First Carbon Tariff Will Tax CO2 at the Border

January 1st, 2010 by Susan Kraemer

The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations, but between two states. Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota.

[social_buttons]

To encourage the switch to clean renewable energy Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012, to discourage the use of coal power; the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

State officials in North Dakota are mounting a legal battle against Minnesota. State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.

Coal has immediate health effects in addition to the well documented long term effects on climate. Coal has been implicated in asthma, diabetes, heart disease and even neurological damage, reducing intelligence levels. North Dakota ranks 8th in toxic metals contaminating its coal waste, with 3,419 tons of toxic metals.

Most of North Dakota’s electricity exports is generated by coal-fired power plants. North Dakota officials argue that the move would place an unfair tax on electricity exports from the state and discourage its use by Minnesota utilities.

The state had set aside $500,000 for legal fees to fight the law back in 2007, and having now exhausted their arguments with Minnesota are preparing to use the funds to take legal action.

Both states, ironically, have abundant wind power resources. North Dakota in particular has been called “the Saudi Arabia of Wind”. Yet, till now it has barely tapped into that clean energy resource, with the first few wind farms only just starting to come online. Basin Electric Coop just completed one project on New Years Eve and Spain’s Iberdrola just completed another a few days ago.

By contrast, North Dakota coal has low energy value.

Source: Bismark Tribune

More from Susan Kraemer: Journalists on Twitter

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: carbon fee, carbon tariffs, Kraemer, progressive legislation, rural

About the Author

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times. Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.

Carrie

@ Bill W

‘Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more?’

Big oil already has its fingers well and truly in renewables and of course the CRU itself was funded by big oil; if you take a look at their website it says so! They can’t go wrong whichever way this goes… higher prices for oil and money for renewables!

‘And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?’

The CRU collects and supplies the data to every other research organisation including NASA so, obviously, if their data is corrupt then so is everyone else’s. That’s why Climategate is such a biggie but it has been underplayed by both governments and the media alike. Governments have too much to gain from this going through and have also spent far too much of our money over the past 15 years to admit they are wrong without a fight and the media likes a good scare story..it sells! Over here in the UK the important newspapers are catching on fast though and loads is coming out.. very satisfying in a ‘I told you’ kind of way :o)

Oh and did you know that the chairman of the IPCC has his fingers in oil.. new conflicts of interest are coming out every day in the UK!
Carrie

@ Bill W

‘Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more?’

Big oil already has its fingers well and truly in renewables and of course the CRU itself was funded by big oil; if you take a look at their website it says so! They can’t go wrong whichever way this goes… higher prices for oil and money for renewables!

‘And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?’

The CRU collects and supplies the data to every other research organisation including NASA so, obviously, if their data is corrupt then so is everyone else’s. That’s why Climategate is such a biggie but it has been underplayed by both governments and the media alike. Governments have too much to gain from this going through and have also spent far too much of our money over the past 15 years to admit they are wrong without a fight and the media likes a good scare story..it sells! Over here in the UK the important newspapers are catching on fast though and loads is coming out.. very satisfying in a ‘I told you’ kind of way :o)

Oh and did you know that the chairman of the IPCC has his fingers in oil.. new conflicts of interest are coming out every day in the UK!
Carrie

@ Bill W

‘Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more?’

Big oil already has its fingers well and truly in renewables and of course the CRU itself was funded by big oil; if you take a look at their website it says so! They can’t go wrong whichever way this goes… higher prices for oil and money for renewables!

‘And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?’

