Financial realities

Posted on by

We have a chicken and egg question.  If the financial malaise we are facing is a consequence of high oil prices, do we first try to restore the economy to invest in renewable energies, or do we invest in renewable energies to reduce the dependence on expensive oil?  This blog might appear a bit different, but energy and economy are very closely related.

Some good intended politicians and proponents of business as usual would suggest that we wait for better times to start worrying about climate change.  There was a proposal in California to postpone the 33% RPS until the unemployment was below 5%.  They would argue that the conundrum we face now is different.

Most of us, the happy 99%, continually face tough decisions.  Do we change the clunker or go on vacation?  Do we send Jr. to community college or borrow money for him to go to a 4-year college?  Do we send kids to a better private school or to public schools?  For others, the questions are more pressing.  Extra money for gasoline means I have to take a brown bag lunch, or not being able to buy the popular shoes Jr. wants, or have meatless dinners.

Continue reading →

CO2 Adaptation

Posted on by

I wonder if we are going to ever be able to kick our dependence on carbon based fuels.  As liquid fuels they pack a great energy density, unmatched by any other form (a gallon holds some 30 MJ/kg) and can be stored, transferred and used easily and safely.  That is a great convenience to give up easily.  If we ran out of conventional oil, it pays to use unconventional oil and then even to use coal to liquid fuels.  Finally, if we were going to run out of coal, we might attempt to capture CO2 and recycle it, assuming we have by then, nuclear fission.

As much as I might be preoccupied about consequences of climate change, I believe that there is not much we can do about it.  Pre-occupy is the proper word: pre – before, ante, early, and; occupy – act, do something about it.  Facts are almost unquestionable.  CO2 concentration is growing unabated in the atmosphere.  Short of an asteroid hitting the earth, I cannot see any other options to avoiding hitting the 400 ppm mark.  To avoid hitting Continue reading →

Reality Check

Posted on by

For an instant or two, I wished that the Mayans were right.  A swift kill is more merciful than a prolonged agony.  One moment you are in, the next moment everything is gone, the mortgage payment, the noise in the car, the children’s education, the high prices of everything (even when inflation is under control according to the Department of Commerce – by the way I wonder how they calculate it – in 2008 we had huge gasoline price increases and inflation was nil, now we have much higher food prices, and inflation is nil), all those things that keep you awake some nights, magically gone.

Granted, I am thankful to be still alive, even when I still have things to worry about.  There are many signs written on the wall about our precarious position:

Warmest year on record:   the NOAA concluded in early December that 2012 will be the warmest year on record (mathematically, it was impossible to avoid it).  The graph below, drawn from data at NOAA’s by Climate Centralshows average temperatures in the US during the last 117 years:

Historial Average Temperature in the USAGranted, one year could be an abnormality.  That this decade had the three warmest years on record could be a strong coincidence.  That the trend is up might be a fluke, because the American Indians did not have thermometers or kept good records.

Ice extent:  the ice coverage in the Arctic was below the previous record (the WMO’s preliminary climate report for this year said that the ice area around the North Pole shrank to 3.41 million square kilometers in September, 18 per cent less than the previous low in 2007).  The picture below (from NASA) shows the ice extent on September 16 (historically one of the days with lowest possible area) with the yellow line representing the average of the last 30 years.

Extreme events:  powerful storms here (New York), there (Japan, Philippines) and everywhere.

Peak Oil:  despite being in one of the worst recessions, the average price of domestic oil (WTI – Crushing OK) in the last five years was $85.90/bbl; in the last three years $89.42 and last year $93.99.  The high prices persist despite massive findings and production of non-conventional oil in the US (in case of some of you missed the news, the IEA (International Energy Agency) claims that the US is on the path to become the world’s top producer, surpassing Saudi Arabia in the next decade).  The graph below (data from Energy Information Agency at DoE) shows the historical prices of oil in Crushing, OK.

Fiscal Cliff:  close at home, we are on the verge of falling off the so-called fiscal cliff, a scary name given to an agreed automatic mechanism in the event that no agreement is reached on how to balance the budget.  Rather than a cliff, it appears more like a gentle slope, but a gentle slope is not sensational enough.  Taxes will increase; expenditures will get automatically reduced across the board.  Some people would prefer to reduce more defense expenses than education, while others would prefer to reduce subsidies to oil companies but preserve all the benefits of Medicare.  While I have my strong preferences, reducing it proportionally seems fair to me.  Some critics state that investors fear uncertainty.  We can reduce the uncertainty.  Let’s embrace the automatic cuts and tax increases whole heartedly.  For me the scary part is that we have such a polarized country that no agreement can be reached.  Where is the love for the country, the sense of fairness, or the analytical minds when we need them?

