have transformers. State financing to help those neighborhoods buy a piece of that solar energy would go a long way to getting more people on board with the 100% Renewable Energy Transition. I think that would be a better way to go than sell the panel energy to the utility. The more the renewable energy is distributed the more democratic it is. The less it is distributed, the more the utility owning it will try to control the rates we pay. Centralizing energy is what has undermined democracy and favored predatory capitalist special interests. We want to go in the other direction.

In regard to private land and grounds in front of government buildings, why doesn't Vermont outlaw all local ordinances that require having a sterile, chemically polluted lawn that requires a lawn mower spewing totally unregulated emissions?

Is this a throw back from the European castle tradition of having a low cut "killing field" in front of the castle? It's time to get rid of that pretty lawn, Vermont. If you don't want to force somebody to do it, at least put a carbon tax on lawns and overrule all local ordinances that require them.

There are a lot of yards in Vermont that can join the fight to have a viable biosphere if the lawmakers would just recognize the importance of having pollution free yards in this battle. It's time to outlaw those signs on lawns that say, 'do not walk on lawn due to chemical treatment". We don't need that pollution and it isn't doing wonders for future generations either. Let the lawn care industry switch to organic yard gardening products.

-----------------------
Financing is one of the subjects that leaves far more out than it puts in. The Federal Reserve can influence every Vermonter that buys a home but somehow, those low interest rates never make it to Renewable Energy infrastructure.

We can have a cash for clunkers program but somehow, we can't have a EV for gas guzzlers program.

We can have pension funds investing in fossil fuel industry stocks but we can't have pension funds investing in gigawatt level State Funded Renewable Energy infrastructure.

The money the State of Vermont gifts the fossil fuel industry in subsidies alone, never mind the federal welfare queenery, would be ample for divestment from fossil fuels and nuclear power and investment in a 100% Renewable energy transition.

I am not convinced that the bankers understand that they need to hitch their financing star to the Renewable Energy Wagon. But I am convinced that that insurance actuaries are keenly aware of the costs of not transitioning within a decade, not 40 or fifty years, to 100% Renewable Energy.

The costs of a slow transition are far higher than a drastic transition. They are 5.5 times higher, per year, than a drastic and quick transition to 100% renewable energy. The reason for this is that the fossil fuel subsidies are a force multiplier on CO2 pollution. Every year we delay in financing the transition increases the costs of global warming exponentially.

This is what the insurance actuaries and the scientists are so alarmed about:

 According to the recently published Hansen et al 2015 study which models of our future using the Eemian period (about 125,000 years ago), due to certain similarities with our period (excluding the fact that the PPM of CO2 was only about 290 back then), the oceans are going to get extremely stormy.

Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.

Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 20 tons per square meter.

This is a serious issue that should be addressed more by the scientific community. Actuaries of insurance companies are already addressing it: “every year, on average, more than two dozen large ships sink, or otherwise go missing, taking their crews along with them.”
http://www.actuarialeye.com/2014/03/30/how-many-ships-disappear-each-year/

I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.

Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.

Part 4: An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves by Paul Beckwith

Published on Jul 23, 2015

"Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this..." 


Vermont will obviously not directly face problems from the end of cargo shipping as we know it due to violent oceans. But considering the impact on civilization that the end of routine cargo shipping will have on the U.S. economy in general and Vermont's economy in particular, it would behoove Vermont to do everything possible to be a leader in the transition to 100% Renewable within a decade.

It's time to tell the bankers and Vermont Lawmakers. Delay is more costly than drastic action.
----------------------------------------
I would recommend Ground Sourced Geothermal Heat pumps with 100% sales tax exemption and guaranteed 5% or less interest on financing. Forty five degrees is available all year round about 20 to 25 feet down (or less) anywhere in Vermont all year. You can heat and cool with that with very low electricity demand. With solar power, it's 100% Renewable Energy heating and cooling.

Charge a Carbon Tax on high income earners and businesses that stay on fossil fuel powered heat to subsidize heat pump installations for the low to middle income earners and schools.
-------------------------------------------
Require all gasoline stations to sell E100 with no sales tax for a ten year period.