The CRU collects and supplies the data to every other research organisation including NASA so, obviously, if their data is corrupt then so is everyone else’s. That’s why Climategate is such a biggie but it has been underplayed by both governments and the media alike. Governments have too much to gain from this going through and have also spent far too much of our money over the past 15 years to admit they are wrong without a fight and the media likes a good scare story..it sells! Over here in the UK the important newspapers are catching on fast though and loads is coming out.. very satisfying in a ‘I told you’ kind of way :o)

Oh and did you know that the chairman of the IPCC has his fingers in oil.. new conflicts of interest are coming out every day in the UK!
cknuts17

Here are some tips on how you can save money by going green. http://bit.ly/6CaxUA
cknuts17

Here are some tips on how you can save money by going green. http://bit.ly/6CaxUA
cknuts17

Here are some tips on how you can save money by going green. http://bit.ly/6CaxUA
cknuts17

Here are some tips on how you can save money by going green. http://bit.ly/6CaxUA
Thenviron

One of the reasons that ND does not have even more wind energy production (given the vast resource)is the lack of transmission line capacity out of the state. One of the reasons for lack of transmission lines is the resistance to new transmission line capacity by some of the same MN folks who promote the carbon tax. Having worked in the environmental and renewable energy industry since the mid-70’s, I can assure everyone that ‘radical environmentalism’ is one of the greatest obstacles to the development of a sound domestic energy policy based on domestic energy sources of all types.
Thenviron

One of the reasons that ND does not have even more wind energy production (given the vast resource)is the lack of transmission line capacity out of the state. One of the reasons for lack of transmission lines is the resistance to new transmission line capacity by some of the same MN folks who promote the carbon tax. Having worked in the environmental and renewable energy industry since the mid-70’s, I can assure everyone that ‘radical environmentalism’ is one of the greatest obstacles to the development of a sound domestic energy policy based on domestic energy sources of all types.
Susan Kraemer

AWEA pegs the North Dakota at 1,210 billion kilowatt hours per year.

North Dakota alone has enough wind potential to meet more than fourth of U.S. electricity demand.

Sure, any one farm can be slow at times, but when wind turbines are strung out along a larger region it evens out intermittency. It’s always blowing somewhere.
Susan Kraemer

AWEA pegs the North Dakota at 1,210 billion kilowatt hours per year.

North Dakota alone has enough wind potential to meet more than fourth of U.S. electricity demand.

Sure, any one farm can be slow at times, but when wind turbines are strung out along a larger region it evens out intermittency. It’s always blowing somewhere.
Susan Kraemer

Matt and Ed, so true: especially when you consider that North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind” – and just put two wind projects added onto the grid this week:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rural-electric-cooperative-complete-2010-01

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/31/foreign-windpower-giant-iberdrola-taps-saudi-arabia-of-wind-because-we-cant/
Susan Kraemer

AWEA pegs the North Dakota at 1,210 billion kilowatt hours per year.

North Dakota alone has enough wind potential to meet more than fourth of U.S. electricity demand.

Sure, any one farm can be slow at times, but when wind turbines are strung out along a larger region it evens out intermittency. It’s always blowing somewhere.
Andrew30

Re: “North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

The 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota can generate 115.5 MW of electricity with a wind speed of 10 to 25 meters/second. They have a cut-in wind speed of 3.5 meters per second. later tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday it will be cold, cloudy and calm; the wind speed will be about 2.3 meters/sec.

For the next 72 hours at least the 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota will be generating Zero MW of electricity.

Average wind speed does not mean constant wind speed.

Those windmills can’t do base load.

In Saudi Arabia the oil flows all day and all night every day.
Andrew30

Re: “North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

The 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota can generate 115.5 MW of electricity with a wind speed of 10 to 25 meters/second. They have a cut-in wind speed of 3.5 meters per second. later tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday it will be cold, cloudy and calm; the wind speed will be about 2.3 meters/sec.

For the next 72 hours at least the 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota will be generating Zero MW of electricity.

Average wind speed does not mean constant wind speed.

Those windmills can’t do base load.

In Saudi Arabia the oil flows all day and all night every day.
Andrew30

Re: “North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

The 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota can generate 115.5 MW of electricity with a wind speed of 10 to 25 meters/second. They have a cut-in wind speed of 3.5 meters per second. later tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday it will be cold, cloudy and calm; the wind speed will be about 2.3 meters/sec.

For the next 72 hours at least the 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota will be generating Zero MW of electricity.

Average wind speed does not mean constant wind speed.

