Bio Products Opportunity

I got a lot of good responses and links from my last post — clearly nuclear is a heavy issue for people, as it should be. I’ll be responding to a couple of comments in a later post because I want to make sure I get my facts/opinion right. So look back for my take on electric cars, hydrogen as a transport fuel and yes, some more nuclear.

In the meantime, this is my subject of the day:

GE, in partnership with AES, has launched a Carbon Offset Credit Card. Both Treehugger.com and the New York Times have articles about it, but I’ve linked here to the New York Times piece.

“We are not sending a message that you can buy your way out of your environmental responsibility,” said Lorraine Bolsinger, vice president of GE Ecomagination. “We’re offering another tool in the kit for reducing carbon footprints.”

Thats their media bite on the whole idea, but what do I really think about the idea?

1. I think it is VERY important that people understand that you can’t buy your way out of climate change/global warming/driving too much etc… And that goes for both sides of the debate. Environmentalists who oppose offsetting accuse it of doing very much that — allowing people a guilt-free ride in their gas guzzlers. I disagree with that idea but only as long as there is a concerted effort by ‘offsetting’ companies tonot mislead their customers as to the meaning of offsetting. Environmentalists who oppose this concept, in my mind, are actually preventing a constructive and useful dialogue to open up between business and themselves. Offsetting is valid — when done well and done in an ecologically considerate way. Which can be done, is being done, and can only be done better if people really work together.

2. Treehugger.com made a good point in one of their posts a few days ago about how Green products are actually counter-productive in many cases. People who don’t need new things, go out and buy Green things because it makes them feel better or they think they are benefiting a cause. However, all they are doing is accumulating more goods, causing more pollution and using up more resources. Sure, this idea is correct but thats only if we assume people are buying green replacements. I think most green consumers who aim to buy something because they need it (or, yes, think they do) will, instead of choosing the main stream “bad” good, go for the green one. Not particularly harmful or helpful but time will tell. So back to this offsets card — I like the idea because it allows people to impact in an environmentally positive way all the purchases they make, whether they are green or not, by choice or by lack of availability.

3. I wonder if the green credit card fashion — which is just really taking off with this idea — will really work. A lot of causes have gone the way of the credit card and didn’t really get much traction or impact. And i also wonder if there is a scale limit to this idea. That is if every CC holder in this country switched to the GE offset card, I doubt they would be able to buy/fund/create enough offset credits for everyone. And it works the other way, if only a few people sign up will their cumulatitive effect be enough to really impact the offset/emission credit business? Guess we will have to wait and see.

The following is a selection of the transcript from last nights CNN/Youtube debate.

CHARLESTON, South Carolina (CNN) — QUESTION: Hi, my name is Shawn and I’m from Ann Arbor, Michigan. There is a scientific consensus for man-caused climate change, and I’ve heard each of you talk in previous debates about alternative energy sources like solar or wind, but I have not heard any of you speak your opinion on nuclear power. I believe that nuclear power is safer, cleaner, and provides a quicker avenue to energy independence than other alternatives.

QUESTION: I am curious what each of you believe.

COOPER: Senator Edwards?

 

EDWARDS: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

I also don’t believe we should liquefy coal. The last thing we need is another carbon-based fuel in America. We need to find fuels that are in fact renewable, clean, and will allow us to address directly the question that has been raised, which is the issue of global warming, which I believe is a crisis.

________________

I thought that was a very interesting question, and beyond my dislike of the format (giving candidates litterally only seconds to deal with issues), I thought Edwards answer to be insightful look at his position on energy.

First of all, the questioner is asking about nuclear power — which can only generate energy to be used for electricity, not fuel for transportation which is what Edwards is talking about here.Sure the first part of his answer is about Nuclear, but his solution to not allowing more Nuclear is not actually a resolution of the electricity generation issue vis a vis Climate Change. Clearly, and I find this immensily frustrating, Edwards had this little spiel all prepared, got a question that dealt with Climate Change and Energy and just launched into a little monologue that, really, had very little to do with the actual question.

