The Energy Challenge - New York Times

The Energy Challenge - New York Times This archive of New York Times articles gives an outstanding overview of global warming, its consequences and possible solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Govt. sees polar bears as 'threatened' - Yahoo! News

Govt. sees polar bears as 'threatened' - Yahoo! News

Dire warnings from China's first climate change report - Yahoo! News

Dire warnings from China's first climate change report - Yahoo! News China is coming to grips with the consequences of global warming. This is very hopeful, as is the report from the Dept of Interior that polar bears are being considered for the Threatened Species list due to global warming. Now if Bush would only have the wisdom to partner with China (and India) as well as the Kyoto partners on addressing this global threat.

The Chinese View of Global Warming, by Hedvah Shuchman, Ph.D.

From October 29 to November 17 this year, I traveled in China visiting Beijing, Shanghai, Xi’an, Suzhow, Hangzhow and other cities. Each of these cities has multi-millions of people. I interviewed a member of the Shanghai Environmental Protection Agency who spoke to me about the great efforts this city of 15-18 million people is making to control air pollution. I traveled by train from Shanghai to the city of Suzhow, which is west of Shanghai and to Hangzhow in the south. This opportunity to see the countryside and meet the people was exciting. But it also alerted me to some of the incredible problems which face Chinese air pollution engineers. For hundreds of miles I looked out at rice fields which had been harvested and in which the peasants were setting fire to the chaff to clear the land for replanting. White smoke covered the sky and filled the train to the point that it was sometimes difficult to breathe. In Beijing and Shanghai great efforts are being made to control air pollution by regulating the use of automobiles. But only 10% of Chinese own automobiles now. This number is expected to increase exponentially in the next ten years. China’s pollution problems are monumental. In order to present a birds-eye view of the issues being dealt with by a country of 1.3 billion people, I culled clippings from the National English Language Newspaper, China Daily: “Global warming will melt China’s glacier by 50% and cause the nation’s sea levels to rise by up to 15 centimeters within 40 years, according to the theories of China’s leading scientists. “A study from Shanghai Normal University initially revealed the link between climate change and the spread of the lethal H5N1 virus. The transmission of the virus is largely relying on migratory birds whose habitats can be significantly changed by climate change… “More than half of the country’s rivers are severely polluted and about a third of the territory affected by acid rain… The Chinese central government has set a target of reducing energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% and cut major pollutants by 10% by 2010. “China is speeding up efforts to formulate regulations on the collection and disposal of electronic garbage such as TV sets, refrigerators and computers. Under the soon to be formulated regulations, manufacturers and distributors of home appliances as well as after-service providers will be obligated to reclaim waste and used products and then sell them to licensed disposal enterprises. Statistics show that China discards about 5 million TV sets, 4 million refrigerators, 6 million washing machines and 10 million mobile phones every year. “The manager of China’s largest wind farm is winding up negotiations on his first deal to sell credits for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, which he expects to rake in up to US$500,000 a year in extra revenue in 2007. “China needs daily pollution fines, according to a study of the State Environmental Protection Agency. More than one quarter of the water in the Yangtze River is so polluted that it cannot be treated to make it drinkable. Most of the Yellow River – the cradle of Chinese civilization – is not fit for drinking or swimming.

Say No to Coal, Say Yes to Renewable Energy

FPL has announced that it intends to build one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the world in Glades County on the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Their reason is to, “diversify [their] fuel supply and meet the state’s growing demand over the next 10 years.” They also cite as further justification the rising price of natural gas and disruptions in supply due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Although coal-fired power plants use the most abundant fuel and are the cheapest way to make electricity, nothing contributes more to the emission of greenhouse gases. A Dec. 12, 2006 article in the New York Times said, “The iconic culprit in global warming is the coal-fired power plant.” In the same article, James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, was quoted, “Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,” Mr. Rogers said. “And we need to start now because the longer we wait the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.” While I believe that FPL has one of the better track records in the power industry in minimizing environmental impacts, building a huge coal plant is NOT the answer. In fact, it's the worst possible choice. The world should be dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not adding to the problem. FPL says the proposed plant will use ultra supercritical coal technology, which produces steam at very high temperatures and pressures, resulting in higher efficiency and fewer emissions. It would still generate about twice the tonnage of CO2 as a natural gas fired power plant per unit of electric power generated. Furthermore, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel with respect to toxic pollutants. Even with the best pollution control processes available, FPL cannot eliminate toxic ash and emissions of toxic mercury and sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which contribute to acid rain and smog. According to FPL’s disclosure, for example, about 21% of the mercury will still be released to the surroundings. Do we really want this on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, the headwaters of the Everglades? I believe FPL should set an example by employing low carbon emission technologies to the fullest extent possible. Besides writing to FPL to tell them we disagree with their decision, we can send them an affirmative message that we are serious about regenerable energy from solar and wind power by signing up for FPL’s "Sunshine Energy" program. I have. By paying a modest premium of $9.75/month, FPL will purchase renewable power from other producers. According to FPL, “In just one year as a Sunshine Energy customer, you can avoid over 8,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions nationwide – as much as a car would produce in almost 9,000 miles of driving.” The money also helps FPL and the industry accelerate development of solar and wind technology. So far, only 24,000 customers statewide have signed on. Imagine the impact if a million households did the same. That would tell FPL loud and clear that “We want global warming reversed and we are each willing to pay a little more to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” A significant fraction of power requirements can probably be supplied by renewable energy, but FPL points out that solar and wind are dependent on weather conditions and cannot be relied on as for baseline power supply. Natural gas is preferred over coal, but in order to persuade FPL to build more natural gas fired power plants, they will need increased natural gas supplies, such as by importation of liquefied natural gas from South America and Africa that is not vulnerable to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. If natural gas is in short supply, they will be forced to build coal-fired plants. Consideration should also be given to nuclear power as a carbonless long range solution for baseline power demand.