Those windmills can’t do base load.

In Saudi Arabia the oil flows all day and all night every day.
Andrew30

Re: “North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

The 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota can generate 115.5 MW of electricity with a wind speed of 10 to 25 meters/second. They have a cut-in wind speed of 3.5 meters per second. later tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday it will be cold, cloudy and calm; the wind speed will be about 2.3 meters/sec.

For the next 72 hours at least the 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota will be generating Zero MW of electricity.

Average wind speed does not mean constant wind speed.

Those windmills can’t do base load.

In Saudi Arabia the oil flows all day and all night every day.
Andrew30

Re: “North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind”

The 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota can generate 115.5 MW of electricity with a wind speed of 10 to 25 meters/second. They have a cut-in wind speed of 3.5 meters per second. later tonight, tomorrow and Tuesday it will be cold, cloudy and calm; the wind speed will be about 2.3 meters/sec.

For the next 72 hours at least the 77 General Electric 1.5 kW turbines near Minot, North Dakota will be generating Zero MW of electricity.

Average wind speed does not mean constant wind speed.

Those windmills can’t do base load.

In Saudi Arabia the oil flows all day and all night every day.
Matthew

Sweet! This is the kind of stuff we need to do, actually take into account the TRUE cost of coal and suddenly its real value comes into question. Say no to coal, and cancer, autism, bad health, etc.
Matthew

Sweet! This is the kind of stuff we need to do, actually take into account the TRUE cost of coal and suddenly its real value comes into question. Say no to coal, and cancer, autism, bad health, etc.
Matthew

Sweet! This is the kind of stuff we need to do, actually take into account the TRUE cost of coal and suddenly its real value comes into question. Say no to coal, and cancer, autism, bad health, etc.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
http://cleantechnica.com Ed Swanson

It’s time to change the economic and political paradigm of energy supply and for USA Citizens take back control of our energy future.

The coal industry benefits from numerous subsidies and tax breaks. Since 500+ elected politicians in the US Congress cannot agree on guiding our Nation’s energy future, it is heartening to see the State of Minnesota taking action to level economic playing field. This will go a long way to ensure that reasonably available modern technologies will be used for energy production and conversion facilities. If the coal industry cannot produce clean coal, then it should be taxed wherever it is delivered.

The coal industry has posted many billboards along West Virginia Highways touting “clean coal”. Well guys, let’s see you deliver! If “clean coal” isn’t available, then the coal industry should “tear down those signs”.

Without a level playing field the USA will never achieve sustainable power supply, and create new USA jobs.

Special thanks to the elected officials in Minnesota.
Susan Kraemer

Matt and Ed, so true: especially when you consider that North Dakota is the “Saudi Arabia of Wind” – and just put two wind projects added onto the grid this week:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rural-electric-cooperative-complete-2010-01

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/31/foreign-windpower-giant-iberdrola-taps-saudi-arabia-of-wind-because-we-cant/
Susan Kraemer

Our Balkanized grid is a problem:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/12/us-must-socialize-grid-to-add-renewable-energy-study-finds/
Susan Kraemer

I would just like to note that there is an unusual number of visitors to this particular story from this site:

http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events.html

The site is all about creating web buzz designed to undermine science on climate change, via the “leaked email scandal” its trumping up.

If you are reading this and becoming unsure about the science because of this well orchestrated disinformation campaign regarding CRU emails, this provides answers to the usual questions + provides the links to the original science:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Here’s NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Susan Kraemer

I would just like to note that there is an unusual number of visitors to this particular story from this site:

http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events.html

The site is all about creating web buzz designed to undermine science on climate change, via the “leaked email scandal” its trumping up.

If you are reading this and becoming unsure about the science because of this well orchestrated disinformation campaign regarding CRU emails, this provides answers to the usual questions + provides the links to the original science:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Here’s NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Susan Kraemer

I would just like to note that there is an unusual number of visitors to this particular story from this site:

http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events.html

The site is all about creating web buzz designed to undermine science on climate change, via the “leaked email scandal” its trumping up.