Now to the meat of Edwards answer:

Yes, I find Nuclear a scary solution to the problems of clean energy generation — no one has yet solved the problem of nuclear waste and the risks associated with running a plant are immense. However, for going on 30 years now France has successfully generated almost 70% of its electricity from Nuclear without any major mishaps. Nuclear is still a live wire issue in France, in fact during the election both candidates got tripped up and into a little trouble over their views and misquotations of nuclear facts. The reality is this in my mind — Nuclear is the cleanest energy we can produce (if waste is properly managed) but it requires incredibly high level of caution, preparation, regulation, information and (any other -tions?) long-term risk management. The next question thats important to me is whether the US is the kind of place where Nuclear energy can be safely generated? Quite frankly I don’t think so. There are so many things wrong with the energy administration in this country that I often think its a very thin line of competency that prevents the kind of melt downs we got in Chernobyl.

Back to Edwards however. The reason Nuclear hasn’t been permitted in the US has little to do with the cost and safety record as to a general beaucratic and political opposition to Nuclear. Energy companies would love to open up the Nuclear market — sure its more expensive than coal, but when up and running and consider the increased likelihood of a carbon constraining regulation sometime soon a Nuclear plant is likely to be more profitable than a coal plant.

Now to Edwards second paragraph, where he gets into solutions not to our electricity generation problem but to the issue of fuels for transport. The truth is, wind, solar and biofuels are unlikely to generate enough electricity for the US and only solve part of the problem. Biofuels, as a starter, is an idiotic idea as an electricity fuel — when burned it still emits a ton of carbon (sure sure, you can claim the life cycle argument that growing corn/soy/other feedstocks negates and more the carbon emitted, but then you have to deal with pretty heavy ecological issues and the food vs. fuel debate). But simply we could never grow enough biofuel feedstock to make a dent in our electrical needs. Wind is a beautiful idea, and one I wholly support, but the reality is that with limitations on where Wind sites can be sited (NIMBY syndrome: Not In My Back Yard) and the nature of Wind as a source of energy (the actual stuff that blows through the windmills) it can never meet our electricity demands. People project Wind being able to provide 10% maybe 12% of our electricity demands, but unless efficiency and conservation efforts are effective, even that percentage is unlikely.

That leaves me with Solar. One thing that people often don’t realise is that Solar is incredibly inefficient, and that unfortunately, without a lot of R&D and time the technologies we have at hand today are unlikely to get any better soon. Thats pretty sad, since apparently we could power the whole world with something like a second of pure sunlight (this little fact is mostly hearsay and i’m too lazy to look it up, but its pretty close to true). I’ve also heard that if we covered 5% of Arizona in solar panels then we would be able to generate enough for the whole of the US. How wonderful you think! but wait there are some big constraints, 1) how do you get the energy from Arizona to New York for example? Transmission lines are already clogged and energy looses power for every inch it travels, 2) What about nighttime? Solar’s foil is that it is only productive during the least energy hours of the day. We, humans, use energy most early in the morning and at night and Solar only produces at high enough levels in the middle of the day. There are some interesting advances in storage of energy, but even that is a long time coming.

Last, but not least, the idea of liquifided coal. I agree with Edwards that coal is pretty dirty, terrible to mine on an ecological level and yes, indeed, another fossil fuel. Liquified coal can be used in cars, theoretically, or gasified to be burned cleanly in power plants. I think to even mention that he doesn’t like liquified coal is silly. First because the realities of politics dictates that the coal industry is a huge and powerful lobby and will definitely get its way especially if a carbon regulating bill is passed. And secondly, coal is plentiful and in the US (Energy Independance). I think it would be much more clever of him, and honest, to say “Lets figure out how to make coal clean, mining safer and better for the environment, and continue to use it while aggressively pursuing and subsidising renewable energy.”

So thats my take on his Energy response. And to be honest, I was disappointed in his answer, somehow I expect more from Edwards but I guess this goes to show that the candidates are not as informed as we would like this early in the campaign.

For a much shorter, funnier and more general take on the debate check out www.eightfor08.com.