European Union:  A single currency without a Central Bank?  Whoever wrote that on his final exam would have flunked Econ 101.  Why would the hard working, rigid, boring Germans have to pay for the laissez faire, joie de vivre of the Greek?  The prescribed medicine is a drastic reduction on expenses for the poor Greeks.  It is very unfortunate it also reduces the economy, jobs for people, etc.  The Greeks, and the Irish, and the Portuguese and the Spanish and even the Italians are paying the consequences of a grandiose economic experiment made by politicians who did not study Econ 101.

Not surprisingly, no deal was reached in Doha.  After more than one year of preparation, thousands of attendees and sessions going into overtime, the only agreement was to get together again in the future to continue discussing measures to slow global warming.  Obviously, for some there are many other more important issues to handle before expending money in a controversial hypothesis, still under debate.  Others, demanding unilateral action, naively believe in the goodness of mankind.

So, what does the future bring?  There are plenty of serious books and blogs from others more knowledgeable than me that discuss in detail possible approaches, solutions, alternatives or scenarios, most, in my humble opinion, encouraging us to take steps or form alliances to attempt to influence the politic atmosphere.  There are also a lot of scary books and blogs picturing dooms day.  There are also a bunch of good intentioned books or blogs, suggesting naive approaches and solutions.

Can we learn something from history?  Education is a big expense, but it is now accepted by almost all that taxing everyone to provide education is the proper way to go.  Those countries that have spent more money in education are better off than countries that penny-pinched.  Welfare, health care, even Medicare or Obamacare, taxes everyone to provide the right to have access to medicine.  Most developed countries (with the exception of the USA) have “socialized” medicine, recognizing the need to provide for the welfare of all citizens.  Even rationing during tough times, was a way of having everybody have access to limited supplies.  In all cases, there was an imposition from the authorities for the benefit of all.

Paraphrasing Martin Luther King: I have a dream!  I have a dream that we all share the responsibility of reducing CO2 emissions.  I have a dream that the individuals or countries that emit the most should pay the most.  I have a dream that the individuals or countries that emitted the most, should accept some responsibility for it, and accept a progressive retroactive tax to allow poorer individuals or less developed countries to develop.  I have a dream that all will get serious about the problem and take quick and decisive action.  I have a dream that our politicians will get together and try to solve the country’s problems and not be constrained by their perceived mandate or blind ideology.  I have a dream that our politicians will accept the need for an international regulation and work diligently to strengthen it.

Scientists and engineers are good at finding solutions and making tradeoffs on paper.  Fair solutions can be found.  But the solution is political and not technical.  The solution needs to be applied at world level and not at a national level.  Even the mighty USA alone, cannot solve the problem unilaterally.  Emissions from Indonesia or the Philippines affect all of us.  It needs to be a global effort.  Unfortunately, it needs the polarized USA to lead the effort.  Despite best intentions, nobody cares, for example, of the efforts of Norway or California.  Not even the European Union.  Only the US has the size and leverage (the candy and the stick) to make it happen.

It is sad that disasters prompt action.  It took Newton for people to come out of the spell of the right to bear arms.  It took Sandy’s storm for some to connect some the dots that this might be a consequence of climate change.

Unfortunately, democracies move quite slowly.  It might take several years to appoint representatives who care, and more years to have a substantial number, and more years to push something that it is acceptable to others, and some years of negotiation and overcoming lobbyists’ pressures and some years to form an international coalition and more years of negotiation and more years of ratifying.  Given the polarization of the political spectrum, a miracle is needed to get efforts going.  Even if the dots of peaking oil get connected, chances are that new babies born today will be the one’s casting the votes.

We survived 2012.  A last minute deal (a miracle materialized) and we apparently are going to avert going over the fiscal cliff, and if not, it is not the end of the world.  With the New Year, there is always optimism and euphoria.  My best wisher for a Happy and prosperous New Year to everyone.