If you are reading this and becoming unsure about the science because of this well orchestrated disinformation campaign regarding CRU emails, this provides answers to the usual questions + provides the links to the original science:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Here’s NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer ;

If you could mobilize the same energy towards the development of the transmission and access infrastructure as has been being directed towards CO2 it would be a good thing.

The physics of such a grid system are well understood and can be tested and demonstrated without computer models, proxies or theories of feedback and forcings . The technology exists and works today.

The only problem you will face is convincing the multitude of your followers that very large power lines are their friend. They in turn will need to convince the masses, the media and the government.

Perhaps if the leaders of the US government saw it as a legacy project, like the railroads were in the past century that would help. The energy railroad for the next century (no that sounds really bad if taken the wrong way), but you get what I mean. The same track gauge, signals and switches in all cities and all states in the whole county over which any standard train built anywhere can move in any direction from where it is to where it is needed.

Once you have that, you can move ahead with the windmills and solar cells. Until then you’re stuck in a siding.
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer;

“Our Balkanized grid is a problem:”

No kidding.

Yes, Scientific American and others hace also been talking about it for a few years. The fact is that there are only a handful of operational DC interconnect in place, and they are mostly short range mainland-island, across a bay and a couple between Canada and the US, all are medium voltage and out of sight (underwater).

We know how to do it, we know what it would cost, we can guess at how long it would take, but we need to get the voltage up and travel very long distances and that means moving above ground and installing a lot of tall towers.

Many people do not understand the difference between AC and DC with respect to electro-magnetic radiation (induction) and the decay of power as an inverse square of the height of a tower to the playground underneath.

Running a bunch of 1500 foot, six conductor, 5000 KV power lines through a county is not big vote getter. But it must get done eventually.

So, instead of giving 100 billion dollars away out of guilt for your countries success, what doesn’t the US put that same money into the grid, build it and then use it. It would create work all over the country. That’s the real fight as far as I see it, not CO2
Andrew30

Susan Kraemer;

“Our Balkanized grid is a problem:”

No kidding.

Yes, Scientific American and others hace also been talking about it for a few years. The fact is that there are only a handful of operational DC interconnect in place, and they are mostly short range mainland-island, across a bay and a couple between Canada and the US, all are medium voltage and out of sight (underwater).

We know how to do it, we know what it would cost, we can guess at how long it would take, but we need to get the voltage up and travel very long distances and that means moving above ground and installing a lot of tall towers.

Many people do not understand the difference between AC and DC with respect to electro-magnetic radiation (induction) and the decay of power as an inverse square of the height of a tower to the playground underneath.

Running a bunch of 1500 foot, six conductor, 5000 KV power lines through a county is not big vote getter. But it must get done eventually.

So, instead of giving 100 billion dollars away out of guilt for your countries success, what doesn’t the US put that same money into the grid, build it and then use it. It would create work all over the country. That’s the real fight as far as I see it, not CO2
Andrew30

RE: “SK: Relax, buddy”…” a lot of you delayers”…

Not me, I don’t think we should delay anything. Most if not all of the technologies you have mentioned can work in many of the places in North America.

The catch is that you will need a way to tie all these infrequent sources together in a bi-directional North American grid. This means building, from scratch, an all new Direct Current International transmission system with a massive number of Inverter access points. We have maybe 10 – 15 years to replace something that took over 70 years to build and cost a lot of money.

I think the grid will take longer then the time we have, and I don’t think that it will get funded until after a lot of the things that you mention have been proven at an industrial scale over a three or four year testing period.

Eventually, we may end up where you would like to be, but I still maintain that in the interim it will be LNG for transportation and Nuclear power for base load. Both these proven technologies use the infrastructure and delivery systems that are already in place.
Andrew30

RE: “SK: Relax, buddy”…” a lot of you delayers”…

Not me, I don’t think we should delay anything. Most if not all of the technologies you have mentioned can work in many of the places in North America.