The fact that gasoline taxes are a revenue stream is not a "dilemma", it's an incorrect, biosphere damaging choice. I suggest you correct it.
---------------------------------------
Expand the Charging station network in Vermont to level two chargers for at least 50% of the all vehicles over a ten year period. Reduce sales tax on EVs by 50 to 100% until 75% of all vehicles in Vermont are EVs or ten years, whichever comes first.

Convert all Federal Income Tax credits on EV purchases to rebates for Vermonters who pay less than the Federal Tax Credit on their Federal income taxes.
-----------------------------------------------
The problem here is one of perception. The fear that people will overload the grid by switching to all electric ignores the fact that Renewable energy is mostly distributed. This energy will be closer to the user. The efficiency of electric energy use is inversely proportional to the distance from the energy production.

So, although computer load balancing issues will exist, only the fossil fuel industry crocodile tears are the ones making a case for keeping people off electric heat and EV charging because of "grid overload".

It's time to eliminate discounts to high electricity users in industry and start giving discounts to Vermonters in their homes for charging EVs at night or running appliances in low use periods. These policies, though not popular with big pocketed individuals, will smooth the grid power demand. If that isn't what "smart rates" are, it's what they should be.

Our problem is CO2, notelectrical demand.
-----------------------------------------
I think Scenario A for generation capacity should be our reality by 2025, not 2050.
---------------------------------------------
Nice summary
----------------------------------
Nice map. AGelbert UPDATE NOTE: Here is the 2022 CEP Plan. There is some improvement, but it is still woefully short of what needs to be done. :(

Imagine how much more Renewable Energy we would have if a 100 miles or so of railroad tracks was roofed over with solar panels and a hundred miles or so of transmission line swaths cut through the mountains had solar panels on them.

I think you should know that average wind speeds in Vermont are predicted to increase with climate change. I doubt whether that has been modeled here. I suggest you consider that you will get quite a bit more energy from wind in your Scenario A with the same number of turbines.

I also suggest you take a look at the potential of Lemna Minor (Duckweed) as a biofuel and an animal food source. Duckweed can be pelletized. You can make ethanol from it too. It is the fastest growing flowering plant known to mankind. It grows in still water ponds with pig feces or tilapia fish droppings as fertilizer. No extra water is needed once the shallow ponds are filled and you can place them on non-arable land. Duckweed grows wild from the equator to Siberia. Duckweed is also a cleanser of heavy metals and an excellent carbon sequestering source of Renewable Energy.

Vermont has not taken advantage of Duckweed. It's considered mostly a nuisance here. It's not. It's far more efficient than corn as a feed stock for ethanol and animal feed too. And there is no nitrogen run off from duckweed ponds to deal with or the need for fossil fuel based chemical fertilizer or pesticides.

Duckweed, The Little Green Plant that Could.

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/plant-based-products-for-transprtation-and-building-materials/msg1012/#msg1012
------------------------------------------
Petroleum is not a resource. Fossil fuels are not assets. Fossil fuels are liabilities. Fossil fuels are endangering the welfare of future generations. The CO2 damage is accelerating. The acidification of the oceans is increasing. The icecaps are melting. The IPCC has us headed for a plus 4 degree C world by century's end. Mankind has never even existed on the planet above an average global temperature of plus 3.3 degrees C above the pre-industrial baseline.

Petroleum is a resource to civilization like arsenic is a food for humans.

I suggest you rephrase your definition of what a "resource" is.

Elizabeth Kolbert discusses her book, The Sixth Extinction
FEB. 10, 2014  Chasing the Biggest Story on Earth


‘The Sixth Extinction’ Looks at Human Impact on the Environment

Reporter asks: Why do you say this could lead to an extinction event?

Elizabeth Kolbert: It’s not what I say. It’s what many respected scientists are writing. If you read the scientific literature, you see frequent allusions to a current mass extinction event.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/the-sixth-extinction-looks-at-human-impact-on-the-environment.html?_r=0

As of June of this year (2015), further evidence of the existential threat we face has been published. The conclusions are conservative but still clear. Incremental measures will not stop this existential threat to 75% of al of Earth's species.

"Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations – notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change," the study's authors write.