 

Climate Change Bias

Posted on by

Our mind is quite selective.  It listens to what it wants to hear and quickly discards contrarian arguments.  Your reactions to three pieces of information might provide information about your own bias.

  • In September, we heard that Arctic ice coverage in September 2012 was the lowest in recorded history (satellite measures), about 30% below the 1979-2000 average, according to the NISDC.
  • In October, when Sandy caused substantial damage in New York and New Jersey, a link between climate change and extreme events appeared on the first page of many newspapers.
  • In November, the International Energy Agency (IEA) claimed in its new 2012 World Energy Outlook that the United States will become the world’s largest oil producer by around 2020, and North America will become a net oil exporter by around 2030.

If you followed the discussions, you might have noticed your mind’s selectivity.

University professors and some officials expressed their concerns about the fast pace of ice loss, indicating that it has exceeded most predictions by the computer models and there is a good possibility of seeing an ice free Arctic this decade, rather than mid-century as projected before.  The credibility of the NISDC is high.  It is associated with the University of Colorado at Denver, sponsored by NASA, NSF and NOAA, and basically reads satellite beamed data, and translates it into areas covered by ice.  The instrumentation is the same; the computer programs the same; NISDC is just reporting the reading of a sophisticated instrument.  This has been countered by some news showing that ice buildup in Antarctica was also breaking records, or by others claiming that 30 years of satellite observation were insufficient to draw conclusions

The IEA report created much more noise.  Some politicians and oil company experts stated that the goal of energy independence was at hand.  Add to that the natural gas glut that we witnessed in the last decade and you can understand why the coal industry is complaining and looking for export markets.  The International Energy Agency is owned-sponsored by 28 countries, mostly Europeans and compiles worldwide production of energy.  The report was heralded as the “killer” of oil-peakers.

Sandy’s effect was more tenuous.  No one wanted to add to the misery of those suffering, but links between the drought and Sandy were made.  For a day or two, global warming actually became an issue in the presidential race.  On Thursday, November 1st, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out and endorsed President Obama’s re-election bid, arguing that Hurricane Sandy had brought climate change to the forefront and commending Obama’s record on this front.  In one of the debates, Romney stated: “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise … is to help you and your family.”

How did react to those news?  It happens that I had no problem of accepting NISDC as valid and increased my worries about climate change.  I also believe that there is a connection between extreme events and climate change and Sandy was a painful reminder.  I read about the IEA report and could not believe my eyes: a “reputable” institution, a bit conservative, but mixing conventional oil with tar oils, liquid oils from natural gas, or biofuels, publishing on their annual report (not a mis-statement by an officer at a dinner party) stating that the US is going to charge ahead to produce millions of barrels of oil at $100+ in the next decades.  How did you react to these news?

I am guilty of some bias, though, I believe that I am somewhat discriminating and having decided to write about it, more carefully study the arguments and try to be objective.  Yet, on the other hand, I know what I believe, and my writings reflect my perception and position about the topics.  I did not start writing with the idea of being an impartial observer, to give the two sides equal space in my blog, or to present both sides of the argument.  This is a free country, there is freedom of speech and there are many sites that vociferously defend their side of the argument.  I hope that my repeated readers are sophisticated enough to analyze the data presented and form their own conclusions.  I have attempted to present data whenever possible, rather than positions, although I am guilty of sometimes expressing only opinions regarding certain events or news.

We have become extremely polarized.  There are Republicans and Democrats, pro and against gay marriage, abortion, taxes, Obamacare, gun controls, death penalties, etc.  You name it and we are strongly divided.  Even in education, there are vociferous positions in favor and against spending more on education.  We have become a binary society.  There is only black and white, no shades of gray.

Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the major problems of democracies.  Matters need to be phrased so that it can be answered Yes/No, in favor/against.  I share many Republican ideas.  I am concerned about passing debt to my children, do not want a bloated government and feel some regulations are silly or obsolete.  But I believe that we do not have the right to execute someone, irrespective of his crime, or deny gays and/or lesbians the right to live together and have those social rights afforded to married couples, and that everybody is entitled to medical care, education, a fair wage and the pursuit of happiness.

