No Politician Will Talk About It - Global Warming Water

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world.

Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

"Water scarcity is the new global warming"

Commentary: Management is key to prosperity and survival

By Thomas Kostigen

March 30, 2012

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The global director of water stewardship for Coca-Cola Co. says that water risk isn’t imminent; it’s already manifest.

Greg Koch, who spoke at the Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City on Thursday, issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

And he wasn’t alone.

Robert Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy and the Environment says disputes or outright water wars are imminent in the near future.

Here’s why: an increasing population with needs for more energy and food is putting undue demand on the world’s water supply. So much so that by 2025 some two-thirds of the world’s population will experience some type of water shortage, according to myriad estimates.

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world, according to Usha Rao-Monari, the global head of water, global infrastructure and natural resources for the International Finance Corporation.

There are two sorts of water risks, she says: physical risk, which is not having enough water at the source, and economic risk, which is the cost of moving water around.

Both are extreme and being experienced throughout the world right now.

In terms of solutions, Rao-Monari sees three: financial, innovation, and government policy. Each of these can play a critical role in water quality and delivery.

Not long ago, climate change and carbon emissions were the environmental demons knocking at our doors. 'The Carbon Disclosure Project' (CDP) sprung up out of this threat to measure, disclosure and share information among companies. Now it’s water.

The CDP also has a growing water initiative where companies report their water policies. The CDP Water Disclosure Global Report 2011 finds that 57% of the 190 publicly listed organizations that participated in the survey report board-level oversight of water policies, strategies, or plans. By comparison, a report released by CDP in September 2011 showed that 94% of Global 500 companies report board-level oversight of climate change, suggesting that corporate understanding of water as a business concern trails that of climate change.

To enhance investor analysis of corporate water risk and to support corporate action on water stewardship, CERES, the Boston-based coalition of environmental organizations and corporations, developed a go-to water gauge. Backed by investors managing over $2 trillion in assets, the “Aqua Gauge” provides a benchmark for best practice and enables investors to assess, scorecard and compare companies on their management of water risk.

Brooke Barton, the senior manager for water and corporate programs at CERES, says “investors need to get water on their governance agenda.” This includes not only, say, how water scarcity would affect a beverage maker or food producer, but also municipalities via their bond offerings. If water rates change due to shrinking supply, rates would likely rise and bond prices, in turn, lower.

I have long been vocal about the need for water conservation, efficiency, and management. In the developing world this is especially needed. Geography plays a huge role in water accessibility.

One of the biggest opportunities for social as well as environmental impact is through water investing.

Bennett Freeman, senior vice president for sustainability research and policy for Calvert Investments, notes that China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Water is life

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. The oil, gas, and timber industries in Africa, for example, take supply away from the direct consumption needs of freshwater supply. Management will be key to growth and prosperity.

And while the U.S. experiences water shortages throughout a majority of states, there is relative access to fresh water. It’s this skill of management and technology that could be a major U.S. export. Yet, we squander much of our skills and management.

Hormats says this is wrong. The U.S. State Department is seeking to export these skills in conjunction with the private sector, he says. “There is an important opportunity for the State Department to work with private companies and help other countries purify and manage [their water],” Hormats says.

Rao-Monari says that one of the first things that should be done is to put a price on water. She is right. There needs to be an established understanding from which we can manage water. It can exact incentives and penalties — a tool for better management.

Water is both a risk and an opportunity. Tech entrepreneurs and innovators take note. Billions of dollars worth of municipal and private projects are coming down the pike (Barton at CERES mentions projects in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado). And that’s just here in America.

[NOTE: Water remains a legislated political topic. There are many prices for water that vary by water districts. What is very poorly managed by politicians are groundwater and aquifer drafting and recharge. No matter how many water projects there are, politicians and their special interests always take their cut of the action. As it now stands, too many politicians accept the 2050-2055 CE destruction of human races as cost of doing their business as usual.  --DGE]  

Without water there is no energy. Without water there is no food. Without water, in other words, there is no life. Seems like that should be enough of a risk to warrant more attention.

As Koch pointed out, this isn’t a risk happening in the future. We’re dealing with these risks now.

Many people from around the world who came to the FT Sustainable conference agreed.

Water isn’t everywhere and there isn’t always a drop to drink. We need to invest in programs that find ways to get more.

Thomas Kostigen is the author of “The Green Blue Book: The Simple Water-Savings Guide to Everything in Your Life.”

Fin

The hydrologic water cycle describes the cycles water. The current and projected potable water shortage is caused by several factors:

#   The only way to "create" large amounts of potable water is by desalination, which consumes huge amounts of energy (that must be clean nuclear energy).

#   Increased populations require more potable water to support their lives.

#   Increased gross domestic products (GDPs or increased wealth) increase water requirements.

#   Increased atmospheric global warming temperature results in increased amount of moisture suspended within the atmosphere. there is less surface water available and ground aquifers are overdrafted. With global warming there is a net surface riparian and aquifer water loss, evaporation increase, water mining increases, net ice water loss, net ocean level rise, major weather changes, and additional factors that alter the hydrologic cycle.  

#   Most large scale water investments expect to function past 2050-2055 CE. However, if global warming political responses continues the way they have since 1750 CE, it is unlikely human races exist past 2055 CE.

Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, evil politicians, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No one has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics. There are no formed plans to alter the course of global warming temperature increase.   

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Unless natural and human greenhouse gases peak by 2020 CE, in 2030-2040 CE Earth global warming temperature increase shall exceed +2.0°C limit above preindustrial average temperature. Postulated is wipe out of agriculture and cattle ranching occurs as sand dunes and dust bowls appear across five U.S. states, from Texas in the south to Montana in the north. By +3 oC major to massive dust storms sweep the U.S. Midwest. Saltwater inundation of coastal groundwater stores will expand. Groundwater/aquifer pollution such as saltwater encroachment associated with over drafting of aquifers or natural leaching from natural occurring deposits are natural sources of pollution. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry.

