BLOWIN' IN THE WIND--A WHIFF OF GOOD CLIMATE NEWS

Good news is scarce these days, so I'm thrilled to get to report that in the first three months of this year, nearly all--99.7 percent--of new electricity generating capacity in the US came from solar and wind. Once-and-hopefully-never-again King Coal accounted for a measly 0.2 percent of new capacity. 

                                        Wind Farm--Credit USFWS/Joshua Winchell

That brings renewable's percentage of US power generation capacity up to 24.7 percent of the total.

Actual power generation for the first quarter was comparable--21.6 percent of all power generated. March was even better--25.5 percent of the electricity that went into the US grid came from renewables.

Needless to say, the US and the rest of the world need to phase out climate destabilizing energy sources and replace them with renewables as quickly as possible.

-----

These data come from FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

REA/6/14/21, 6/16/21

UPON WHAT MEAT DOTH THIS OUR CEASAR FEED . . .

 "Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed...?

The corrupting effect of power has been recognized for centuries:

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" metaphorically (and perhaps presciently) posed the question in terms of a tyrant's diet; with Lord Acton's famous aphorism adding the further warning that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

                                                                   Julius Ceasar

Credit: Vatican Museum

Rarely, if ever, in the American experience have the consequences of unbridled power in the hands of an ego-driven, would-be tyrant, been as readily apparent as in the unhinged actions of Donald Trump in Tuesday night's very un-Presidential debate.

While the President's tendency toward personally denigrating opponents, demeaning rivals, dismissing critics, denying inconvenient facts and demanding 'absolute loyalty' from traditionally independent agencies and individuals has been well known, and even celebrated by his loyal followers, his behavior in the so-called debate reached a new and threatening pitch in Cleveland. It was as though any limits observed by normal individuals do not and should not be applied to President Trump. Bullying both his opponent and the moderator, Chris Wallace, and refusing to respect even the most minimal rules of courtesy or timekeeping, Trump verbally 'invaded' Mr. Biden's space, finding a way to loom over the proceedings much as he physically loomed over Hillary Clinton in their 2016 debate.

                                                     Donald Trump--official portrait

Credit: Gage Skidmore

Nearly four years into his presidency, having again and again been enabled in his assaults on accepted democratic norms by his political protectors in Congress, and following his success in avoiding any consequences from either the Special Counsel's investigation or his impeachment, Mr. Trump has clearly concluded that he really can say or do whatever he wants.

A somewhat shocking rhetorical assertion by a flamboyant candidate about being able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support has by now become a terrifying reality in the position of the most powerful and dangerous individual in the country, and possibly the world. Refusing to repudiate white supremacists while signaling a right-wing militia group to 'stand down and stand by' activates his rhetoric in real life and death terms.

Coupled with his repeated and direct assaults on the integrity of the upcoming election, while refusing to agree in advance to a peaceful transition of power should he lose, he is further raising doubts and stoking fears about the reliability of the most fundamental processes of democratic governance. Protected by enablers like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell and increasingly by enforcers such as Bill Barr, the President's sense of invulnerability, omniscience and entitlement has only magnified.

Trump's willingness to use any and every resource, foreign and domestic, to gain power has never been in question from birtherism to the dark arts of social media manipulation at home to the use of American foreign policy to seek-out 'dirt' on his opponents abroad.

As President, with the enormous resources of the federal government at his disposal, he has shown he will fight to remain in office, seemingly without concern about any potential cost to the country.

What was most nakedly displayed on Tuesday's debate stage was, to borrow Shakespeare's terms, Trump's 'diet'. It was as disturbing an exposure as most Americans have ever experienced to the very consequences a ruthless drive for power can bring. It was exactly what our founders, political philosophers (as well as psychiatrists) have warned against over the years.

Power does corrupt, and a stark vision of its workings was delivered to all of us, isolated in our homes, without commercials.