Having said that, you might wonder why I persist in writing?  I wanted to share knowledge and experience.  I might be able to convince some that do want to study the matter seriously and hopefully help someone reach his/her own conclusion.  I am realistic in the sense that I know that I’m not going to be able to convince someone that has already formed an opinion in the matter, mainly because the discussion is likely to be based on beliefs and not in facts, and because we selectively pick the facts that foster our position and deny all facts that contradict our position.  How can you argue with someone who believes that there should be no tax credits or incentives for renewable energy but is OK with continuing to subsidize oil companies or uses the argument that the subsidies for oil companies are $0.03/gallon and not 30% tax credit?  How can you continue discussing when externalities like defense spending or pollution are not taken into consideration?  How can you advocate for voluntarily reducing consumption, even if it means lowering the standard of living, because there is no need to use a 3 ton gas guzzler to transport one person?

My voice is one more in the cacophony of voices.  I do not believe that my voice will change the outcome, or even be instrumental in changing the perception today.  There are too many other more pressing problems.  The fiscal cliff is a month and days away.  Unemployment is high.  There is possibility of a double dip recession.  The European Community, staunchest advocate of the Kyoto Protocol and renewable energy, is in danger of shattering.  There are nil expectations of a renewal, extension, expansion, of the Kyoto Protocol at the Doha meeting next week.

So maybe my writing is a futile exercise.  Why continue if I know that I am not going to change the outcome?  Sometimes, I wonder if I am doing a disservice to the cause.  Here I am talking about that we need to invest some $45 trillion dollars in the next 30 years to become a carbon free society, when Republicans and Democrats are prepared to risk falling off the fiscal cliff, and are arguing about saving $500 billion in the next ten years.  Any politician who reads some of my postings, will get their back stiffened and increase their resolve to deny climate change.  Furthermore, I stated that the private sector is not going to be able to finance the change; that the a carbon cap and trade mechanism will not work; that there will be so much discussions about a carbon tax, that the agreed number will be insufficient to finance the change; and, to add insults to the injuries, I proposed a rationing program.

I continue, because I believe that education is a long term project.  Education in universities (universal – all encompassing) is supposed to present or expose the students to all philosophies, to further knowledge.  Professors are granted academic life tenure (i.e. the right to keep his/her job, not be fired except for just cause, independently of his/her findings that might contradict certain beliefs) so that they can pursue their research unimpeded.  Education is what allows people to make reasoned decisions.  For whatever is worth, I believe that I am furthering education on this narrow topic.

To further the education component, I have been invited to Duke University as a visiting scholar, hopefully to do some research.  It is taking a toll on my time, and I have slacked a bit on keeping this blog going, but I will continue.

Even when I receive some 20-40 comments daily, I am not posting them.  Most are spam, some are self serving and a few are thank you notes, but none is a real question or a different position.  If and when I receive questions or opinions on a particular posting, paragraph or line, I will post them.

 

 

 

Greenwise – Emerald Valley

Posted on by

The last blogs posted, took a lot of effort.  I am going to lighten the load a bit, making some lighter comments about current events.

I lived in Sacramento from 2009 to 2011.  I was trying to develop a solar thermal system with storage, and thought that being in California, where there is more interest in renewable energies, have more solar irradiation (compared to the East Cost) and higher tariffs would help.  I was also close to PIER (Public Interest Energy Research) from the California Energy Commission and to SMUD which was the only utility on track to meet the 20% mandate for renewable energy in their generation mix by 2010.

I put an office in VentureLab, where SARTA’s headquarters (Sacramento Area Region Technology Alliance) was.  It was a great experience.  I was introduced to many movers in the area, got plenty of advice and attended many mixers, conferences and events.  In late 2010, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, launched a soul searching movement called Greenwise, to seek ways to launch Sacramento’s area, as the capital of green energy and invited collaboration from anyone interested.

I got excited and attended all six meetings, participating in one of the subgroups for energy.  I wrote a long note, discussing the reasons behind the success of Silicon Valley and the Research Triangle in Raleigh, and stated the need of focusing on the goal and the steps needed to implement it, from universities participation to setting up land to attract green companies, setting a budget for the effort and prioritizing the activities to those ones that would signal to the world, that Sacramento intended to become the hub of research, manufacturing and friendliness to green companies.

The process was a lesson of democracy at work.  More than 300 persons participated in some of the meetings, which started with a motivational talk by well known speakers (Thomas Friedman, Robert Kennedy, Gavin Wilson, etc.), followed by a progress report from all groups and concluded with working sessions for the different groups, which also met at other times.  No suggestion was discarded.