At +4 oC above 1750 CE preindustrial temperature, the Amazonian rain forest burns in a firestorm of catastrophic ferocity, covering South America with ash and smoke. Once the smoke clears, the interior of Brazil has become desert, and huge amounts of extra carbon have entered the atmosphere, further boosting global warming. The entire Arctic ice cap disappears in the summer months, leaving the North Pole ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Water supplies run short in California as the Sierra Nevada snow pack melts away. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry. Tens of millions displaced as the Kalahari Desert expands across southern Africa. Around +4 oC, rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic Region (like Siberia) sea and land permafrost in the melt zone, releasing vast quantities of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) producing a temperature rise. Melting ice caps and sea level rises have displace more than 100 million people, particularly in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta, and Shanghai. Heat waves and drought make much of the sub-tropics uninhabitable: large-scale migration even takes place within Europe, where deserts are growing in southern Spain, Italy, and Greece. More than half of wild species wiped out, in the worst mass extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. Agriculture collapses in Australia. Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes result in the Amazon drying up. With temperature increase, more moisture is present in the air, more surface water evaporation, and more aquifer over drafting occurs. There is a resulting large transfer of potable aquifer water (and surface water) to oceans and atmosphere.  


Catastrophic global warming events are suffering from coordinated benign neglect and political/media misdirection. The main media continues to be active in deceiving humanity as to the peril and catastrophic events of global warming leading up to sure 2050-2099 CE demise of human races, most likely 2050-2055 CE.   

Before investing in environmental projects understand some of the basic physics involved with your investment.  You can always change your investment portfolio, but you cannot change the laws of physics, GDPs, aquifer over drafting, riparian hypoxia, ice melt, rates of global temperature increase, nor population growth.   

Global Warming NUCLEAR (Part 1) 1990 to 2011 Decline of Global Clean Nuclear Energy

Rev 01 Jan 2012

Without now reducing natural and human greenhouse emissions Earth’s average temperature shall exceed a level that is capable of sustaining human races. Without political change, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of modern man ends 2050-2099.

The stress of increased populations, increased energy use, and resulting increased temperatures is evident.  Human factors can not change to accommodate necessary global warming temperature increase.  The only temperature forcing effect that could make a difference is to expanded nuclear energy, as a replacement for coal, oil, and natural gas energy. “Renewable” energy has inadequate capacity, is unmanageable and is ineffective on the larger scale.   

The greatest obstacles to maintaining an Earth temperature level that can sustain human life is the continuation of persistent anti-Vietnam-War and anti-nuclear politics.  There are most certainly other global warming problems, but anti-nuclear politics is among the largest manageable obstacle.

This Blogger website provides the only documents that present an overall true image of global warming temperature increase and the politics that is obstructing solutions, PASS THIS WEBSITE ALONG.  Please discuss with others and the news media as to their views on global warming temperature increase.  The liberal media has stake in maintaining the proper image of left liberal Democrats while the conservative media is only starting to explore global warming.  Ask your local politicians as to their opinions concerning global warming.  Without help from news media, politicians, and public, too soon global warming temperature becomes committed to being unlivable.  

It is only through increased public awareness that politicians will change the course of global warming.  If there is no U.S. and German Energy Policy of 2012 that supports global warming temperature reduction, than Earth’s humans no longer exist 2050-2099.  

There is no public plan to reduce global warming greenhouse gas that causes global warming temperature increase. Large industrialized nations within the EU and U.S. have removed more than 20% of their clean nuclear energies from national inventories in order to promote “renewable” energy and shut down of nuclear industries.  That act shall destroy human races prior to 2099.  

Nuclear Energy is the Only Energy Source That Has Necessary Clean Energy Capacity Capable of Reducing Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Nuclear energy has TENS OF THOUSANDS of person-years of very safe services with a proven capacity and sufficient base-load electricity.  As of October 2011, there are 14,640 reactor-years of worldwide experience in producing civil nuclear power.  There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.  One was contained without harm to anyone (Three Mile Island), the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment (Chernobyl), and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity (Fukushima).  These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,640 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.  The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.  Nuclear power plants are very robust.  When compared to the damages done by coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy is very safe and a superior energy source.  
 
Nuclear energy is low cost clean energy competition to “green, alternative, and renewable” energy.  Therefore, to maintain their political monopoly over energy sectors and ongoing global warming corruption, EU-US anti-nuclear neo-communists eliminated and delayed construction of national nuclear energy sectors.  U.S. anti nuclear protests seeks leadership power and acknowledgment.  Government anti nuclear obstacles has resulted in few new constructed nuclear facilities for more than three decades.  President Obama de-funded the Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository to continue the forced shutdown of the U.S. nuclear energy sector.  U.S. nuclear energy sector provides more than 20% of U.S. firm energy.  Obama also controls the politics of the powerful U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members’ regulations and rulings.

U.S. President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel elimination of national nuclear energy was to remove the nuclear competitor to their nation’s “green energy” renewables and permit continued corruption.  Without nuclear energy, global warming greenhouse gas emission-thresholds greatly exceed interglacial “norms,” resulting in 2050-2099 human races destruction.   

Dream the impossible.  German environmentalists cheered at Germany's shutdown of its nuclear energy sector, apparently satisfied that the government will be able to scale up renewable energy sources and scale back electricity demand enough to compensate for the loss of the power plants, which produce a quarter of the nation’s electricity.  Reference: IEA "Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker" 30 May 2011 LINK: http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959   

The Washington Post (June 2011) describes Germany's announcement to close all nuclear reactors by 2022 as a “panicked overreaction,” noting that “Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table.”  Germany until March 2011 obtained more than one quarter (28%) of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors.  The country's operating nuclear power reactors, comprising 15% of installed capacity, 133 billion kWh net in 2010.

