vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

10.22.2007

True colors

When it’s 70 degrees out and the leaves are at their flaming foliage peak and it’s the third week of October, it’s bound to happen.

It's bound to ignite more than one conversation about whether this is global warming or just a freak of nature, and whether this is bad or just different.

The world seems to be divided among those who say global warming is over-hyped, that nature ebbs and flows that if you Chicken-Little it too much you're going to turn people off, and those who say it is one sign that global warming is for real, that the fact that humans are sucking the earth dry is irrefutable and that it doesn’t matter one wit if it’s over-hyped because people are so reluctant to change and do anything that’s inconvenient that they need all the dire warning they can get.

Peak foliage in the third week in October? Never heard of such a thing.

Which is it, folks? Take a proverbial walk in the woods and have the conversation with your proverbial walking partner - should leaf-peepers adjust their late-September, -early-October timing for mid- to late-October? Or is this a one-year thing because of the dry summer?

Are we helping matters by turning away from carbon-emitting foreign oil to corn ethanol or will the immense amount of water that process requires cause worse problems?

Is all the talk about global warming raising awareness or turning people off? Do people argue against global warming just to be contrary or do they have some knowledge the bulk of the world is discounting?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 11:50 AM |

Comments:

The argument isn't so much about whether it's happening but how much of it is anthropomorphic. There is no consensus on that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:53 PM, October 22, 2007

Every time Jim Douglas opens his mouth, the hot air released causes another polar ice cap to melt.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:55 PM, October 22, 2007

The progressives/liberals have just released a legislative report stating that while global warming is indeed a problem elsewhere it does not exist in Vermont due to the preventative and progressive actions of Shumlin, Symington, and Co. Vermonters can thank their "progressive" taxes for this, and should stop whining and realize just how lucky they are to live in a state free of environmental hazards, such as good jobs. And don't forget to vote for Bernie!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:25 PM, October 22, 2007

On Oct 11, 1949, it was 85 degrees in VT (must be global warming) and on Nov 2, 1950 it was 75 degrees(yup global warming). but wait, on Oct 20, 1972 it was 15 degrees (must be global cooling)....hmmm

The fact is temperatures cycle up and down and records tracking those trends don't go back all that far. Perhaps it is best to try and not fight the tide on either side of the debate and just recognize our actions have some consequence to the environment and exercise due care in how we treat the world around us.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:43 PM, October 22, 2007

Nobody really knows the speed at which global climate change will occur, or how much man contributes. But it seems the balance of evidence shows man is having an impact, and that makes sense given how much fossil fuels we are burning globally.

What we should really focus on is cutting our petroleum use. There is only so much left, and if we conserve, that will also reduce any damage we are doing to the climate as a side benefit.

The world needs conservation, solar energy, and population control NOW.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:47 PM, October 22, 2007

"just recognize our actions have some consequence to the environment "

There are plenty of examples of how our actions impact micro-environments. LA smog, the Hudson, acid rain, Freon, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....

It's reasonable to think we can impact the environment as a whole.

If you are not for the global warming cause, then perhaps you are for less dependence on foreign oil from dangerous places cause.

If you are not for the less dependence on foreign oil from dangerous places cause, then perhaps you are for reducing the amount of money you spend on energy.

Anyway you cut it, the end result is the same.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:50 AM, October 23, 2007

"The world needs conservation, solar energy, and population control NOW."

I agree with the first, and think it can be done in a measured way that won't send the Vermont, U.S., and possibly world economy into a tailspin.

Solar energy just isn't a viable energy source at this point, but I agree we should invest in research to make it so.

But population control? I'm curious. How do you plan to accomplish that?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 PM, October 23, 2007

"Solar energy just isn't a viable energy source at this point"

You must live in a cave.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:05 PM, October 24, 2007

I heard that! That must be why we can't make any real progress here.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:02 PM, October 24, 2007

"You must live in a cave."

Hmm, apparently name-calling isn't only the purview of right-wingers on this blog.

Let's try backing the argument up with some facts, as so many advocates of renewable energy and global warming enthusiasts call for.

From USA Today:

"The largest solar power plant in North America will soon be providing electricity to an Air Force base in the Nevada desert ... The plant will be capable of producing 15 megawatts of power, enough to provide 30% of the electric needs on the base, where 12,000 people work and 7,215 people live, Nellis officials say."

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070418/a_solar18.art.htm

Let's see, Vermont's demand is around 1,000 megawatts. So we'd only need 67 of these puppies at $100 million each and covering 140 acres apiece to meet our little state's needs.

Of course, there's the problem of what to do when the sun doesn't shine, which it frequently doesn't with the same intensity or frequency as the Nevada desert.

But what do I know? I live in a cave, right?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:30 PM, October 24, 2007

"So we'd only need 67 of these puppies at $100 million each and covering 140 acres apiece to meet our little state's needs."

