Global Warming - Financial Investment to 2050

Rev 16 Jan 2012


How do financial institutions invest when it is known that human races are to end 2050-2099 Cristian Era (CE)?

Since European and U.S. world leaders and neo communist politicians are determined to retain national dependence upon hydrocarbon economies (coal, oil, natural gas), while ignoring the obvious ending of human races, the wisdom of any long-term investment is in considerable doubt. Over time, political global warming responses are unpredictable. There is no capable world leadership representing the need of continuing human races.  U.S. politicians and news media are locked into the 2012 CE election campaign. Since the 1990s CE, UN responses to global warming were undermined by the corruption of carbon reduction sounding schemes . There is no economic precedence for end human races institutional investments.

Without now reducing natural and human greenhouse emissions Earth’s average temperature shall soon exceed a level that is capable of sustaining human races. Without political changes, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of modern man ends 2050-2099 CE.  Global warming is the world’s greatest growing security threat.

The science of global warming is clear. Global warming greenhouse gas human hydrocarbon emissions since preindustrial 1750s (or since the 1712 Newcomen engine) have increased and accumulated.  In turn, these human hydrocarbons have resulted in increased global temperature (about 0.8 oC) and Arctic subsea permafrost destabilization.  Huge Arctic methane clathrate deposits have increased release of natural methane, which is accelerating the global warming process.  Prior to 2099 CE, even without increased natural methane emissions, human hydrocarbon emissions are projected to exceed life terminating +5 oC temperature increase.  The only thing that is certain about current financial institution investments is that the human races terminate 2050-2099 CE.                

Centres of political and financial gravity for current financial investments should guide strategic investments. Due to global warming, over time these gravity centers will fail individually or in combination until the end is complete:

- Increased negative consequences of regulation (economic)

- Major systemic financial failure (economic)

- Natural and Human Greenhouse gas emissions (environmental) increase temperature

- Global governance failure (geopolitical)

- Water supply and food resources crisis are eminent (environmental)

- Unsustainable population growth (societal) outstrip redistribution of Earth’s resources

- Critical systems failure (technological)

- Persistent extreme weather (environment)

- Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture pricing (economic)

- Increased post 2017 CE costs to reduce global warming temperature increase (economic)  

Since the 1990s CE, alternative renewable energy has been promoted as a political scheme for corruption.  None of the US$100s billions spent on renewable energy projects have REDUCED any amount of global temperature increase. Real responses to global warming have been delayed for decades. The only energy source that has the capability to save human races is nuclear energy.  However, nuclear energy has been renounced by European and U.S. neo communists and too many world leaders. In place of nuclear energy there is carbon-cap-and-trade.  

Carbon markets are part of multinational political corruption and siphoning off funding directed to environmentally friendly sounding projects. Carbon markets across the world were valued at 96 billion euros (US$122.63 billion) last year, up 4 percent on 2010. The value of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), the world's biggest carbon market, grew by 6 percent to an estimated 76 billion euros (US$97.08 billion).  Overall traded volume in so-called EU Allowances (EUAs), including options and auctions, reached around 6 billion euros (US$7.66 billion) last year, a 17-percent increase on 2010. The EU carbon market is also the biggest buyer of carbon credits issued under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which awards rich country investments in emissions-reduction claimed projects in the developing world. U.N.-issued Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) at 17.8 billion euros (US$ 22.74 billions) in 2011. The Kyoto Protocol's Joint Implementation market, which issues carbon credits to emissions-reduction projects in developed countries, saw its value grow by 40 percent to 716 million euros (US$ 914.62 million). The North American carbon market's value also declined, falling to 221 million euros (US$ 282.31 million) in 2011. The carbon markets’ shuffle of carbon credits results in huge politically connected special interest profits.  Carbon markets are the “smoking gun” of government sponsored global warming corruption.  Although the markets are huge, none of the carbon trading has resulted in any REDUCTION of global warming temperature increase.

Left Democrats “stimulated” the U.S. economy with an expensive ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009) that included over $90 billion in unproductive “climate change” alternative renewable energy investments.  However, all Congresses have funded nothing that would reduce global warming TEMPERATURE INCREASE.  Additionally in 2009 CE, although compete the Yucca Mountain project that is necessary for the U.S. clean nuclear fuel cycle was stopped by congressional left Democrat neo communists. It appears that most of ARRA stimulus funding was arranged to feed government funds to left Democrat supporters and voter districts with very little stimulus of U.S. capitalism or reduction of global warming. Congress has ignored global warming to provide for political special interests, which supports a charge of congressional gross political negligence.

The President of the United Sates must task the U.S. Secretary of Defense to provide timely global warming solutions within 2012 CE.