-----

Les Adler

WHERE ARE YOU ON THE BLUE WHALE SCALE?

I just read a report about the 12 richest Americans, whose combined wealth now totals more than $ 1 trillion.

Now I'm trying to get a feeling for what $1,000,000,000,000 means in terms not just of wealth but of power and influence. Here's one approach, my blue-whale-scale.

The median American household is currently worth around $97,300. That means half of US households are worth more and half are worth less. For convenience, let's round that $97,300 up to $100,000. Remember, this is net worth, not income.

The ratio between $1,000,000,000,000 and $100,000 is a factor of 10,000,000.

That means that the twelve richest Americans are worth ten million times as much as the median US household. Or that it would take the combined worth of ten million median households to equal the  wealth of the 12 richest Americans.

Blue Whales can reach a length of 100 feet and weigh up to 330,000 pounds. Why am I bringing this up?

Credit: pikrepo.com

Let's represent the dozen people whose combined worth is a trillion dollars by a blue whale, earth's largest and heaviest animal. A blue whale might weigh in at 100 metric tonnes or 100,000 kg.

Now, picture a table that matches up wealth with weight. That's our blue-whale-scale. At the top is $1,000,000,000,000, the blue whale and 100,000 kg.  We'll keep dividing by ten as the sea creatures get smaller and lighter along with the wealth they represent.

For example, the next step down would be $100,000,000,000. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are worth more than $100 billion each. On the whale scale, they would weigh in at 10 metric tonnes each and might be represented by one of the smaller whales, say a Minke, "just" 10 meters long.

It takes four divisions by ten to get down to the wealthiest one percent of US households, those worth $10,000,000 and up. On our whale scale they would weigh in at a measly one kilogram, or 2.2 pounds. That's way below whales now; closer, say, to a decent-sized trout.

We need to divide by another 100 to get to the median US household's roughly $100,000 net worth. On our blue-whale-scale, that family would weigh in at just 10 grams, about the same as two nickels. In the fish world, that might be represented by a sardine; you know, the kind you buy packed into a tin, or that swarm by the thousands as shown below.

A school of sardines near Costa Rica

Credit: Wikimedia

As blue whales make their majestic way through the oceans, I doubt that they worry much about, or perhaps even notice, the millions or billions of tiny fish who happen to share the ocean with them. I'm guessing it's the same with the multi-billionaires with whom we happen to share the economic, financial and political systems that we--like fish in the sea--live within.

Of course, if you're below the wealth median--for example in the 25 percent of US families whose net worth is $10,000 or less-you're not represented by a sardine on the whale scale, but by a guppy or a minnow.

And if you're in the 20 percent of American families whose net worth is close to (or below) zero--the best you can hope for is to be represented by krill--the swarms of minute sea creatures on whom--go figure--those huge blue whales feed.

Krill

Credit: wikimedia commons

---
For Robert Reich's take on this issue, click here.

REA

KING COAL DETHRONED

Coal has been a primary source of energy in the US since the 1880s and the source of most of the electricity generated in the United States since the early 1960s. Here in the US, it's been a relatively cheap, abundant and reliable source of energy. It's also the source of an enormous amount of greenhouse gases and toxic pollution.

It's now clear that coal is on its way out. According to the US Energy Information Administration, this year renewable energy sources such as wind, water and geothermal generated more electricity than coal for the first time in US history. Coal's share of the energy market has been declining for the past decade while renewables have been claiming a bigger and bigger share each year. This year the curves crossed for the first time.

Coal-fired power plant near Price, Utah

Credit: arbyreed

Despite President's Trump's repeated promises to bring back "beautiful, clean coal," and his rollback of key environmental protections, including the brain-damaging mercury emitted when coal is burned, King coal's throne has been on increasingly shaky ground due to simple economics--renewables are now both cheaper and far cleaner than coal. Trying to resuscitate this dying industry truly is tilting at windmills.