Stanford Report, June 19, 2015
Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

Paul Ehrlich and others use highly conservative estimates to prove that species are disappearing faster than at any time since the dinosaurs' demise.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915.html
-----------------------------------
There is absolutely no reason why the state cannot use ground source geothermal heat pump technology to heat and cool all the buildings. All they have to do is go down 25 feet or less.

There is no reason why the government cannot have more telecommuting employees who don't have to deal with the public face to face. That would save on transportation and public building heating and cooling costs.

There is no reason why more education cannot be performed via the internet to lower school bus use and school energy use.

There is no reason why the state cannot mandate that all government vehicles either be EVs or, if internal combustion powered, run on E100. If the government led, the people would follow.

Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and trucks, snow plows, school busses, etc. can all be converted to run on E100.  Some fossil fuel toes will be stepped on. So what? It's about time we got real about the damage fossil fuels do and stopped pretending our economy needs them.

---------------------------
The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia, Aristotle's term for "Thinking Things Through",  in their decision making process.

But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical destructive exploitation of the biosphere for the short term gain, 'greed is good',  modus operandi.

Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.

Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the  existential threat we face from climate change damage.

The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational. Theresa Morris said in her essay on our responsibility to conserve a viable biosphere for future generations:

"Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia , Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future;

it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.

If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.

And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible.

If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a). "

We are in a world of trouble. This is not chicken little hysteria or hyperbole; this is the scientific consensus.

A. G. Gelbert
Colchester, Vermont
« Last Edit: May 05, 2023, 04:27:18 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
In the name of Jesus Christ, STOP USING A WATER HEATER!
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2023, 09:10:14 pm »
The Crucial Years

MAY 8, 2023 BILL MCKIBBEN

Weather Permitting
A few thoughts about 'reform.'

SNIPPET:

There’s an analogous process underway in the field of housing right now—rents and home prices have become absurdly high because we’ve largely stopped building new housing (in this case, zoning has often been a way for racists to make sure that no one builds in their neighborhoods.) But in California—ground zero for the housing crisis—the legislature has reformed the process to make permitting ‘by right’ standard practice in at least some zones. And it’s spreading—if you read my last book, I’m happy to report that my hometown of Lexington Mass, 52 years after it blocked plans for affordable housing, finally last month rezoned the town to allow many more multi-family units.

But energy permitting is an even more touchy business, because—well, because the goal is not more permits. The goal is less carbon and more equity, and so a sound permitting scheme would take those things into account. I wrote a piece for Mother Jones not long ago aimed at people like me (older, white, and good at tying things up in knots) trying to suggest when we might, as individuals, hold off on opposing new projects. The Senate (also older, white, and good at tying things up) is doubtless eager for my advice as well, and that would be: be careful. Trying to gut federal laws like the National Environmental Policy Act could lead to more backlash and actually consume time. If there ends up being some kind of legislation, three things I’d push for if I were a Senator (which, thank heaven, I’m not)

Looking forward: a climate test. When he was trying to make up his mind over the perhaps the most contentious energy permit yet, for the KXL pipeline, Barack Obama said “our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Given that the climate crisis is the greatest threat our species has yet faced, that seems like the most no-brainer position anyone could ever take. But of course the fossil fuel industry and its Congressional harem would like to use permitting reform to build more stuff that would produce carbon. This is literally absurd. As Abigail Dillen, president of EarthJustice, says: "The only science-based climate screen is no new fossil fuels projects. The world’s climate scientists are crystal clear about that, and we can do it." If there’s going to be permitting reform, it should take physics into account.

Looking backward: a fairness test. You don’t actually have to be a history professor to know who’s been damaged by our energy system in the past: Indigenous people, whose land has been too often wrecked, and vulnerable communities who have gotten to live next to the refineries and highways. So Indigenous communities and environmental justice communities deserve an extra layer of protection from big projects—how that should be structured is not for me to decide, but I note that the Inflation Reduction Act targets dollars at those communities, which in one respect is good but may also raise the pressure to do developments in those place. One small example: sign up for this seminar on lithium mining, from experts like Leslie Quintanilla and Mariela Loera—and take what they say seriously. A great way to educate yourself on these issues is to check out the key takeaways from the forum convened in March by the Roosevelt Institute—at least take the few minutes to watch the opening remarks from the always-savvy Rhiana Gunn-Wright. If there’s going to be permitting reform, it should take history into account.