The German Green Party traces its origins to the student protest movement of the 1960s, the environmentalist movement of the 1970s, and the peace movement of the early 1980s.  The focus of the environmentalist protests are anti nuclear power.   The green Party movement is at German labor, businesses, and politicians, all of whom have enthusiastically endorsed nuclear use, particularly after the sharp rise in oil prices in 1973.  Green Party of Germany in 1998 to 2005 formed a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD).  In 2009 Christian Democratic Union party shares power with the pro-business Free Democrats.  The new SPD-Free Democrats government in 2009 cancelled German nuclear phase-out, nuclear phase-in was on the table again.  Troubles at nuclear plants in Japan triggered by an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 buoyed Green Party numbers at the polls in German state elections later that month.  Greens claimed their first state government as the senior partners in a coalition with the SPD.  In 2011, the SPD-Green Party again implemented nuclear phase-out.  In June 2011, a nuclear exit by 2022 became German law.  With the ‘Nuclear Exit Law’ (or ‘Atomic-Exit Law’), Chancellor Merkel and her SPD-Green Party put into place the ending of all German reliance on nuclear energy. Germany's plan to shut all its nuclear power plants by 2022 will add up to 40 million tones of carbon dioxide emissions annually as the country turns to fossil fuels.  There are no carbon dioxide emission estimates for the U.S. phase-out of nuclear facilities.    

German think tank ‘Breakthrough Institute’ points out that “renewables” would have to generate an incredible/impossible 42.4% of German’s electricity in 2020 to compensate for displace nuclear.  Large German costs have occurred due to phase-out of nuclear energy and introduction of “renewable” energy.  Public opinion in Germany remains ambivalent and at present does not support building new nuclear plants.   

Switzerland has five nuclear reactors generating 40% of its electricity.  A national vote had confirmed nuclear energy as part of Switzerland's electricity mix.  However, in June 2011 parliament resolved not to replace any reactors, and hence to phase out nuclear power by 2034.  In the 1960s, it was evident that Swiss power demand would exceed the potential for supply from hydro sources, so utilities proposed building coal- and oil-fired plants.  However, environmental groups and others strenuously opposed coal- and oil-fired plants based on compromising the hitherto clean power generation, so the government encouraged the utilities to plan for nuclear power.  A ten-year moratorium on new nuclear plant construction occurred during a national referendum in 1990.  Then in a unique 2003, Swiss voters firmly rejected two anti-nuclear proposals.  November 2010, the Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate drew up definitive appraisals for the Swiss Federal Office of Energy saying that three sites are suitable for building new reactors.  Following a decision by cabinet not to replace the country's nuclear power plants, the national Council on 7 June 2011 voted to endorse nuclear energy until 2034.  The team of international nuclear safety experts 02 Dec 2011 completed a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review of the regulatory framework for nuclear safety in Switzerland. The Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission noted good practices in the Swiss system and also made recommendations for the nation's nuclear regulatory authority, the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI).  A new government taking office December 2011 is to produce a new energy policy on nuclear power by 2013 and submit it to parliament.  Until then the future of nuclear power remains uncertain.

If China wants to reach the heights of US gross domestic product (GDP), it must generate much more electricity than is currently produced.  This is a massive challenge for everyone working in China’s electricity-generation sector.  China's electric energy increase needs to come from nuclear energy.  A one-gigawatt nuclear-power plant needs only 20 to 30 tonnes of fuel a year.  However, a coal plant of the same generating capacity (one-GW) burns two to three million tonnes of coal annually – about 100 train-car loads worth a day.  That coal plant produces 200,000 tonnes of coal ash waste a year, as well as releasing into the atmosphere large quantities of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates, causing increased global warming and acid rain and ocean acidification.  The contribution of nuclear power to greenhouse-gas emissions, meanwhile, is very small: UN Environment Programme figures from 2000 estimate total emissions of carbon-dioxide equivalent for nuclear power are around 39 grams per kilowatt-hour.  China will never meet its economic goals by using renewable energy.  As a real need vs. benefits, renewable energy is insignificant and counter productive.  

By claiming that nuclear “waste” disposal remains a problem, the anti nuclear neo communists continue justifying their self-generated nuclear waste problem. There have been no verifiable nuclear “waste” problems identified. The U.S. nuclear energy sector needs more long-term nuclear repositories.  Only anti-nuclear, communists, and self-serving politicians have problems with geologic nuclear repositories.  President Obama refuses to release the funds and authorizations necessary to complete opening the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository.  German’s Green Party also has a geologic repository that they refuse to permit completion.

Without Germany and U.S. participation the human races no longer continues to exist this century.  International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on May 2011 that global energy-related carbon emissions last year were the highest ever, and that the world is far off track if it wants to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, after which the results could be very dangerous.  

Autocratic U.S. White House has control over news media reporting and controls liberal media maintains stakes in left Democrat points of view.  When discussing energy or global warming, U.S. and European news media no longer identify the topics.  More than 20% of U.S. and German energy sector no longer exists within Obama’s nation and within Germany. Resulting from news media complacency, Obama-Merkel anti-nuclear political partnership has assured that surviving the coming global warming catastrophe has moved from “slim chance” to “no chance” of survival.

The first four Chinese AP1000 reactors build are from modules fabricated adjacent to each site.  The timeline is 50 months (4.2 years) from first concrete to fuel loading, and then six months to grid connection, with first costs expected to reduce significantly for the following units.  The cost of the first four built is expected to be less than $2000/kW of rated capacity and reducing to $1600/kW for further units.  Contrasting Chinese construction cost examples of U.S. nuclear units undergoing the permit process that include other charges are estimated at around $8,000 to $10,000/kW of rated capacity and an additional financing charges and project contingencies, at $5,335/kW.  American huge costs in the nuclear industry result from political overhead.  