World leaders continue to build hydrocarbon energy plants that results in 2017 CE “infrastructure lock-in” of the global “carbon budget.” Unless there is quick identification of the emerging and future global warming threat, there is now certainty that human races survival ends 2050-2099 CE.  But there is no certainty that the global warming threat is to be soon identified with recommendations. It has been suggested that the U.S. Department of Defence identify and make global warming response recommendations.  However, this is a U.S. election year and little interest in global warming demonstrated by President Obama, or the U.S. Congress, or the media.  Perhaps in 2013 CE or later there might be some political guidance for financial institution investments in 2050-2099 CE end human life.   

After decades of dismantling nuclear energy and increasing nuclear facility costs, the time to complete significant nuclear global nuclear output-increase would exceed 10 years, which is beyond the hydrocarbon energy plants 2017 CE  “infrastructure lock-in” of the global “carbon budget.” Institutional investment in nuclear energy continues to be a risky political investment, which increases certainty of carbon budget infrastructure lock-in.
 
However, hydrocarbon investments due remain supported by many world leaders and politicians.  Investment futures within hydrocarbon energy facilities are supported with favorable regulations and a large union labor force. The investment draw back of hydrocarbon industry is that hydrocarbon investments increase global warming emissions with resultant pulling-in of human life termination-point.  With everyone dead sooner, investors in the hydrocarbon industry receive lower returns on investment.                  

When coal emissions (as it is burned 2000 CE) are considered to be 100, greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear, would be 4. Wind and hydro would also be 4-emissions. Solar is 8 and natural gas is 10-emissions. However, wind, solar, and hydro energy are significantly limited energy sources.  There are substantial releases of carbon dioxide and methane emitted during coal, oil, and natural gas production, distribution, and use. Note that methane's 20-year global warming potential is an interaction with carbon monoxide, oxidants, sulphates aerosols molecules and other chemical actions.  Dependent upon chemical composition of the atmosphere, GWP of methane is 53 to 75 and can be as high as 120 times greater than carbon dioxide (which has a GWP equal one). Methane from natural sources, coal, oil, and natural gas are significant contributors to end human races global warming. All human uses of hydrocarbon coal, oil, natural gas result in increased global warming temperature.    

"We should use nuclear power to reduce global warming"

Letter to Ed SunHerald.com

Friday, Jan. 13, 2012

Congress should move immediately to reduce or eliminate the combustion of all fossil fuels and facilitate procedures to accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants to reduce global warming.

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of earth’s atmosphere and oceans which is predicted to increase coastal flooding. In the last 100 years, earth’s average surface temperature increased by about 0.8° C (1.4° F).

Studies show that greenhouse gases (and carbon dioxide in particular) are at the top of the list of the energy sector’s environmental impacts, and the source of human-made climate change. The largest source of greenhouse gases is the coal-burning power generation industry. To address the global warming problem, it is clearly necessary to stop burning coal to generate electric power and convert to a process with less carbon dioxide emissions.

A study published in 2000 by the International Energy Agency compared emissions per kilowatt-hour for each of the major sources of energy. If coal emissions (as it is burned 2000) are considered to be 100, emissions from nuclear, wind and hydro would be 4, solar 8 and natural gas 10.  

When considering installing power generating facilities, the “footprint” or actual space or land required must be considered. For example, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant or coal burning plant takes up about a third of a square mile, a solar panel array over 50 square miles, and a 1,000-megawatt wind farm requires over 200 square miles.

Another factor to be considered is the amount of waste material produced by each type of power generation. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant converts 20 tons of fuel a year into 20 tons of waste. The same size coal plant burns 3 million tons of fuel a year and produces 7 million tons of carbon dioxide, which goes into the earth’s atmosphere.

By RICHARD WALDSMITH

Bay St. Louis

There is not much guidance for financial institution’s global warming investment. Global financial institutions and markets will just have hold back on investments until politicians decide upon the date and regulations for human life termination.

Multinational Multi-billion-Dollar Renewable Energy Fraud

By David G. Eselius


Modern economies support large populations by consuming very large amounts of energy.  In the 1990s, the Euro-U.S. leadership promoted the replacement of conventional energy (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric) with a new “renewable energy” business sector.  The new energy sector is solar (photovoltaic) and windmill electric.  Because “renewable” energy does not work, European and American investments in “renewable” energy has undermined the economic foundations of all nations.

After more than a decade of large government and private investments in constructing factories to construct “renewable” energy we find out that “renewable” energy produces at great expense only a small portion of national electrical demand.  Worse still, none of the “renewable” investments produces electricity that the national electrical distribution-net can use.

Although the technical problems with “RENEWABLE ENERGY” distribution has always been know, world leaders ignored warning advice in order to promote “green” energy business sector investments, jobs, and non functioning energy products.