At the end, there were more than 100 suggestions (see Action Plan).  Some were grandiose – attract $1 billion investment; create 14,000 green energy jobs or plant 3 million trees; others were reasonable – produce 1 million gallons of bio-diesel and others were good ideas, like retrofit all buildings or streamline permits or create walking distance neighborhoods.

I believe that it was a good effort to include all suggestions and set possible goals.  Without setting goals, it is difficult to reach them.  However, setting too many goals, without allocating resources and naming persons to be directly responsible for reaching said goals, is wishful thinking.  A clear goal, like requiring that all taxis servicing the airport had to be PEV, or at least hybrids, would send a signal to all arriving travelers that Sacramento was serious about clean energy.  I doubt that retrofitting old buildings will enhance the image of the city as the green capital of the world.  Planting 3 million trees sounds promising, but does not produce energy unless we are going way back to burning wood, and although trees might capture some CO2, it is a long, long shot.

The exercise illustrates the dilemma of renewable energy.  There are many people really concerned about sustainability, and there are hundreds of ways to skin this cat.  Many ideas are positive and will contribute somewhat to ameliorate the problem or improve sustainability, but diluted good intentions are insufficient.  It requires sharp focus and total concentration, to achieve something meaningful.

The Bay Area has Silicon Valley, Los Angeles has Hollywood, San Diego has biotech.  Sacramento might want to become the green capital.  They had a concerted effort, led by the Mayor of Sacramento, with a limited budget but plenty of heart, that encouraged hundreds of persons to join and contribute with ideas and time, supported by the UC Davis, Sacramento State University, the local utilities, and published a good report showing a path.

However, the blue print is incomplete, has many good ideas but lacks focus and there is no budget or allocation of responsibilities. I am afraid that it is quite likely that they will fail on achieving the goal of making the Sacramento’s area the green capital of the world, or the USA or even California.

There is strong competition.  Many places would like to attract become the green capital, mainly because of the economic development it would provide to the area.  States are capable of attracting companies to the states by providing state tax holidays.  Cities or municipal taxes are insufficient to tip much the balance.  California is not known as a state that goes out of its way to attract businesses, and many complain that as a matter of fact it is moving in the other direction, providing obstacles to business to move there.  Within the state of California, there will be a long and nasty political battle among many cities or regions to have the state incentivize one.  It is unlikely that some state incentives would be given to Sacramento.

I do not think that they were naïve.  But the reality is that in the midst of a contracted economy, with constrained budgets for education or other salaries, there was not a lot of money to go by, and rather than postponing the exercise, they wanted to inspire others to take the lead and start doing productive work.  I am positive that SMUD, Davis, SacState will pick up some balls now and then, along their existing mandates, but their efforts will be also be limited to their budgets and mandates.

In a way, it mirrors how the society perceives renewable energies, sustainability and climate change.  Most people are in favor of using renewable energies, protect the earth and live in a sustainable way and are slightly concerned about climate change.  They are prepared to embrace renewable energies provided it does not cost more than fossil fuel energies.  They are prepared to support sustainability, provided that there are not too many regulations or it does not increase operating expenses, and they will support policies aimed at curbing climate change, provided the Chinese and the rest of the world also stops buying cars or burning fossil fuels first.  Sacramento wants to become the green energy Mecca, at no cost, without putting forth new regulations.

Thanks to the efforts of many staff members of diverse associations and government entities and legislators, California is the most advanced state regarding mandates for renewable portfolio standards (RPS), requiring all public utilities and others to generate more than 33% of their electricity from renewable sources.  California pushed for catalytic converters in cars, required (but then dropped) that 2% of the cars sold in the state were zero emission vehicles; installed in the 80s the largest wind farm in the country and had the largest solar thermal installation in the Mojave Desert.  California is home to hundreds of new companies seeking alternative sources of energy, with a great concentration of them around Silicon Valley, because there is where the money is and students and professors of Bay Area universities come up with great ideas.

You cannot become an Olympic athlete overnight.  You cannot just wish it. You have to start training, competing, dieting, and then more training, and more training and more training.  You cannot become the green capital of the world just by stating it.  You have to attract industries, professors, suppliers, entrepreneurs, which mean that you have to offer more incentives than others, until you develop some critical mass, which by itself attracts others.  It is a long process but requires planting the proper seeds.  I wish them luck.