To lift people from poverty, the energy supply problem must provide renewable nuclear power or hydroelectric power.  Hydroelectric power is site limited and expensive to build. Nuclear power is still unnecessarily expensive.  Wind and solar power (both with batteries) and solar cookers are good alternative energy sources for rural poor locations. If Obama and Merkel carry on with “green energy” renewables, there will be completely catastrophic increases in energy prices while global warming temperature continues to increase.  

Go to Blogger POLITICS 2/4  

Global Warming POLITICS (Part 2) U.S. Renewable Energy Fraud

Rev 01 Jan 2012

Understanding special interest maneuvering within the seventeen sessions of the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) talks, there must first be acceptance that the talks (and all further talks) will fail to reduce global warming temperature increase.  We are in fact looking at the continued collapse of human races resulting from increased populations, excessive use of hydrocarbon fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas), accelerating increases of atmospheric methane, with exceptional high corruption within governments and in subsidized “renewable energy,” “carbon-cap-and trade,” and wealth transfer schemes to “poor” national leaders.

Carbon-intensive infrastructure, including power stations, buildings, and factories, planned over the next five years will lock the world into a high-emissions trajectory (“business as usual”).  If emissions do not plateau by 2020 and rapidly decline thereafter, the 2 degree C target will slip out of reach.  The consequences of exceeding global warming tripping points are very severe. Small groups of life not destroyed 2050-2099 shall be quickly destroyed in 2100 plus.  

December 2011, regarding the failure of 2009 Copenhagen COP15 conference environmentalist Joss Garman wrote: "...In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity's greatest scientific minds.  And what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived."

President Obama's determination to redirect billions in foreign aid dollars to "climate change" programs to promote “green economies” around the world contrasts dramatically with his domestic drive for cosmetic green jobs. Obama says he wants to use U.S. taxpayer subsidies to fund job creation in environmental industries, but overseas, Obama’s plan seems to mean limiting economic growth and imposing “green welfare” on developing economies. A global ideological effort is at play to impose a radical climate social agenda on the developing world at the behest of left Democrat “green” environmentalist groups. Obama’s White House as stated in December 12, 2011, that "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) also included over $90 billion in clean energy investments."   None of President Obama's planning or funding involves addressing global warming temperature increase. None of Obama’s invested $90 billion has or will produce any reduction in greenhouse gases or reduction in global warming temperature.    

Most of the important global warming negotiators are no more than mouthpieces for self-serving “world leaders” who have greater interests in maintaining corruption of many US$100s billions while satisfying carbon economies special interests.  These “world leaders” do not care that their families, as well as all other families will perish 2050-2099.  Thanks to the abysmal and unforgivable failures over 20-years of the world’s leadership, the throwing under the buss of nine billion people shall happen in order to continue feeding the needs of “world leaders” drive for corruption and continuing global warming special interest of US$100s billions per year.  It is not that the professional global warming negotiators at all seventeen Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings do not know of the connections between global warming, death of human race 2050-2099, corruption, and their untoward world leader bosses, negotiators know connections and what their job is.  The problem with negotiators is that world leader bosses require allegiance to who is boss.  Negotiators do what the boss tells them to do.  Global politics has expanded corruption to become global evil. Ask God to save us because no world leader politician shall.  Self-serving politicians are the global warming problem and they are not part of the solution.    
  
For more than two decades, the Left Democrat’s political funding and management of “renewable” energy has promoted greed, fraud, lies, waste, and global warming destruction.  The sole function of the 2009-2010 Congress was to advance neo communism.  The joining of EU-US neo-communist leadership and effective control of most energy has assured global warming destruction of the human races 2050-2099.  

Within the text of global warming sciences, it is not always clear as to what “carbon” level is.  Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) global warming atmospheric gases are part of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2-eq) levels. When computing atmospheric global warming, both methane and carbon dioxide levels are taken into consideration as “carbon” (along with other important factors).  The “carbon (C) level” is not part of the global warming potential (GWP) equation.  However, carbon (C) in different areas of global warming temperature increase is an important factor.   
 
Caused by excessive human carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 Christian Era (CE) and resulting methane emissions - Earth's Modern Global Warming is similar to End-Permian Mass Extinction (252.28 Ma).  A major difference between Moder Global Warming temperature increase and End-Permian is that current temperature increase during the beginning stages is about 10 times faster than the End-Permian Mass Extinction.    

Historical Earth’s natural interglacial temperature cycles resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) levels are of interests.  Of great influence to “natural warming cycles” is the well understood Milankovitch Cycle changes of the sun’s global warming strength.

“Natural” earth temperature ~100,000-year interglacial cycles are no longer occurring.  Resulting from human activity since 1750 CE, global warming greenhouse gases have increased very-dramatically.  The curve of global warming gas increase is a “hockey stick curve.”  Current ice-core methane content is well above the normal Milankovitch Earth orbital variation interglacial temperature cycle.  Since pre industrial times, the concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased significantly.  The greenhouse gas increased above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%.  The 1750 CE greenhouse concentrations levels were historic interglacial carbon dioxide peak levels of ~280 ppm and interglacial methane peak levels of ~700 ppb.  Present concentrations levels are carbon dioxide (~390 ppm) and methane (~1,850 ppb).  

Methane clathrate (or methane hydrates) results from millions of years of natural leaking oil and natural gas deposits and coal fields with aerobic bacteria degradation of organic compounds in low oxygen environments under reduced temperature and increased pressure.  Methane clathrate can initiate a positive carbon/methane feedback cycle and resulting “methane clathrate gun effect.”  The clathrate gun is the popular name given to the hypothesis that rises in sea temperatures can trigger the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in cold seabed and permafrost.  Because methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, methane leads to further regional and global temperature rise and further methane clathrate destabilization.  Methane (CH4) (about 85% of natural gas) is about 105 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (GHG) over a 20-year period and taking aerosol impacts into account.  In effect, initiating a methane clathrate gun runaway process is irreversible once started, as is the firing of a gun.  When the methane clathrate gun triggers, Earth’s temperature quickly rises tens of degrees.  The Arctic/Antarctic methane clathrate gun is one of several MAJOR global warming “trip points.”