This one’s more of a long shot—but I’d try to insure it would be easier to get a permit if the ownership of the, say, wind farm was going to be public. Some excellent news on this front: thanks to great organizing from, among others, the Democratic Socialists of America, as Kate Aronoff described last week, New York State has adopted the Build Public Renewables Act, which may see the New York Power Authority “build clean energy in a way that wouldn’t be dictated by the whims of profit-seeking shareholders.” This seems increasingly important given the reporting today from Brett Christophers on the way that asset management firms are most likely to end up gobbling most of the money from the Inflation Reduction Act. Since asset managers are “focused on optimizing returns on the assets they control by maximizing the income they generate while minimizing both operating and capital costs,” that would be…bad. If there’s going to be permitting reform, try to use it to weaken corporate control of energy, not extend it.

Politics is politics; you don’t always get what you want, and environmentalists don’t have anything like absolute power here, nor are they all working to the same ends. It’s entirely crazy-making, for instance, to see the clean energy industry line up with the fossil fuel folks. But it’s a good reminder that windpower companies want to make money from wind, not solve the climate crisis. Which—fair enough, but keep your eyes open. Jamie Henn from Fossil Free Media puts it like this: “The battle ahead is to ensure that in an attempt to speed up clean energy and transmission lines, we don't lock-in a generation more of polluting infrastructure that poisons vulnerable communities and puts our climate goals out of reach." ... ...


+Great animated video from the Sierra Club succinctly explains 😈🎩 Wall Street’s role in the climate crisis

Read more:
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/weather-permitting

AGelbert COMMENT:
Here is my suggestion for everyone who reads this, their friends, their family and anyone who REALLY, HONESTLY wants to DO unto others as they would have them DO onto you: Stop using your water heater. I live in Vermont. I have resided here for 26 years. As anybody with a passing knowledge of geography and climate knows, it gets kinda cold here for most of the year, every year. The "stay warm" greeting often used by the locals in Vermont is experience based. In August of 2017 the electric water heater in my manufactured home failed. I did not replace it. I have lived without a water heater for six years. Yes, I do heat some water manually (four gallons is all you need if you use the cold water for getting wet and some of the rinsing), but I am certain I have saved quite a bit in nega-watts. In the summer you just need to fill four (or as many water gallon jars you think you will need) with tap water and leave them out on the deck for a while. Even in the dead of winter, just filling the gallon plasic bottles and leaving them on top of the washing machine for several hours will get you a temperature you can handle, so you don't have to heat the water on the stove (if, of course, you aren't a "modern" overly pampered ninny). If I can do it at nearly 80 years of age, you can do it. I don't want an attaboy or a pat on the back. I want YOU TO STOP USING YOUR WATER HEATER! I want to make USING LESS a thing. It is NOT about water heaters; it is about LESS IS BETTER, get it? The rich hate that healthy, reality based, frugal, principled, caring  attitude. That's all the more reason to DO IT! As Bill says, the issue before us is using LESS energy, not more.
 
In the name of Jesus Christ, STOP USING A WATER HEATER! God won't Damn you for using a water heater, but He will Damn you for selfish behavior that hurts other people and all kinds of animals. And even if you don't think God is going to judge you, it is irrational for we poor and middle class to wait for the "modern" greedballs ruining our country (from BOTH mainstream political bought an paid for "parties") to take appropriate action. We will see Hell on Earth sooner than later if we leave it up to our "leaders". And yeah, those who insist on a carbon footprint ABOVE what is reasonable ("REASONABLE" = heating and cooling NO MORE than 500 square feet per occupant!) should be heavily taxed for it, unless they are below a certain income threshhold.

It is ALSO time to RETIRE the ridiculously wasteful, zoning nazi forced on Americans, LAWN requirement, though I'm not going to hold my breath expecting that this irrational love affair with the "killing fields" lawn around the "castle", handed down from history, will become the laughing stock that it deserves to be. Grow FOOD, not inedible, poisonous chemicals laden, grass! You and all the critters that frequent your yard will be healthier and live longer.
 