Carbon Tax Rationing

Posted on by

In the last posts I have been discussing how to finance the needed investment to transform America into a carbon free society.  I have argued that the politically palatable cap and trade mechanism will not work for CO2, and have expressed fears that if a carbon tax is ever approved, it will be so small and with so many loopholes that is not worth entering into the discussion, because the end product will not be able to provide funding for the needed investment.  The only alternative left is to consider the merits of imposing a rationing system.

While there have been a few proposals in Europe for tradable emission rights, it has not gained much support.  It is anathema to us.  It is an old method, used by primitive societies, in distressed situations.  The fact that it was last used during WW II reinforces the notion.  They were awful times.  Secondly, it surely will not work for energy and less for controlling CO2 emissions.  All of us emit CO2 when we breathe.  Do we give credit to farmers growing vegetables but punish ranchers with cattle?  Many will state that it does not work. Continue reading →

Carbon Tax

Posted on by

In the last posts, I have been discussing how much it would cost to convert America into a fossil-free fuel society at the same level of energy consumption as of today (about $45 trillion – 3 times USA’s GDP) which if carried over 30 years would result in having to invest $1.5 trillion per year (10% of the GDP), which is beyond the possibilities of the private sector.  The last post indicated that the preferred alternative of a cap and trade does not work for emissions of CO2 and therefore, palatable as it might be, it is the wrong instrument.

We are left with two highly controversial alternatives:

  1. impose a carbon tax, or;
  2. ration the emission of CO2.

Before embarking into a discussion of the first alternative, the carbon tax, I want to stress the need of recommending such a draconian measure.  Main arguments are: Continue reading →

Cap and Trade

Posted on by

In the previous posts, I discussed the cost of the USA becoming a carbon free society (about $45 trillion dollars, payable over 30 years at the rate of $1.5 trillion per year – about 10% of the current GDP) and proposed a structure, town by town, cities or counties, which would acquire overtime the existing assets of transmission and distribution from the utilities and use the proceeds of a surcharge or carbon tax to pay for solar thermal plants with storage, which have the capability of storing energy and dispatching it as needed.

Now, I want to discuss financing alternatives.  Whether we like it or not, we all need energy and we all use fossil fuels as our main source of energy, even when we might live next to a hydro or nuclear plant.  Some might be frugal and others wasteful, but on average, the oil equivalent consumption per capita is about 19.5 kg per person per day. Continue reading →

Future Structure

Posted on by

In the last posts, I have been discussing who much it will cost for the USA to become a carbon free society and I put a cost estimate of about $45 trillion or three times the USA GDP, which would require investing about $1.5 trillion per year for the next thirty years.  In the previous post, I showed that we can easily save, without changing one iota our standard of living, about 20-25% of our energy consumption by recognizing that the era of unlimited and inexpensive energy is over and that we start taking a rational look at the way we spend energy.

Assumptions

Before I analyze possible financing alternatives, I believe it is worth a short detour to think about the possible structure of this humongous investment and remind you of some of the assumptions made.  We have chosen solar thermal with thermal storage, because we did not want to give up our right to watch the late shows, which will be very expensive if we use PV panels with batteries.  Fortunately, with variations, there is sun everywhere, from rainy Seattle, to dry Death Valley CA, to Kansas City in the middle of the country, to cozy and cold Maine to warm and muggy Florida.  Some places have more sun than others; some places need more energy than others.  Alaska might have problems; the sunny southwest might be able to export some.  Çe la vie.  Continue reading →

Efficiency and Conservation

Posted on by

In my last posts, I discussed how much it will take to become a carbon free society by massively installing renewable energy components to substitute all possible (some uses of fossil fuels i.e. plastics or fertilizers, might require more time) consumption of fossil fuels.  Maintaining everything constant, I calculated that it will require some $45 trillion to generate the current average consumption expressed as 19.53 kg of oil equivalent per person per day with renewable energy.  That amount represents three times the current GDP of the USA and implementing a 30 year program, would require investing $1.5 trillion (10% of our GDP) per year in new sources of energy.

The idea was to present a possible, viable solution and to provide preliminary numbers for our esteemed leaders to focus on the size of the problem and the magnitude of sacrifice required from us.  I am in favor of looking for the cheaper alternative that solves the problem, but I am not in favor of passing the problem to my children and grandchildren, even if it costs plenty. Continue reading →