Ultimately, the latest scientific understanding of climate change allied with current emissions trends and a commitment to limiting average global temperature increases to below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels demands a radical re-framing of both the global warming agenda, and the economic characterization of contemporary carbon based economic society.  Up until now, national politicians and world leaders have critically delayed responses to global warming temperature increase.

The most distinctive nature of global warming temperature increase is that human races are to die 2050-2099 unless global economies soon shift to carbon neutral economies.  The only global energy that has the energy capacity to save human races is a swift buildup of nuclear energy that replaces carbon energies coal, oil, and natural gas.      

Until U.S. politicians accept the fact that global warming is their responsibility, there is no saving of human races 2050-2099.   

U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992 - There are many Congressional ‘energy acts’ and legislated bills.  Presented are three major energy acts of 1992, 2005, and 2009.  Since the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992 under President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Democrat Congress, the U.S. left Democrats addressed energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy management (Title I), natural gas imports and exports (Title II), alternative fuels and requiring certain fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles, which are capable of operating on non-petroleum fuels (Title III-V), electric motor vehicles (Title VI), radioactive waste (Title VIII), coal power and clean coal (Title XIII), renewable energy (Title XII), and other issues. It reformed the Public Utility Holding Company Act and amended parts of the Federal Power Act of 1935 (Title VII).

Title III of the 1992 Energy Policy Act addresses “alternative fuels” (ethanol, propane, and electricity, in cars and light trucks).  It gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light duty alternative fuel vehicles acquired in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993.  Major amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 are the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the later American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.  

Corn ethanolethanol was the political substitute for gasoline oxygenate blending compounds such as MTBE or ETBE.  Corn ethanol is an expensive destructive agriculture product affecting all consumers and taxpayers, whose political usefulness is destroying the environment, food sources, waterways, depletes the Ogallala Aquifer reserves, produces hypoxia in water ways, destroys marine life in the Gulf of Mexico, increases cost of goods, uses coal, and degrades gasoline power equipment.  In 2005, Congress passed Energy Policy Act (2005), which mandated the incorporation of 7 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into the American fuel supply.  With the Energy Policy Act of 2007, Congress passed legislation to require by 2022, an additional 21 billion gallons a year of ethanol, or other biofuels.  Current U.S. renewable fuels policies are artificially manipulating corn prices and putting a heavy strain on global corn supplies.  With enactment of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (2009), the left Democrats are “requiring retail electricity suppliers” to burn corn-ethanol in electrical power plants and provide carbon “cap-and-trade credits” for destroying the U.S. environment and economy. U.S. corn ethanol is made by extracting sugar from corn, an energy-intensive process. In 2010, the U.S. corn ethanol to feed cars industry will consume about 41 percent of the U.S. corn crop, or 15 percent of the global corn crop.

U.S. National Energy Plan 2000 to 2011 - The only U.S. energy plan promoted since the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to create “alternative renewable energy” while phasing out the much superior nuclear energy sources.  President Obama, left Democrat congressional leadership, and crony special interests define the U.S. national energy plan. High-handed regulation, best exemplified by Obama’s failed cap-and-trade legislation, promptly followed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) trying to impose the same conventional-energy-killing agenda by administrative means.  The only purpose of these programs is to increase the cost of U.S. energy and increase profits of coal, oil, and natural gas producers.   

To date, the Obama and congressional left Democrat energy plan is to increase the cost of energy, stop domestic offshore oil drilling, stop Gulf of Mexico oil drilling, stop the Keystone north-south oil pipeline, build expensive capacity-limited “renewable energy,” expand required use of  “alternative energy” ethanol, phase out of U.S. nuclear energy by closing down Yucca Mountain geologic repository, strangle the nuclear energy sector with Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) anti nuclear regulations, give to China highly valuable Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor technology, and give to China U.S. Argonne National Laboratory developed advanced  DOE’s Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) that promised safe nuclear power unlimited by fuel supplies.  Obama and left Democrat leadership has sold out the future of young adults (under 30 years of age) by left Democrats hugely profitable politics of crony energy corruption.  

The politics of the U.S. national energy policy is driven by multinational greed factors.  No doubt Obama and the left Democrat leadership are self serving.  Their only interest in national energy is gains of political power and special interest momentary gains. Those who gains the most from left Democrat energy policies is China who most certainly gained vital nuclear energy technology in exchange for loaning money to debtor nation U.S.  Domestically, Obama gained support of coal miner unions and national coal, oil, and natural gas producers who profit by passing along cost increases and keeping multinational carbon energy production as is. German coal industry and coal unions gained the most. Politics of the UN’s seventeen “climate change” talks is designed to continue increasing production of multinational carbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while increasing the risk of all human races 2050-2099 demise.  

Kyoto Protocol created carbon trading mechanisms such as the EU's ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) saw a big business of political corruption warm to global warming. Politically connected carbon players saw their expanded role with every European carbon unit of European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) “validated” by UNFCCC.  One EU Allowance Unit of one tonne of carbon dioxide, or "EUA," was designed to be identical ("fungible") with the equivalent "Assigned Amount Unit" (AAU) of carbon dioxide defined under Kyoto Protocol.  EU ETS and UNFCCC created a vast artificial market trading in a artificial paper "carbon cap and trade" product to access billions of dollars of multinational government funding and increased utility costs that was expand the corrupt "alternative renewable energy" product.  In 2006, California's AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) created a similar to EU ETS carbon cap and trade paper trading schema.  Latter, President Obama’s global warming response was to turn AB 32 into a U.S. national program.  Only two years ago the EU ETS and UNFCCC trading scheme of global warming corruption was predicted to be the biggest legitimate commodity and industrial market in the world.  