Windpower, growing rapidly in US

Credit: Winchell Joshua, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Nor do experts see much chance for coal to stage a counter-revolution.“Coal is on the way out, we are seeing the end of coal,” says Dennis Wamsted, analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. "The trend is pretty clear."

With King coal on his way out, we can all breathe a bit easier. But,  as climate scientists have been telling us for decades now, replacing coal and other fossil fuels with renewables can't happen soon enough.

-----

REA

A BIT OF GOOD NEWS FOR THANKSGIVING

If you've been following the escalating climate crisis, you know that decarbonization of the global economy is a crucial part of achieving a sustainable world. The good news is that the U.S. is moving in the right direction. The latest assessment of how much carbon was injected into the atmosphere from US electricity generation shows that the carbon intensity--pounds of carbon dioxide per MW-hour--dropped 9 percent since this time last year. Total generation fell by 4 percent in the same period. Even better, that's a 40 percent reduction in carbon intensity of power generation in just the last 15 years. 

Carbon emissions per MW-hour in U.S. 2001-2019

Credit: Power Sector Carbon Index, 

Scott Institute for Energy Innovation 

"The U.S. electricity sector is continuing to get cleaner, and both carbon intensity and overall emissions are dropping," said Costa Samaras, assistant professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of Carnegie Mellon's Power Sector Carbon Index.

The researchers say that this encouraging and continuing trend is due to the decline of coal-powered electricity generation, the increase in power from natural gas, and from renewables such as wind and solar. "We're in the middle of an energy transition right now, and the biggest part of that story in the U.S. is how swiftly coal has been declining over the past decade," said Samaras. "The decline of coal can be attributed to the rise of natural gas, the continued improvement of renewables, and energy efficiency efforts."

There's lots of room for improvement, however. Wind, solar and hydropower still account for less than 20 percent of U.S. electricity, just about equal to nuclear, the other zero-emissions source of power.

The goal, the experts point out, is to continue to produce abundant power while emitting less and less carbon, and also to grow the use of zero- or low-emission electricity in transportation, buildings and industry.

---

REA

CALIFORNIA POWERS AHEAD IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

We need all the good news we can find these days, and California has just handed us a climate-change bouquet.

On August 28, 2018, the legislature passed a bill that requires 100 percent carbon-free electricity in the state by 2045. This massive change in the way power is produced in or imported to California will keep 70 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from being spewed into the atmosphere every year, equivalent to taking 12 million cars off the road.

California Wind Farm
a rapidly growing source of clean power

Credit: Creative Commons Zero; Max Pixel

If Governor Brown signs the bill into law, as expected, California will become the largest economy in the world to commit to 100% carbon neutral electricity before mid-century. (Yes! Governor Brown signed the bill into law on September 10, 2018).

Of course, much more than this is needed for the world to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and keep global temperatures no more than 1.5 or at most 2.0 degrees C (2.7/3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels. Still, it's a giant step in the right direction, and one that we hope many more states, cities, countries, companies and industries will follow--and the sooner the better.

----------

You can find the text of California Senate Bill 100 here.

ELON MUSK'S MEGA-BATTERY SAVES SOUTH AUSTRALIA $35 MILLION IN FOUR MONTHS

Last year, Elon Musk made the State of South Australia an offer they couldn't refuse. He promised to install the world's largest lithium-ion battery in 100 days and at a bargain price in order to store surplus power from the Hornsdale Wind Farm and use it to stabilize South Australia's power grid.

The crash project has been enormously successful. In the first four months of operation it saved the state government $35 million (Australian dollars, equal to $26.3 million US). That's an amazing return on investment, given that the project cost the state just $50 million (37.5 million US). It looks as though it will pay for itself within its first 18 months.