The above "home and landscape" design stopped being rational about three centuries ago. 

Bill, I'm not an important environmentalist like you, but I have done my best to warn people of all that is going wrong with the environment, and given my two cents worth (often) on what we are supposed to do about that. That said, my concern is mainly for the spiritual condition of people, as I view the "modern" modus vivendi of too many out there as the path to perdition after this life, in addition to being representative of the pernicious worldview that is directly responsible for motivating unprincipled behavior. This wanton behavior is causing the severe degradation of the biosphere that we all depend on in this life. Back in 2015 I gave Vermont State Government Officials my advice on Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP). They did exactly nothing with it. So it goes.   

This is 8 years old, but even more valid in 2023 than it was in 2015:
AGelbert comments written to Vermont State Government Officials in regard to The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP)
SNIPPET:
In regard to private land and grounds in front of government buildings, why doesn't Vermont outlaw all local ordinances that require having a sterile, chemically polluted lawn that requires a lawn mower spewing totally unregulated emissions?

Is this a throw back from the European castle tradition of having a low cut "killing field" in front of the castle? It's time to get rid of that pretty lawn, Vermont. If you don't want to force somebody to do it, at least put a carbon tax on lawns and overrule all local ordinances that require them.

There are a lot of yards in Vermont that can join the fight to have a viable biosphere if the lawmakers would just recognize the importance of having pollution free yards in this battle. It's time to outlaw those signs on lawns that say, 'do not walk on lawn due to chemical treatment". We don't need that pollution and it isn't doing wonders for future generations either. Let the lawn care industry switch to organic yard gardening products.

Read more of my quixotic comment and get in someone's face about using too much energy:
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/renewables/the-big-picture-in-renewable-energy-growth/msg1029/#msg1029
         
« Last Edit: May 08, 2023, 11:02:14 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking

May 11, 2023


We did it.

Just moments ago, the Vermont House voted 107-42 to override Governor Scott's veto and pass the Affordable Heat Act (S.5) into law, bringing us one step closer to meeting our emissions requirements under the Global Warming Solutions Act and ensuring no Vermonter gets left behind in the transition to cleaner, cheaper heating options.

This is a victory years in the making, and I want to start off by thanking you, our VPIRG members. Our advocates are only as strong as the community behind them, and all the calls, messages, and conversations you had in support of this legislation made the difference between a successful veto override and defeat again.

Our legislators who devoted precious time to debate and improve this bill throughout the year deserve our thanks as well. This legislation was contentious, as is any bill that goes toe to toe with the fossil fuel industry, with the fuel dealers' lobbyists pulling out all the stops and spending tens of thousands of dollars to spread fear and misinformation about S.5. We've set up a page to send a thank you note to all your legislators who voted to pass this bill - please take a moment to thank them, because they deserve it.

This is not the end of the story for the Affordable Heat Act. The Public Utilities Commission now needs to fully design the program, and lay out the costs and benefits. Then the legislature will need to give it final approval one last time in 2025, before it goes into effect in 2026. Those that oppose climate action will surely do all 🦖 they can to stop, slow, or skew  this process, so our leaders will need input from Vermonters like you to see this through.

But for now, let's celebrate this victory, and thank the legislators who ultimately made it possible.

Onward together,

Ben Edgerly Walsh
Climate and Energy Program Director, VPIRG
« Last Edit: May 11, 2023, 06:11:01 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
CleanTechnica

May 18, 2023 By Steve Hanley

Vermont Legislature Pushes For End To Polluting Heating Equipment

Vermont wants to lower emissions from heat sources, but has gone about it wrong. There’s a much easier way.
SNIPPETS:

The law includes provisions to ​“minimize adverse impacts” to low income households and those with the highest energy burdens, but precisely how those goals are to be met remains somewhat murky.

“For Vermonters who are concerned that they would have limited choices [under the law], my comment to that is, you have limited choices now,” state senator Becca White, one of the top proponents of the new law, told the press last week. “And the only way that we’ll move beyond you being locked into fossil fuels until it’s too expensive to heat your home or cool your home is if we design a system out of it,” she added. ... ...