Bankrupt Solyndra solar power is not the problem.  The complete solar and wind industry is the problem.  Although there are hundreds of billions of dollars of global investments and commitments, the "renewable" energy business sector is unable to do what investors though would be done.  That is, “RENEWABLE ENERGY” does not distribute generated energy.

Simply stated, through a conventional complex electrical distribution scheme, base-load electrical generation (coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric) provides energy for the variable demand load of customers.  National electrical distribution systems cannot compensate for both a viable customer demand load-follow (i.e., adjusting generator output according to demand) and at the same time compensate for the unpredictable requirements of variable supplies of solar and wind.

The world’s economies and electrical supply and distribution systems function with base-load electrical supplies accommodating variable load demands.  “RENEWABLE ENERGY” unpredictable supply electrical distribution does not work with base load demands.  “RENEWABLE ENERGY” does not work.       

“RENEWABLE ENERGY” is a political fraud of multinational energy platforms, and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment waste.  Additionally, global warming temperature increase and the factual need to produce large amounts of global clean energy has left the Euro-U.S. leadership without a valid energy policy to guide the survival of the human populations into the 21st Century.  

No wonder US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a speech to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF’s) steering body.  "Sovereign and banking stresses in Europe are the most serious risk now confronting the world economy." If you have doubt that you may not live long enough to see a return on your long-term investment, or that you will be able to live long enough to retire, why invest in the future in the first place?    

Phase-Out Carbon Energy - Phase-In Nuclear Energy

It is obvious that with a established human population of more than 9 billion people before 2050, long before 2050 the global energy use and resulting global warming greenhouse gas emission will have established the course of human race destruction 2050-2099.  The only clean energy source with enough energy capacity to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions is nuclear energy.

Global population growth in combination with industrial development will lead to a doubling of electricity consumption from 2007 level by 2030.  Besides this incremental growth, there will be a need to replace a lot of old generating stock in the USA and the EU over the same period.  An increasing shortage of fresh water calls for energy-intensive desalination plants, electric vehicles will increase overnight (base-load) demand, and in the longer-term hydrogen, production for transport purposes will need large amounts of electricity and/or high temperature heat.   

Popular sentiment focuses on renewables, but nuclear power is the only readily available large-scale alternative to fossil fuels for production of continuous, reliable supply of electricity (i.e., meeting base-load demand).  

Increasing fossil fuel prices have greatly improved the economics of nuclear power for electricity now.  Several studies show that nuclear energy is the most cost-effective of the available base-load technologies, at least when natural gas prices are high.  In addition, as carbon emission, reductions are encouraged through various forms of government incentives and emission-trading schemes, the economic benefits of nuclear power will increase further.

As the nuclear industry is moving away from small national programs towards global cooperative schemes, serial production of nuclear new plants will drive construction costs down, as China has done, and further increase the competitiveness of nuclear energy.

An enabling factor is the increasing ability of nuclear reactors to load-follow (i.e. adjusting their output according to demand), so that they are less restricted to steady base-load role.  However, in the short term this is only relevant where nuclear power supplies more than about 60% of the power.

Most reactors today are built in under five years (i.e., first concrete to first power), with four years being state of the art and three years being the aim with modular prefabrication.  Several years are required for preliminary approvals before construction.

Global Warming and Energy

There is more energy stored in Polar methane clathrate (or natural gas hydrates) than is stored in all the coal, oil, natural gas, and wood reserves.  Methane (CH4) release has taken over from carbon dioxide (CO2) release as a major greenhouse gas of global warming temperature increase.  Methane release is why long-term investments are increasingly risky investments.  If methane continues to increase its rate of emission, no one will live long enough to collect a return on his or her investment.

Polar permafrost methane clathrate stability-state decrease is primarily a function of temperature-increase and/or pressure-decrease.  Within the Arctic Ocean (and all oceans), methane clathrate stability is mostly temperature sensitive.  In order to alter clathrate stability-state, it is necessary to reduce global warming ocean and atmosphere temperatures.  Reducing global warming temperature is something Euro-U.S. politicians have never done.  

Researchers warn that the release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the Arctic shelf could trigger abrupt and rapid global warming.  When methane clathrate further destabilizes, the methane emissions would be significantly larger, resulting in increased significant north and south polar positive feedback loop warming and significant increased global warming temperature increase.

The frozen methane clathrate cap trapping billions of tonnes of methane under the cold waters of the Arctic Ocean and Arctic lakes is leaking and venting the powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, 2003-2008.

This report states, “Global feedbacks already arising from arctic climate change suggest that anything but the most ambitious constraints on greenhouse gas concentrations may not be sufficient to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system."

If you want to collect on your investments, businesses have to bend the will of “renewable” energy politicians and have them start building nuclear electrical facilities.