Politics of the UN’s “climate change” talks is designed to continue increasing production of multinational carbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while passing on increased energy corruption costs with increasing risk of all human races 2050-2099 demise.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a bill passed by U.S. 109th Congress Republicans and Democrats on July 29, 2005.  The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing (undefined) energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the 2005 bill estimated the ‘Energy Policy Act’ would “increase direct spending” by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 periods and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 periods.  In addition, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would “reduce revenues” by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 periods and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 periods.  Energy Policy Act total direct and indirect costs are $24 billion (2.2 +1.6 +7.9 +12.3 = 24).  The CBO noted that the bill could have “additional effects on discretionary spending,” but did not attempt to estimate those effects.  The gold standard of measurement for any congressional bill is the estimations of “increase direct spending,” “reduce revenues” and “additional effects on discretionary spending.” In Congressional bills, an "authorization" of a discretionary program is a permission to spend money, while an "appropriation" is the actual decision to spend it.   

Some provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are:

● increases mixed amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) with gasoline sold per year in the United States to 4 billion US gallons (15,000,000 m3) by 2006, 6.1 billion US gallons (23,000,000 m3) by 2009, and 7.5 billion US gallons (28,000,000 m3) by 2012.  Two years later, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 extended the target to 36 billion US gallons (136.3 million liters) of ethanol per year (140,000,000 m3) by 2022.  It is cheaper and better for Earth if Congress eliminated ethanol and instead returned to using the 1990s MTBE gasoline blend.  In order to avoid the problem cased by the political required use of ethanol, switch back to allowing gasoline-blenders to use again use methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).  Stopping politicians from depending upon the subsidizing corn ethanol would be a start to global warming problem solving.  

● seeks to increase coal as an energy source while also reducing air pollution, through authorizing $200 million annually for clean coal initiatives, repealing the current 160-acre (0.65 km2) cap on coal leases, allowing the advanced payment of royalties from coalmines, and requiring an assessment of coal resources on federal lands that are not national parks.  Expanding U.S. coal industry is a political commitment to union mine workers.  

● authorizes subsidies for wind and other alternative energy producers

● authorizes $50 million annually over the life of the law for biomass grants (more ethanol)

● includes provisions aimed at making geothermal energy more competitive with fossil fuels in generating electricity

Major amendments to ‘Energy Policy Act’ of 2005 are the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ of 2009.  

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 - The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 abbreviated ARRA and passed by President Obama and left Democrat House and Senate, is commonly referred to as the ‘Stimulus’ or ‘The Recovery Act’ is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.  The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.  Keynesian Theory does not produce products.  An economic theory that considered increasing national economy through production of products would be a ‘theory of capitalist materialism.’  Marxist theory rejects capitalist materialism while Keynesian Economic Theory only redistributes existing income and increases Federal Debt. Obama’s White House as stated in December 12, 2011, that "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) also included over $90 billion in clean energy investments."        

There is no accounting for state level spending of ‘Stimulus’ monies.  A huge amount of ‘Stimulus’ funding within government department accounts can be “interdepartmental loaned” to other government departments for use by left Democrat neo-communist special interest projects.  President Obama is the regulator and controller of all Federal Government funds. Few will ever learn details of how and where the Obama administration has distributed government funds. The identified “renewable” energy portion is only $48.7 billion of the $787 billion ‘Stimulus’ bill.  It is the 2009-2010 Keynesian macroeconomic theory and the anti capitalism political response to the housing mortgage crash that started in midyear 2007 that has brought down the U.S. economy, not the Mideast wars.   

The Neo-Communist Democrat Congress funded ARRA of 2009 a total of $48.7 billion for “Efficiency” and “Renewable Energy” ($27.2 billion) AND “Infrastructure” ($21.5 billion).  If ARRA measured estimations of “increase direct spending,” “reduce revenues” and “additional effects on discretionary spending,” the 2009 renewable energy direct and indirect costs would be well over $400 billion.  Not much of that $400 billion produces any clean energy.  The lack of clean energy return on government investments is a huge long-term political mistake.    

U.S. neo-communists funded $48.7 billion into useless green energy while U.S. strategic need for National Labs scientific research only received $204 million.  Out of fear that science education funding removes funds from social education, U.S. neo-communists have underfunded for decades basic and advanced sciences in our universities, colleges, and U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) National Laboratories and Technology Centers.      

Left Democrat Neo-Communists have disdain for sciences and engineering.  The Democrat’s communist agenda freely uses other people’s money unhindered by facts or logic.  For left Democrat politicians the funding of school sciences and hard sciences is unnecessary.  U.S. left Democrat Neo-Communists continued ignorance of science and hard studies is leading to the decline of goals for American education.  America has no science or education future while neo-communists are in political offices.       

Renewable Energy Funding/Efficiency and Infrastructure

Costs of the U.S. "green" programs are huge.  There are no Keynesian macroeconomic benefits, national economic benefits, or reduction of global warming temperature after more than two decades of billions of dollars of “green energy” investments.  There been any Congressional "authorization" or "appropriation" in any bill for funding reduction of global warming temperature increase.  Left Democrat neo-Communist energy are FRAUDS of “loans,” “grants,” and “investments” into green "renewable" energy technology.  Significant parts of the final.  Left Democrat Neo-Communists are using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA 2009) over the years to buy left Democrat base-voter support.  It takes a huge amount of taxpayer funding and debt to satisfy this Democrat neo-Communist political base.

President Obama and other neo-communists have invested in a social program called “energy.”  All of the U.S. energy policies that remain support left Democrat neo-communist political objectives.  There are no objectives to reduce global warming greenhouse gases.   

President Obama’s goal is for the DOE is to generate 80% of our U.S. electricity from “renewable” energy by 2035 is more impossible than Germany “renewables” generating an incredible/impossible 42.4% of the country’s electricity in 2020.  These are impossible political goals.  By 2030-2040, global warming temperature exceeds 2oC above preindustrial temperatures.   