The upshot of this legislation seems to be the creation of a new state bureaucracy that will administer an insanely complex set of rules that consumers can’t understand without hiring an attorney and an accountant. We suspect Vermont would have been better off following the example of Maine, which is educating its residents about the latest heat pumps that perform well in the 🥶 coldest weather and lower heating bills dramatically 🤠.

Full article:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/05/18/vermont-legislature-pushes-for-end-to-polluting-heating-equipment/

AGelbert COMMENT: Thank you Steve for this article. As a resident of Vermont for the last 27 years (I'm not considered a "Vermonter" by locals; you need about 3 to six generations to qualify, depending on how "progressive" the Vermonter you talk to is.), I would like to add a bit of relevant information to your excellent piece on the Affordable Heat Act.

1. Vermont Republican Governor Phil Scott  (that, to his credit, DID NOT 👍 vote for 👿 Trump either time) talks a lot about "supporting  renewable energy", but definitely does not walk that talk, to put it mildly. He Vetoed the Affordable Heat Act last year. The override of his Veto this time around does not get us anything of substance yet, because the actual implementation is years out and open to all sorts of bureaucratic delays. Scott is far more concerned with the profits of heating oil dealers in Vermont than with a transition to renewable energy. He, of course, says it is about "keeping heating costs from becoming "unaffordable" for poor and middle class Vermonters", but that is just Republican rhetoric. The fact is that heating oil dealers here jack up prices as soon as the temperatures drop during the fall and leave them as high as "the market will bear" until late Spring. It is the poor that are MOST impacted by these annual gouging 🦖😈 fun and games because they (I'm one of them) live hand to mouth and cannot fill their tanks in summer when prices are low, as a rich fellow I knew with a 1,000 gallon heating oil tank routinely did. Scott's silence on THAT tells an objective person that his definition of "poor and middle class" is rather different from reality. I went full electric heating in 2004. I have saved thousands of dollars. Yeah, the inefficiency of electric heating means I used MORE energy than if I had burned kerosene for heat in my 960 sq. ft. manufactured home. The government AND the Electric Power Utilities have had RENEWABLE ENERGY BASED ways to fix THAT for several decades (over half a century, AT LEAST!) now and have NOT, so we-the-poor will do what we 🤠 can to make ends meet in Scott's 🦖🎩 hydrocarbon hellspawn heaven. That said, my small home, and the fact that I have NOT used a water heater since mine failed in 2017, means my carbon footprint is 🌞 smaller than 99% of my fellow American energy spendthrifts. Finally, we drive less than 1,500 miles a YEAR.   

2. May 11, 2023
Ben Edgerly Walsh 👉 Climate and Energy Program Director, 🌞 VPIRG:
Quote
"This is not the end of the story for the Affordable Heat Act. The Public Utilities Commission now needs to fully design the program, and lay out the costs and benefits. Then the legislature will need to give it final approval one last time in 2025, before it goes into effect in 2026. Those that oppose climate action will surely do all 🦖 they can to stop, slow, or skew  this process, so our leaders will need input from Vermonters like you to see this through."


3. Heating 🦖 oil and "natural" 🦕 gas providers in Vermont can EASILY transition to Renewable Energy; they just do not want to give up their 💰😈 profit over people and planet "business model". Governer Phil Scott is not part of the solution; he is part of the 🦖🐘💵🎩 PROBLEM.
       
4. As I wrote in a comment to Vermonter 🌞 Bill Mckibben, a champion of the renewable energy transition, he is absolutely right that the MAIN issue before us is how to use LESS energy, no matter how much cleaner and cheaper we make energy per Kw. Nega-watts PLUS a 100% Renewable Energy Transition is what all of us should work for. The government of Vermont has consistently been dragging their feet on a transition to renewable energy AND reducing the cost of energy for poor and middle class Vermonters, while claiming the opposite. This wanton behavior is causing the severe degradation of the biosphere that we all depend on in this life. Back in 2015 I gave Vermont State Government Officials my advice on Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP). They did exactly nothing with it. So it goes. 🤦‍♂️

🌞 AGelbert comments written to Vermont State Government Officials in regard to The State of Vermont's Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP)

Read more:
🧐 MAY 8, 2023 BILL MCKIBBEN Weather Permitting A few thoughts about 'reform.'