Hornsdale Power Reserve battery with three of the Wind Farm's 105 turbines in background

Credit: David Clarke 

The giant battery's primary function is to stabilize the frequency of electricity flowing through the state's power grid. When a generator or transmission line goes down, the grid frequency drops until backup power can fill the gap. If there's insufficient backup, disruptive brownouts or blackouts occur. But even if a backup plant comes on line or power can be purchased from a neighboring grid, the price of that stopgap power can soar. A grid operator might have to pay $10,000 or more per megawatt-hour, compared to a normal price of $150 or less.

Most of the $35 million that the huge battery saved the South Australian government came from the battery's ability to switch on and re-stabilize the grid extremely quickly--within 200 milliseconds, far faster than other kinds of backup power plants. According to RenewEconomy, the battery now commands 55 percent of the stabilization market in South Australia, and has reduced the cost of back-up power by a stunning 90 percent.

By the end of 2018, the savings surged to an estimated $40 million.

Critics of renewable energy cite intermittency--the fluctuating supply of energy from wind and solar--as a major obstacle to the urgently-needed transformation to renewables. Although the Hornsdale project shows convincingly that batteries can solve the short-term back-up power problem, the battery doesn't store enough energy to make coal or gas power plants obsolete. But it's clearly a step in the right direction. South Australia agrees, with several giant battery projects being developed in the state, and several more in other parts of Australia.

---------

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up to follow or receive email alerts from zerospinzone.blogspot.com.

---------

Here's an interesting and extremely positive follow-up to the above story. Basically, South Australia's continuing development of carbon-free energy, including storage, has been an incredible success.

WHAT "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" REALLY MEANS

I finally get it. To use the current phrase, I'm "woke." I've come to understand what Trump and his supporters mean when they shout "Make America Great Again!"

I've been confused since I first started seeing MAGA on signs and baseball caps and hearing the chant. What Trump was selling--fear, anger, belligerence, racism, xenophobia--didn't seem great to me. But something obviously resonated with his fans.

To me, great is the superlative of good. When I think of something great, it evokes images of the best of something positive, creative, constructive, beautiful; Usain Bolt is a great sprinter, the Beatles were a great band, Moby Dick is a great novel, Casablanca a great movie. You get the idea.

But what I've come to realize is that to Trump and his friends great has a very different meaning. Synonyms would be powerful, dominant, commanding, controlling, top dog, boss. To him and them, a great nation doesn't have to be democratic, just, equitable, prosperous, peaceful, inspiring, sustainable or anything else good. It just needs to be powerful--ready, willing and able to throw its weight around. The biggest, meanest bully on the block.

You can read a succinct and frightening corroboration of this from some Trump associates here.

So when Trump tweets, "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart,'" his supporters love it. He's demonstrating his and, by reflection, their dominance.

Or for another data point, check out this list of despots and dictators whom Trump admires.

Or this tweet:

"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

I get it. Our nukes are bigger and more powerful than yours. MAGA!

Credit: R.J. ORIEZ/U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO

-----

Trump outdid himself with his latest MAGA tweet to Iran:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

5:24 AM · Jul 23, 2018

AND THEN THERE WERE THREE (MULTI-BILLIONAIRES)

According to the Institute for Policy Studies, three men--Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett--now own more wealth than the poorest 50 percent of the US population. That's three individuals versus more than 162 million.

Bill Gates (2003)

Copyright World Economic Forum (www.weforum.org)

www.swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger

To get a sense of the enormity of this inequality, let's represent the average wealth of those 162 million people--a bit more than $1500 per person--by someone six feet tall. Then Bill Gates--worth $89 billion--would stand over 66,000 miles tall in comparison--towering more than one-quarter of the way to the moon! Jeff Bezos, Amazon's CEO has done well this year; on this scale he'd tower 72,000 miles. They would both dwarf "poor" Warren Buffett, who would barely top 62,000 miles.

If we total up the wealth of the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans we find that they own as much as the lower two-thirds of the American population, more than 200 million people, or 80 million households.