The catch is that you will need a way to tie all these infrequent sources together in a bi-directional North American grid. This means building, from scratch, an all new Direct Current International transmission system with a massive number of Inverter access points. We have maybe 10 – 15 years to replace something that took over 70 years to build and cost a lot of money.

I think the grid will take longer then the time we have, and I don’t think that it will get funded until after a lot of the things that you mention have been proven at an industrial scale over a three or four year testing period.

Eventually, we may end up where you would like to be, but I still maintain that in the interim it will be LNG for transportation and Nuclear power for base load. Both these proven technologies use the infrastructure and delivery systems that are already in place.
Andrew30

RE: “SK: Relax, buddy”…” a lot of you delayers”…

Not me, I don’t think we should delay anything. Most if not all of the technologies you have mentioned can work in many of the places in North America.

The catch is that you will need a way to tie all these infrequent sources together in a bi-directional North American grid. This means building, from scratch, an all new Direct Current International transmission system with a massive number of Inverter access points. We have maybe 10 – 15 years to replace something that took over 70 years to build and cost a lot of money.

I think the grid will take longer then the time we have, and I don’t think that it will get funded until after a lot of the things that you mention have been proven at an industrial scale over a three or four year testing period.

Eventually, we may end up where you would like to be, but I still maintain that in the interim it will be LNG for transportation and Nuclear power for base load. Both these proven technologies use the infrastructure and delivery systems that are already in place.
Andrew30

RE: “SK: Relax, buddy”…” a lot of you delayers”…

Not me, I don’t think we should delay anything. Most if not all of the technologies you have mentioned can work in many of the places in North America.

The catch is that you will need a way to tie all these infrequent sources together in a bi-directional North American grid. This means building, from scratch, an all new Direct Current International transmission system with a massive number of Inverter access points. We have maybe 10 – 15 years to replace something that took over 70 years to build and cost a lot of money.

I think the grid will take longer then the time we have, and I don’t think that it will get funded until after a lot of the things that you mention have been proven at an industrial scale over a three or four year testing period.

Eventually, we may end up where you would like to be, but I still maintain that in the interim it will be LNG for transportation and Nuclear power for base load. Both these proven technologies use the infrastructure and delivery systems that are already in place.
Susan Kraemer

Our Balkanized grid is a problem:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/12/us-must-socialize-grid-to-add-renewable-energy-study-finds/
Andrew30

Bill W;

By the way, it does look like they may have already started to put together plan B. So if the CO2 scare does not pan out they can put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, I not surprised.

From Dec 10th 2009, a couple of weeks after the start of the climategate thing started.

The IEA puts a date on peak oil production

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719

And in the US at least they are to talk of subsidies for Nuclear power and Gas drilling, also the 10th of December:

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2009/12/10/senators-add-oil-drilling-nuclear-measures-in-revised-climate-bill-to-attract-broader-support-9704/

And they have a bunch of LNG off-load ports already in the works:

http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/

So I think that it will happen, one way or another, and it will not be windmills and solar cells.
Andrew30

Bill W;

By the way, it does look like they may have already started to put together plan B. So if the CO2 scare does not pan out they can put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, I not surprised.

From Dec 10th 2009, a couple of weeks after the start of the climategate thing started.

The IEA puts a date on peak oil production

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719

And in the US at least they are to talk of subsidies for Nuclear power and Gas drilling, also the 10th of December:

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2009/12/10/senators-add-oil-drilling-nuclear-measures-in-revised-climate-bill-to-attract-broader-support-9704/

And they have a bunch of LNG off-load ports already in the works:

http://intelligencepress.com/features/lng/

So I think that it will happen, one way or another, and it will not be windmills and solar cells.
Andrew30

Bill W;

Please understand that I do think that we need to move to LNG in the short term and Nuclear in the long term for base load.

We are going to run short on oil and will need to direct the oil and ‘oil-able’ resources, like coal, to situations that specifically require a lubricant or high energy density liquid fuel. So we need to move to LNG for transportation and Nuclear for base load.

