Happy Friday gift – the 12 year old perspective on global warming
November 21, 2008
And he built the website all by himself, too! Check it out.
The 12 year old in question is Ian Douglas Miller (yep! son of Ruth Douglas Miller who runs the Wind Application Center at K-State).
I’m really jealous of Ian. He gets to say all the blunt things that I’m not allowed to, because I’m old. Sample – his description of sea level rise, and the myth that warming is actually GOOD for the planet.
Global Warming won’t hurt anything, in fact, it would make your coastal summer vacation resort warmer. Well, that’s true, except your vacation resort is going to be UNDERWATER… At first glance, the map looks normal. Then you start looking closer… “Hey!! Where’s Florida!?!”
His “Solutions” page is awesome. Ie, why you should get a heat pump: “Geothermal heat pump. Your air conditioner is an electricity hog. This isn’t.” And the last item on his list of things to do: ” Use your creativity!! Think of more!”
CEP can’t ever top this… so we just humbly offer our Kansas climate study. Judging from the downloads, everyone who reads this blog has read the climate study at least twice :) but here it is again. Just in case you want to read it again.
Yay, Ian!!!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Long story. Click on link at end of blog entry to read it all. Reprinted in full from the KCStar:
Missouri, Kansas rank among ‘dirty dozen’ states with coal-powered plants
By KAREN DILLON
Missouri and Kansas are two of the “dirty dozen” states that have coal-fired power plants generating the highest mercury pollution in the nation, according to a study released Thursday.
The report, from the Washington-based nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project, says dangerous mercury pollution levels are also rising at many of the 50 worst coal plants in 12 states.
Missouri and Kansas are 9th and 10th respectively on the “dirty dozen” list. The plants that give the states that unwanted recognition are the Westar plant north of Topeka, the Kansas City Power & Light La Cygne plant south of Kansas City, and Ameren plants in Jefferson and Franklin counties near St. Louis.
Utility officials say they are working to reduce the pollutant and one plant has had dramatic results. But one utility official questioned whether mercury from power plants is even a health problem.
The report’s authors say it is a serious health problem and not enough is being done to reduce mercury emissions. Of the six worst plants, four are in Texas and the worst plant is in Alabama.
“The report found that the top 50 most polluting power plants emitted nearly 20 tons of the dangerous neurotoxin mercury into the nation’s air in 2007,” said Ilan Levin, the project’s senior attorney. “Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide.”
Currently mercury is not regulated.
The Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 issued a mercury rule, but environmentalists said it was weak and this spring a federal appeals court agreed. The court found that the rule violated the Clean Air Act, and overturned it.
That ruling has been appealed and the industry, environmentalists and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are watching.
Nicole Corcoran, Sebelius’ spokeswoman, said the governor believes mercury emissions should be regulated because of the health risks.
When power plants release the highly toxic metal into the atmosphere, it eventually settles into rivers and lakes and is absorbed by fish, which are then eaten by people.
“We’re watching the federal court case to see whether the clean air mercury rule will be upheld,” Corcoran said in a statement. “The outcome of the appeal will determine the ability of states, including Kansas, to regulate mercury emissions.”
Pregnant women and children exposed to mercury are at greater risk for a variety of developmental and learning disorders, studies have shown.
KCC clean energy grants expert – KS is behind on applications for these federal funds, so let’s kick it into gear
November 21, 2008
In that headline, I paraphrased. Perhaps generously. But I do think it’s the gist. Reprinted in full from the Clay Center Dispatch:
Energy conservation grants going begging
By Ned Valentine, Editor
An energy projects engineer representing the Kansas Corporation Commission says Kansas businesses and farmers in rural areas are missing an opportunity to take advantage of federal loans and grants to upgrade to more efficient energy systems.
While energy is “cheap” now, it will inevitably rise again, and conservation technology is the best way to cut energy costs, Gary Hogsett told the weekly Chamber Forum attendees Wednesday morning.
“We don’t pay enough for energy in this country,” he said.
Hogsett said oil production has peaked in America and all over the world but demand continues to climb.
“We’re in a world of hurt,” he said.