ARRA 2009, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research and Investment - NOTE: All of the technologies below are old technologies that are in limited use or have been previously proposed and rejected over the past 100 years.  If there were any greater technologies here, capitalism would already be using the technology and making it better while making a profit.  There is no science, engineering principals, or common sense applied to the government funding of the proposed “renewable” technologies.  The Congressional neo-communists are using taxpayer energy funds to buy votes for the 2012 election.  More defrauding of ARRA renewable energy funds will occur.  Each portion of the ARRA bill has “increased direct-spending,” “reduce revenues” and “additional effects on discretionary spending.”  Not identified are reduced revenues and discretionary spending effects.   

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research - Total: $27.2 billion

● $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees for solar, wind, and “smart national grid.”  The Department of Energy (DoE) is now building an unproven $10s billions “smart grid” North American Synchrophasor Initiative (NASPI) for Obama’s green energy project.  (Note: The DoE Synchrophasor Initiative is part of “liberal” schizophrenia renewable politics, which is a complex political mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences.)  -  Install capacity and investment payback for solar and wind is extremely limited. It is doubtful that existing wind and solar farms function near capacity.   

● $5 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes is a Jobs Program.

● $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research.  Carbon sequestration is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing carbon from fuel supplies (or from stack gas).  Carbon dioxide cannot be storage deep underground.  There is a significant risk that captured carbon dioxide leaks out destroying life above by CO2 poising as the carbon dioxide surfaces to the atmosphere.  On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, Lake Nyos, Congo, suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.  Today, the lake also poses a threat due to its weakening natural wall.  A geological tremor could cause this natural dike to give way, allowing water to rush into downstream villages all the way into Nigeria and allowing much carbon dioxide to escape.  There are no known acceptable “safe” long-term storage containers for captured carbon dioxide.  Unless the U.S. National Labs resolve long-term carbon storage-containment problem is resolved, there is no reason to invest billions into carbon capture.  However, in spite of lacking long-term carbon storage, the DoE in February 2009 designated $3.4 billion for carbon capture, transportation, and storage (CCS) programs.  Funding was broken down into three major sources; $1.52 billion for a competitive bidding for industrial CCS projects, $800 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), and $1billion for political Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) FutureGen large-scale integrated system.  CCS is an intense process of spending a lot of money quickly that will produce few long-term energy or global warming benefits.  The DoE has badly managed the billions spent on the CCS program.  Unless DoE solves the CCS long-term storage problem, no amount of carbon capture benefits global warming greenhouse gas reduction.  -  Carbon capture is high risk with a low expensive return that can be deadly.    

● $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants are ways to distribute government funds without fiduciary accountability.  -  There is little accountability for “grant” funds.  .  

● $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.  State energy programs and efficiency are too often distributing government funds without fiduciary accountability.  -  Laws of physics govern “efficiency,” not politicians.   

● $2 billion funding for manufacturing of advanced car battery-traction systems and components.  A traction control system (TCS) is typically (but not necessarily) a secondary function of the anti-lock braking system (ABS) on production motor vehicles, designed to prevent loss of traction of driven road wheels.  Typically, traction control systems share the electro-hydraulic brake actuator (but does not use the conventional master cylinder and servo), and wheel speed sensors with the anti-lock braking system.  TCS design is complicated but the government investing $2 billion in this safety project is unprecedented.  -  Provisions should be make to make the “safety” features available to all automotive manufactures.   

● $800 million funding for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects is more wasteful ethanol funding.  The required ethanol has been previously mandated and expanded by Congress and with 36 billion US gallons per year of ethanol by the ‘Energy Policy Act’ of 2005.  – Since the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992, corn-ethanol has grown to produce significant environmental damage and produce higher energy costs.    

● $602 million is to support the use of energy efficient technologies in buildings and within industry.  -  Unless Congress passes energy efficiency building efficiencies code laws, the $602 million produces no product.   

● $602 million $602 million is to support the use of energy efficient technologies in buildings and within industry.  -  Unless Congress passes energy efficiency building efficiencies code laws, the $602 million produces no product.    

● $400 million funding for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) is not justified.  Using existing technology cost of megawatt of Neal Hot Springs, geothermal electrical output is two to three times more than natural gas electricity rates.  Apparently, Neal Hot Springs builds with government funds a small geothermal electrical plant than sells the electricity at a high profit margin to a conventional utility company that has to buy the electricity from the private/DoE arrangement. Site thermodynamics limits energy retrieved from geothermal sites.  Neal Hot Springs project backing is questionable.  

● $400 million funding for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) is not justified.  Using existing technology cost of megawatt of Neal Hot Springs, geothermal electrical output is two to three times more than natural gas electricity rates.  Apparently, Neal Hot Springs builds with government funds a small geothermal electrical plant than sells the electricity at a high profit margin to a conventional utility company that has to buy the electricity from the private/DoE arrangement.  Site thermodynamics limits energy retrieved from geothermal sites.  -  Neal Hot Springs project backing is questionable.  

● $300 million for energy efficient appliance rebates is like cash for clunkers program but does provide reduced energy returns.  

● $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles provides a customer base for energy efficient vehicles.      

● $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA) provides a customer base for electric vehicles.  

● $250 million to increase energy efficiency in low-income housing provides low-income housing cost effective energy use reduction.