I just do not like the abuse of science that has been used to convince the masses. It would have been simpler if they just came out and said it; “We are running out of oil so here is the plan, no more gasoline for cars and we are going nuclear for base power, and we are going to tax everyone to pay for the conversion”. It would have been a harder sell, but at least it would have been honest.
Andrew30

Bill W;

Please understand that I do think that we need to move to LNG in the short term and Nuclear in the long term for base load.

We are going to run short on oil and will need to direct the oil and ‘oil-able’ resources, like coal, to situations that specifically require a lubricant or high energy density liquid fuel. So we need to move to LNG for transportation and Nuclear for base load.

I just do not like the abuse of science that has been used to convince the masses. It would have been simpler if they just came out and said it; “We are running out of oil so here is the plan, no more gasoline for cars and we are going nuclear for base power, and we are going to tax everyone to pay for the conversion”. It would have been a harder sell, but at least it would have been honest.
Andrew30

Bill W;

Please understand that I do think that we need to move to LNG in the short term and Nuclear in the long term for base load.

We are going to run short on oil and will need to direct the oil and ‘oil-able’ resources, like coal, to situations that specifically require a lubricant or high energy density liquid fuel. So we need to move to LNG for transportation and Nuclear for base load.

I just do not like the abuse of science that has been used to convince the masses. It would have been simpler if they just came out and said it; “We are running out of oil so here is the plan, no more gasoline for cars and we are going nuclear for base power, and we are going to tax everyone to pay for the conversion”. It would have been a harder sell, but at least it would have been honest.
Andrew30

Bill W;

Please understand that I do think that we need to move to LNG in the short term and Nuclear in the long term for base load.

We are going to run short on oil and will need to direct the oil and ‘oil-able’ resources, like coal, to situations that specifically require a lubricant or high energy density liquid fuel. So we need to move to LNG for transportation and Nuclear for base load.

I just do not like the abuse of science that has been used to convince the masses. It would have been simpler if they just came out and said it; “We are running out of oil so here is the plan, no more gasoline for cars and we are going nuclear for base power, and we are going to tax everyone to pay for the conversion”. It would have been a harder sell, but at least it would have been honest.
Andrew30

Bill w;

Since the CRU does not do science and the IPCC gets their data from the CRU, it is pointless to try to refute it.

It would be like arguing about the thickness of the bark on the trees used for Tom Sawyers raft.
Andrew30

Bill w;

Since the CRU does not do science and the IPCC gets their data from the CRU, it is pointless to try to refute it.

It would be like arguing about the thickness of the bark on the trees used for Tom Sawyers raft.
Andrew30

Bill w;

Since the CRU does not do science and the IPCC gets their data from the CRU, it is pointless to try to refute it.

It would be like arguing about the thickness of the bark on the trees used for Tom Sawyers raft.
Andrew30

Re: “Sorry, I’m not buying it.”

But, you will be as soon as the Tax is in place, and they move to replace base load electrical generation.

Base load can not be dependant on the wind or the sun; it must be available at all times. You can turn it down when it is windy or sunny, but base load generation must always be available. You will be buying Nuclear Powered or Natural Gas powered electricity, it will be more expensive, but it will be there.

[SK: Relax, buddy – wind, solar can and will be made to be practical in various science breakthroughs that we routinely cover here:eg: google cleantechnica + compressed air; + CAES; + rocket scientists solar; + salt solar; + wind boxes; + bottle wind; + pg&e space solar; + wind pumped underground;

Plus we can clean up what fossilfuels remain on the grid: 20% would be ok if get most of the co2 first - google cleantechnica + kyoto hydrogen; + DOE ormat; + Chu oil; + 6 quadrillions; + Rodney Dangerfield; + un-mined coal; + manhattan project - a lot of you delayers are fearful only because you are just not conversant with the options and the breakthroughs we are making in the science because you don’t investigate them. I write about this every day and know a renewable energy based economy is doable.]
Andrew30

Re: “Sorry, I’m not buying it.”