Most Americans don't begrudge rich people their wealth, believing rightly or wrongly that much of it was earned through talent, intelligence and hard work, and hoping that they too might someday join their ranks. However, they may be less forgiving when they realize that the ultra rich  leverage that wealth into near-total control over our political system and government. A recent study matched what many of us feel, showing that what most voters want simply doesn't count, while the demands of economic elites and well-funded special interest groups consistently win out in terms of legislation, policy and regulation.

Nor is there much reason to believe that the super rich take the needs of their poorer fellow-citizens into account as they groom candidates and influence elections, lawmakers and the executive branch of government. One can imagine that from the perspective of 72,000 miles, those 162 million people look like little more than grains of dust. Perhaps we should re-write "We the people . . ." to read "Wee the people . . ."

There are plenty of commentators, including many economists, who argue that this kind of inequality is inevitable, a necessary result of the grim laws of economics. That this is false can be seen by the fact that many countries--including well-off, highly developed nations such as Denmark, Sweden, Germany, New Zealand and the Netherlands--share their wealth much more equitably than here in the US. It's clear that laws protecting workers and unions, curbing corporate abuses, and reining in financial speculation do make a difference, as do policies using tax revenues to support health, education and equal opportunity across ethnic, class and gender lines.

According to the World Economic Forum, the US ranks 23rd out of 30 developed countries in terms of "inclusive development"--a measure of how fairly income, health and opportunity are distributed. That means that 22 thriving countries do it better than we do.

Solving any problem first requires recognizing that the problem exists, then deciding that there are steps we can take to solve it. If the fact that three individuals have more wealth--and the power and influence that goes with it-- than 162 million of us doesn't set off alarm bells about our democracy, I don't know what could. Shall we wait until just one person has more wealth and power than 50 percent of us? 60 percent? 90 percent?

We may not be able to change the laws of economics, but we can change the laws, policies and practices that push millions of Americans into poverty and debt while showering more and more wealth on the already wealthy. A good start would be to defeat the current Republican tax "reform," which will further enrich the richest few at the expense of most of the rest of us, not just the poor, but also much of the middle class, seniors and students.

-----

More on inequity at my post "Winner take all: 7 richest men own more than poorest 3.8 billion people."

-----

If you enjoyed this post, please follow zerospinzone.blogspot.com or sign up for email updates (column above right).

NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES--RENEWABLE POWER TOPS NUCLEAR IN THE US FOR THE FIRST TIME

Growing up in the '50s, I remember reading about the great promise of atomic energy. Nuclear reactors, we were told, would produce so much energy so efficiently that electricity would essentially be free--"too cheap to meter," as Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, said in 1954.

As we know, reality didn't turn out to be quite so rosy. Between cost overruns and delays, opposition supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown, reliability issues, and the still-unsolved problem of what to do with nuclear waste, nuclear power came to be seen as far more problematic than promising. Currently, nuclear plants generate just 20 percent of all electric power in the US, and their share is gradually falling.

Solar power plant
License: CCO Public Domain

In the meantime, clean, renewable sources of energy--especially wind and solar--have been burgeoning. With renewables surging and nuclear flagging, it was inevitable that renewables would eventually win out. The only question was when.

That question has now been answered. According to the US Energy Information Administration, in March and April of this year renewable energy sources produced more energy for the US than nuclear plants--21.6 vs 20.34 percent in March and 22.98 vs 19.19 percent in April.

"Renewable energy is now surpassing nuclear power, a major milestone in the transformation of the US energy sector," says Tim Judson, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

And with solar energy growing by 38 percent and wind energy by 14 percent in the last year alone, this extremely positive trend has nowhere to go but up. I, for one, will be delighted when the only signs of out nuclear power misadventure are the silent silos of decommissioned plants.

Signpost memorializing the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island
Credit: The Baltimore Sun

With the cancellation of two planned reactors in South Carolina, just two new nuclear power plants are in the works in the US.  Nuclear energy can no longer compete with wind and solar. The end is in sight.