Learn more:
 📢 The 🦖 hydrocarbon fuels industry has been 😈 lying about "natural" gas for nearly a hundred years!

🚨 Economist Steve Keen: "We need a World War Two mentality to deal with the real breakdown of nature."

👉 CO2 is plant food so MORE CO2 from Burning Hydrocarbon Fuels is 😒 "GOOD"? 🙄

ANOTHER AGelbert COMMENT: Steve Hanley, I read this yesterday and, though a VERY long shot in our present "more is better" environmentally destructive paradigm, is the ONLY OBJECTIVE WAY to
1. Make CLEAN energy affordable to EVERYONE and
2. Accelerate the transition to a 100% Renewable Energy Based Civilization.


MAY 19, 2023 BY JOHN FEFFER 👍

How to Rapidly Reduce Fossil Fuel Use (or Why ✨ Rationing Works Better Than 💵🦕🦖😈🐍🎩 Markets)

SNIPPETS:
Using rationing to reduce fossil fuel use—especially in the Global North—has already come close to political reality. The UK government commissioned a feasibility study of such a rationing system, Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs), which reported positive findings in 2008, and a significant number of MPs supported the implementation of a TEQs system in 2011. The idea also attracted interest from the European Commission in 2018, because it offered the means to actually implement and achieve the carbon capping targets set by the politicians. ... ...
According to its targets, the UK is supposed to cut its carbon emissions by 68 per cent by 2030 (relative to 1990 levels) in order to reach net zero by 2050. But the government has admitted that even in the best of circumstances—should all projected cuts be made and the latest carbon-capture technology actually work—the UK will still only hit 92 percent of its 2030 goal. In other words, their strategy based on carbon pricing continues to fail.

“There’s been such a focus, and rightly so, on agreeing to globally appropriate carbon budgets that are sufficiently steep to address the problem of climate change, but also not so demanding that that they destroy economies and lives,” Chamberlin explains. “But there’s been so little focus on the parallel question of how we actually reduce Global North emissions by 90 percent in 20 years, or whatever we consider to be radical emissions reductions.”

The plan the UK almost adopted more than a decade ago—Tradable Energy Quotas or TEQs—would have taken a very different approach. “TEQs emerged from a different paradigm to the whole carbon pricing approach,” Chamberlin explains. “There’s this impossible tension built into carbon pricing. We need to make carbon sufficiently expensive that it gets driven out of the economy. But at the same time, we need to keep energy affordable.”

According to the International Energy Agency, however, about 80 percent of global energy still comes from fossil fuels, a level that has remained consistent for decades. “So, if our energy is so highly carbonized, it becomes—unsurprisingly—impossibly difficult to raise the carbon price without raising the energy price,” Chamberlin points out. The carbon pricing approach has not been able to square this circle.

“What TEQs would do is turn that on its head,” he continues. “By removing any need to raise carbon prices, it would unify everybody in common purpose around genuinely shared and actually compatible goals—minimizing the destabilization of our climate while striving to keep energy services available and affordable. And it would make the economy exist within a carbon budget, rather than the other way around.

TEQs Explained

The TEQs system, established by economist and cultural historian David Fleming in 1996, is a national-level system for capping and then reducing the fossil fuel-based energy consumption of all energy users—individual, institutional, and corporate. ... ...
He continues, “Your entitlement will be an equal proportion of the national carbon budget. If you use less than that, if you are a below-average energy user, then you’ll have some spare left from your entitlement which you receive each week, and you can sell that spare back to the issuer. So, those who are energy-thrifty get a financial benefit from using less. Those who want to use more than their entitlement can buy those spare units, but of course they’re then effectively paying the more energy-thrifty people for the benefit of doing so.”