Cool. We can't get cell phone towers built because they are a disruption to our landscape. Let's build 67 of these puppies. That will fix the fossil fuel crowd.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:26 AM, October 25, 2007

"I live in a cave, right?"

Apparently. I suggest you do some research.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:56 AM, October 25, 2007

According to the US Dept. of Energy, the estimated avg. cost per kW from a new coal plant would be $1,290. The figure for wind is $1,206.

As noted, solar is not yet competitive.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:36 PM, October 25, 2007

You really do have a number for everything.

If wind is such a bargain why have we not jumped all over it in VT? We don't like coal and we don't like nuclear. Oil and gas holds us hostage to those stinking George Bush controlled energy companies.

If I wanted to build a wind farm on the mountain ridges around here what do you think the likelihood of approval would be? My guess slim to none as it would be an "eyesore".

I think I am understanding the fasination with fire wood.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:23 PM, October 25, 2007

"solar is not yet competitive."

Perhaps if you look at average or median costs per KW on the commercial scale.

Solar does in fact have its place and does compete with other grid alternatives. To say that "solar is not competive" is not the whole truth.

A proof point is the fact that PV prices do in fact fluctuate with the cost of fossil energy. The reason is that PV demand increases when fossil fuel prices increase. If in fact, solar was "not competitive", we would see this happen within the market. The reality is that we currently have. and have had for the last two years, a global shortage of PV panels. This is due to a few reasons and one of them is the competitiveness of PV with alternatives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:45 PM, October 25, 2007

typo: If in fact, solar was "not competitive", we would *not* see this happen within the market.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:47 PM, October 25, 2007

Note that the reported comparative costs per kW reflect only narrowly defined economic factors. By ignoring the "externalities" associated with fossil fuels, we disadvantage renewables.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:01 AM, October 26, 2007

"Note that the reported comparative costs per kW reflect only narrowly defined economic factors. By ignoring the "externalities" associated with fossil fuels, we disadvantage renewables."

huh?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:12 AM, October 26, 2007

"huh?"

There is no "one size fits all".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:37 AM, October 26, 2007

"The reality is that we currently have. and have had for the last two years, a global shortage of PV panels. This is due to a few reasons and one of them is the competitiveness of PV with alternatives."

That seems really curious to me. If there were an immense, unmet demand for PV panels, the market would respond by immediately shifting capital investment to producing more of them.

What are the "few reasons" you alluded to?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:37 AM, October 27, 2007

Externalities are costs not included in the retail price.

For example, if you shop at Wal-Mart, the price of goods will not include the costs of publicly funded health care for their employees (most of whom are forced to work part-time, don't get benefits, and don't earn enough to buy health insurance).

In the case of fossil fuels, the externalized costs include diminished air quality (including greenhouse gases) that we're now faced with addressing; or the cost of U.S. foreign policy (including wars) to protect the supply of oil; or the enormous environmental costs of extracting coal; or oil spills; and so on.

Renewables don't have such external costs but the "market" doesn't reward renewables or penalize fossil fuels. Economists have known about the problem for decades but there is insufficient political will to deal with the problem.

The people who advocate for taxes based on carbon content rather than income or sales make a very good point. We're taxing social "goods" (like income & profit) rather then social "bads", like pollution.

Such a tax would make it more expensive to buy products made with large energy inputs (like produce shipped thousands of miles rather than food grown locally or regionally).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:50 PM, October 27, 2007

"What are the "few reasons" you alluded to?"

The demand for panels has increased beyond what manufacturers can supply. One reason is production capacity for some plants has been reached, the other reason is that there have been shortages of refined silicon. These shortages appear to be no longer an issue and I am not aware of any recent shortage issues. To deal with the problem, PV manufacturers invested in new silicon supplies, changed their management of the supply chain, and changed manufacturing processes.

Manufacturing methods have changed to provide more volume and use less silicon per panel. Thin-film panels are now fairly common place. Mono-crystaline panels less and less common. Currently, poly-crystaline is probably the most common.

Suppliers and investors are responding to demand. It takes time for a new plant to be built and come online. Europe has invested in a new silicon refinery. BP solar has a new PV plant in the works. Suntech recently entered the US market. Suntech has bought some smaller PV panel producers and is now the worlds largest producer of panels. The REC group just barely announced plans to build a new plant in Singapore. The REC group is the worlds largest supplier of polysilicon and wafers.

It is expected that worldwide production of solar panels will double in both 2008 and in 2009.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:22 AM, October 29, 2007

Here's something that might get some folks thinking..

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/07/is-ibm-going-solar.html

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:32 AM, October 29, 2007

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/133989/ibm-recycles-silicon-for-solar-panels.html

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:02 AM, October 30, 2007

Elect John Campbell Governor and he
will really make some difference in
this area.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:18 AM, November 01, 2007