---

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up for email alerts from zerospinzone, above right.

BLOWIN' IN THE WIND--WIND POWER NOW EMPLOYS 102,000 AMERICANS, POWERS 24 MILLION HOMES

Wind power is is soaring worldwide, and the U.S. is no exception. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) just published its annual report, with great news for anyone who loves clean, renewable energy, and the jobs it produces.

Green Mountain Wind Farm near Fluvanna, Texas

Credit: Leaflet/Wikimedia Commons

A few of the milestones reached in 2016:

--15,000 new jobs, bringing the total U.S. wind-power employment to 102,000. Compare that to the 50,500 employed in coal mining at the end of 2016, down from 70,000 in 2003 to get a sense of which way the wind is blowing. And, points out Tom Kiernan, the CEO of  AWEA, since 99% of wind farms are located in rural areas, they are providing jobs and land-leasing income where they are most needed.

--Even though hydropower has been a key part of the U.S. energy system since the early 1900s, windpower edged it out in 2016, and now accounts for 5.5% of the electric power generated in the U.S.

--That's enough to power 24 million homes.

--Wind power is especially important across the midwest--both in terms of energy production and jobs. Wind accounts for between one-fifth and one-third of power production in 7 great-plains states. You can get a sense of this below:

Source: https://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2014/12/

--The wind power industry is also boosting much-needed manufacturing jobs, especially in the rust belt. More than 25,000 men and women are working in 500 U.S. factories manufacturing parts for the giant wind turbines that are harvesting wind energy more and more efficiently.

--Even without subsidies, in many areas of the United States and the rest of the world, wind power is now the cheapest way to generate electricity.

This news is another great example of how moving to a sustainable energy system as fast as possible is a win-win solution for people and the planet.

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up for email alerts and let friends know about zerospinzone.blogspot.com.

GREAT SCOT! IN MARCH, WIND POWER ALONE EXCEEDED THE NEEDS OF EVERY HOME IN SCOTLAND

While the U.S. government remains mired in climate-change denial, and hopes to boost employment by deregulating the moribund coal-mining industry, other countries are forging into the future by boosting their alternative-energy infrastructure.

One such success story is Scotland, part of the United Kingdom and home to 5.3 million people. In March, their rapidly growing wind farms generated more than 1.2 million megawatt-hours of electricity, enough to power all 2.4 million Scottish households with plenty of energy left over. At a current value of around 100 British Pounds ($123 dollars) per megawatt hour, that wind-produced, carbon-free power was worth about $150 million dollars.

Scottish windfarm

Credit: Rosser1954-English Wikipedia

It's well known that the alternative energy industry produces a lot of jobs, so it's not surprising that the wind power industry has put thousands of Scots to work, along with millions worldwide.

It's also striking how quickly a country can increase its capacity to generate alternative energy. The figures for March, 2017 in Scotland represent an 81% increase over March of 2016.

Lang Banks, the director of WWF in Scotland, summarizes:

“As well as helping to power our homes and businesses, wind power supports thousands of jobs and continues to play an important role in Scotland’s efforts to address global climate change by avoiding millions of tonnes of carbon emissions every year.”

So let me get this straight. An entire country can generate all the power it needs, at a competitive price, put a lot of people to work, maintain a very high standard of living and help protect all of us from climate disruption.  Sounds like a win-win solution to me.

At the same time, our current leader doesn't like the way wind turbines look, has put a climate-change denier, Scott Pruitt, in charge of the EPA, and another one, Rick Perry, in charge of the Department of Energy. While other countries are rapidly advancing towards what seems to be an inevitable and highly desirable clean-energy future, we seem to be retreating into a coal-and-oil fueled past.

Syncrude Aurora oil sands mine, Canada

Credit: Elias Schewel

What's wrong with this picture?

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up for email alerts and let friends know about zerospinzone.blogspot.com.