Full article:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/05/19/how-to-rapidly-reduce-fossil-fuel-use-or-why-rationing-works-better-than-markets/

Yeah, I know. It will be a cold day in Hell before TEQ is adopted and implemented by TPTB 🦕🦖 💵🎩🐘🐍😈🐷 Greedballs 'R' US ruining our future. 😞

« Last Edit: May 20, 2023, 05:00:10 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
   

Wednesday, 24 May 2023

Q&A – Germany debates phaseout of 🦖 fossil fuel ☠️ heating systems

After years of neglect, Germany is making concrete plans to reduce the emissions produced through heating the country’s buildings — which are directly responsible for around 15 percent of the country’s entire CO2 output. However, a draft law for a phase-out of fossil fuel-powered boilers has triggered a fierce debate about the decarbonisation of this sector, with critics arguing that the investment costs for climate-friendly solutions like heat pumps will overburden homeowners or tenants. Given fierce resistance from within the government coalition and the opposition, the proposals are set to be amended in the upcoming parliamentary process. This Q&A explains the background of the debate, what the draft law specifically states, what it will mean in practice, and why it is so controversial.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/qa-germany-debates-phaseout-fossil-fuel-heating-systems
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking


This commentary is by Peter Sterling 👍🌞, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont.

June 9, 2023

Peter Sterling: Vermont takes first step toward a fossil-fuel-free energy future

One of the proven ways to tackle the climate change crisis is to “electrify everything.” From the cars we drive to how we heat our homes, we are moving away from polluting fossil fuels to electricity.

Therefore, it is even more crucial that this electricity comes from cleaner, stably priced renewable sources. After all, it makes little climate sense to buy an electric car and power it with electricity generated by burning  🦖 dirty oil or 🦕 natural gas, as is often the case now 😟 in Vermont.

Fortunately, House Speaker Jill Krowinski recognized this. Despite a legislative session dominated for months by the fossil fuel industry’s campaign opposing progress on climate solutions, she championed passage of legislation to update Vermont’s Renewable Energy Standard, setting us on a path toward a cleaner, 100% renewable energy future.

This bill brings together a broad working group of stakeholders and legislators to figure out how to get Vermont to a 100% renewable energy future and how these changes might impact our electric grid’s reliability and resiliency, the impact on electric rates, and importantly how any decisions might impact, both positively and negatively, those in low- and moderate-income households.

A broad coalition of organizations committed to reducing global warming through a 100% renewable energy future — VPIRG, 350Vermont, Rights & Democracy, the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Renewable Energy Vermont, Vermont Conservation Voters and the Conservation Law Foundation — supported the bill, H.320.

There are many reasons why Vermont needs to update its law governing renewable energy.

The current law is outdated. Written in 2015, it calls for just 75% of Vermont’s power to come from renewables by 2032, with just 10% of that generated from new sources, the lowest new renewable energy requirement in New England.

It’s way past time to bring Vermont in line with the rest of our region’s commitment to renewable generation, the only way to truly decrease the amount of carbon pollution emitted by New England’s electric generation.

And the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden last year, has given Vermont a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring in upward of half a billion dollars in federal money to help Vermonters make the transition off 🦖 fossil ☠️ fuels and to 🌞 renewables — an amount of money that was unthinkable back in 2015. We cannot afford to leave this federal money unspent.

Due to the interconnected nature of New England’s ⚡ electric grid, every time we in Vermont bring new wind or solar power on line, at some point it will displace dirtier electricity generated elsewhere in New England by burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil.

Vermont has no baseload 🦕 natural gas plants. Instead, we rely on 81 such plants located in largely lower-income communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut. In addition, when we need more power during energy “peaks” from heat waves or cold snaps, we rely on dozens of the most costly and dirty fossil fuel “peaker plants” spread throughout New England.


It’s way past time for Vermont to end its environmentally unjust reliance on these 🦕 power plants in marginalized communities for so much of our energy needs.

Bringing more new renewables online here in Vermont and throughout New England will help curtail the need for these and future heavily polluting facilities and begin the process of alleviating the environmental and health burdens 🦖😈 placed on these communities.
https://vtdigger.org/2023/06/09/peter-sterling-vermont-takes-first-step-toward-a-fossil-fuel-free-energy-future/

« Last Edit: June 10, 2023, 06:01:24 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12