But, you will be as soon as the Tax is in place, and they move to replace base load electrical generation.

Base load can not be dependant on the wind or the sun; it must be available at all times. You can turn it down when it is windy or sunny, but base load generation must always be available. You will be buying Nuclear Powered or Natural Gas powered electricity, it will be more expensive, but it will be there.

[SK: Relax, buddy – wind, solar can and will be made to be practical in various science breakthroughs that we routinely cover here:eg: google cleantechnica + compressed air; + CAES; + rocket scientists solar; + salt solar; + wind boxes; + bottle wind; + pg&e space solar; + wind pumped underground;

Plus we can clean up what fossilfuels remain on the grid: 20% would be ok if get most of the co2 first - google cleantechnica + kyoto hydrogen; + DOE ormat; + Chu oil; + 6 quadrillions; + Rodney Dangerfield; + un-mined coal; + manhattan project - a lot of you delayers are fearful only because you are just not conversant with the options and the breakthroughs we are making in the science because you don’t investigate them. I write about this every day and know a renewable energy based economy is doable.]
Bill W

Oh, and one more thing, Andrew (this seems to be my day for add-ons): where is the huge body of peer-reviewed science that refutes the conclusions of the CRU and IPCC?
Bill W

Oh, and one more thing, Andrew (this seems to be my day for add-ons): where is the huge body of peer-reviewed science that refutes the conclusions of the CRU and IPCC?
Bill W

Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more? LNG has some short-term potential as a coal replacement, but longer-term, it’s still a hydrocarbon. And Food to Ethanol has already been shown to be foolish. Nuclear has some potential if a waste solution can be found.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?
Bill W

Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more? LNG has some short-term potential as a coal replacement, but longer-term, it’s still a hydrocarbon. And Food to Ethanol has already been shown to be foolish. Nuclear has some potential if a waste solution can be found.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?
Bill W

Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more? LNG has some short-term potential as a coal replacement, but longer-term, it’s still a hydrocarbon. And Food to Ethanol has already been shown to be foolish. Nuclear has some potential if a waste solution can be found.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?
Bill W

Gee, Andrew, if CRU were “cooking the books”, don’t you think you’d see some funding from wind and solar energy companies in there, too, since they stand to benefit even more? LNG has some short-term potential as a coal replacement, but longer-term, it’s still a hydrocarbon. And Food to Ethanol has already been shown to be foolish. Nuclear has some potential if a waste solution can be found.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

And even if we assume that CRU’s data is bad, why does the anti-science crowd keep acting as though CRU is the only source of climate data in the world?
Susan Kraemer

I would just like to note that there is an unusual number of visitors to this particular story from this site:

http://www.thegwpf.org/news-a-events.html

The site is all about creating web buzz designed to undermine science on climate change, via the “leaked email scandal” its trumping up.

If you are reading this and becoming unsure about the science because of this well orchestrated disinformation campaign regarding CRU emails, this provides answers to the usual questions + provides the links to the original science:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Here’s NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Andrew30

This Carbon Tax has nothing to do with the environment.
Andrew30

This Carbon Tax has nothing to do with the environment.
Andrew30

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work.
Andrew30

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work.
Andrew30

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work.
Andrew30

Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work.
Bill W

Oops. NDak, not SDak.
Bill W

Oops. NDak, not SDak.
Bill W

Oops. NDak, not SDak.
Bill W

“State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.”

…which is, of course, the whole point of the carbon fee. I guess their suit revolves around the word “unfair”, as in, “Wah! It’s not fair!” I guess nobody told the SDak officials that life isn’t fair.
Bill W

“State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.”

…which is, of course, the whole point of the carbon fee. I guess their suit revolves around the word “unfair”, as in, “Wah! It’s not fair!” I guess nobody told the SDak officials that life isn’t fair.
Bill W

“State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.”

…which is, of course, the whole point of the carbon fee. I guess their suit revolves around the word “unfair”, as in, “Wah! It’s not fair!” I guess nobody told the SDak officials that life isn’t fair.