Hogsett said the world has pumped far more oil than has been discovered each year for the past 30 years so the price of oil and gasoline and energy will inevitably climb in coming years.
Oil discovery peaked in 1949 in the U.S., 1962 in the rest of the world and oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1970, Hogsett said.
Hogsett said more energy is wasted in the U.S. than used efficiently and that conservation measures will be necessary no matter what future sources of energy are discovered or applied.
He said coal is the cheapest energy source but extremely inefficient with the best power plant only 35 percent efficient. He showed statistics showing that by the time coal power makes it into a room as light, only two percent of the energy taken out of the ground has been productively used by the consumer.
Hogsett said the USDA has energy grant money available for businesses and farmers in rural Kansas to implement more efficient energy systems, but that very few have taken advantage of the funds. Hogsett’s task is to make the program better known and provide expert advice to those interested in applying for the program.
“Iowa claimed $30 million last year,” he said. “Kansas claimed about $30,000.”
“They are having a hard time giving the money away,” Hogsett said. “There are grants going begging.”
Grants can pay up to 25 percent of the project cost of conversion to more efficient energy systems or insulation plus loan for another 50 percent of a project.
Virtually any business or farm is a potential recipient of the money and Hogsett received several requests from the Forum attendees to visit local businesses Wednesday afternoon to make suggestions.
Hogsett said the choice of light fixtures can vary widely in efficiency. A cheap fixture may be 50 percent efficient, a more expensive fixture can be up to 95 percent efficient with the installation of specially shaped reflectors, he said.
He said a better ballast can also be used to reduce energy waste up to 75 percent. He said windows are now being made with a R value of 30, better insulation values than walls.
And he said new “hybrid lighting” technology allows commercial buildings to collect sunlight in dishes on the roof, pass the light through fiber optics and into a room with no windows. The systems also use electric fluorescent bulbs with sensors that dim and brighten as the sunlight brightens and fades as clouds pass maintaining, a steady light source.
He said boilers, mostly 60 percent efficient, are available today that are 90 percent efficient.
Guest Blogging: High school debaters speak out on alternative energy
November 21, 2008
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
In high schools across the nation, this year’s national debate topic is alternative energy. CEP has invited some of the best and brightest Kansas high school debate students to weigh in on the topic. Our Energy Debate ‘08 Guest Blog series will feature six debate teams across the state, from Dodge City to Overland Park.
Today’s contributor is Evan Hernandez, a junior at Wichita East High School. Here’s his answer to the question we posed: What does Kansas’ energy future hold?
The problem with the current United States policies towards alternative energy is that they assume that either there is one type of energy that is the end all, panacea for our energy problems, or they believe that providing incentives for a myriad of different energies will eventually lead us to a solution.
We are too focused on one form of energy, and by becoming too attached to a good thing we leave ourselves open for disappointment. On the other hand, often we find we are not focused enough on deciding on a small number of possible options, but rather throwing ourselves at anything new. This puts us in the mindset that if we don’t “pick the winner” ourselves, we just need to increase incentives for many different forms of alternative energy, sit back, and let the market do the rest.
In Kansas, people often get into the habit of putting their alternative energy eggs into the wind basket, understanding on only a very surface level what it would mean to be completely reliant on wind for power. Few people know that the intermittency of wind energy wouldn’t actually provide too large of a decrease in the use of fossil fuels such as coal to provide power.
Just a few years ago, policymakers in Washington decided that corn ethanol was the panacea for transportation fuels, mandating that a certain percentage of our fuel would be from corn ethanol in only a matter of years. While this was good news for Kansas corn growers, it proved devastating to the impoverished around the world. Using a staple crop like corn for fuel as it turns out is causing food prices to spike worldwide. The increased price of corn drives up the prices of other commodities as well. It only takes minor price fluctuations to put food out of reach of thousands.
Instead of throwing ourselves at one or two, or one hundred types of alternative energy, Kansans and policymakers should narrow our choices down to a only a few options without restricting ourselves to anything in particular. Hopefully that really will give us the security to just sit down, relax, and let the market do the rest.
CEP Debate ‘08 series coordinated by CEP Director of Outreach, Eileen Horn