● $204 million is insignificant funding for research and testing facilities at National Laboratories.  It appears that President Obama AND University of California (UC) Berkeley Secretary of Energy, Dr. Chu is phasing out the U.S. DoE National Laboratories and Technology Centers.  Since inception, University of California (UC) Regents ineptly managed the labs at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory CA and Los Alamos National Lab, NM U.S. National Labs and Technology.  These extremely important national labs did suffer under long-term malaise administration by California “liberal” UC Regents.  The U.S. National Labs were once the best energy R&D laboratories in the world.  President Obama AND Secretary of Energy, Dr. Chu place science information third, after the neo-communists’ “renewable” programs and dismantling the U.S nuclear energy sector.  Under President Obama, the neo-communists and anti nuclear movement, the American science, technology, and U.S. National Labs are going downhill along with other U.S. science education within our schools, colleges, and universities.  The Republican disdain of funding science and national R&D is not far behind that of President Obama.   

● $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects appears to be one of many DoE North American Synchrophasor Initiative (NASPI) projects.  -  Since the funding is so small, it is most likely earmarked PORK BARREL funding.      

● $115 million is part of billions of dollars to develop and deploy solar power technologies in the solar panel industry.  This $115 million could be PORK BARREL earmark funding.  Solyndra is a bankrupt $535-million solar panel manufacturer.  There will be more government failed “green energy” businesses in the “renewable” industry.  -  The only customer for green renewable energy is government subsides.    

● $110 million is for the development of high efficiency vehicles.  -  Is PORK BARREL earmarked funding.

● $42 million is in support of new deployments of (hydrogen) fuel cell technology does address a need to develop a capitalist market sector.  Although it is a small amount of funding, the funding is a moving in the correct R&D direction.  However, the majority of fuel cell manufacturing jobs are in Asia, as the supply chain accrues around a number of manufacturing centers in China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Unless R&D protection, patent protection, and profitable capitalist business plans are in pace, the U.S. will again quickly loose advanced technology and production to offshore companies.  

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE - Total: $21.5 billion

● $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites) IF “NUCLEAR WEAPONS CLEANUP” WAS EVER NEEDED IT IS NOW NO LONGER NEEDED – This $6 billion useless spending is anti nuclear corruption and payoffs to PORK BARREL political special interests.   

● 4.5 billion to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) as outlined in the legislation.  These funds are “an investment in a nationwide plan to modernize the electric grid, enhance security of U.S. energy infrastructure, and ensure reliable electricity delivery to meet growing demand and build Europe-U.S. smart national grid.” - The "smart national grid” does not work for "renewable" energy.  

The OE is a new private/government Regional Entity responsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection.  Western Interconnection Synchrophasor Program (WISP or aka DoE NASPI project) includes Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and involves 18 partners.  THE SYNCHROPHASOR “SMART GRID” APPLICATION FOR CONNECTING RENEWABLE SOLAR AND WIND FARMS TO CONVENTIONAL BASE LOAD GRIDS HAS NEVER WORKED WITH LARGE SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY FARMS.  

If the “smart grid” system does not work in the first place, politicians should not fund more billions of dollars to build it bigger.  If politicians just want to build electrical transmission lines to coalfields and new coal fired electrical generators they should not lie about it.  

● $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA) is many billions spent on reducing building heat loss. Spending billions on heat loss becomes a question as to what is the energy cost return on investment and what is the return on reducing global warming greenhouse gases?  - Is the billions spent reasonably justified?    

● $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for power transmission system “smart grid” DoE SYNCHROPHASOR upgrades is PORK BARREL FUNDING.  WAPA appears to be a private/government funding administrator of federal funds for political projects.  WAPA markets and delivers hydroelectric power and related services within a 15-state region of the central and western U.S.  It is one of four energy/water marketing administrations within the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and its energy-producing partners.  Each energy and water project maintains separate financial system and records.  California politicians use private/government construction contracts and funding-administrators to funnel political kickbacks and fraud.  Follow up government audits of the use of private funding administrators is non-existent.  Fraud, abuses, and kickbacks are huge within some government departments as is standard with PORK BARREL funding.  - Audits resulting in criminal charges for political wrongdoing do not exist for government departments.

Hoover Dam generates, on average, about 4 billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric power each year for use in Nevada, Arizona, and California.  This is enough to serve electrical needs for 1.3 million people and Los Vegas energy needs.  Hover Dam’s Lake Mead is the largest reservoir in the United States and is a water source for nearly 25 million people. For the last 100, years U.S. energy used national by high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) for national electric transmission lines.  Now a Department of Energy (DoE) press release identifies that the TransWest Express (TWE) Transmission Project was listed as one of seven ("smart grid") projects that will serve as a pilot accelerating Federal permitting process across Federal lands to build over 1,000s of miles of high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines. The ‘TransWest Express Transmission Project’ is an ultra-high-voltage direct current (UHVDC) electric transmission system. TWE UHVDC Project is to transfer energy produced by COAL of Wyoming to the "renewable" SOLAR energy Desert Southwest region (Arizona, California, and Nevada).  The general route will begin in south-central Wyoming, extend through northwestern Colorado and central Utah, and end near Las Vegas (from Rawlins WY to Las Vegas NV - 725 miles).  Under development since 2005 (Energy Policy Act of 2005), the transmission line is to begin construction in 2013.  As designed for Las Vegas NV growing electrical demands, the TWE UHVDC Project is to augment Hover Dam decreasing hydroelectric supplies with increased Rawlins WY coal generated electricity.  The neo communist Congressional Democrats do not respond to the increasing threats of global warming temperature increase.  

How, when, and where HVAC and HVDC is used depends upon specific technical application needs.  For political reasons President Obama and left Democrats are building 1,000s of miles of HVDC (or UHDC) transmission line to satisfy an overall “renewable” energy plan.  

Nothing about “renewable” energy works as people wish it would. Since 1992 the wishfully thinking left Democrats have been building, “renewable” dreams of creating energy and defying laws of physics. Lacking batteries to store “renewable” energy, the only proposed way to add Midwest solar/wind farms and south-central Wyoming COAL generated electricity to the national electric grid is by transmitting long distances energy over HVDC or UHVDC distribution.  Noted is that there is not yet a solution to the problem of large variable renewable energy supplies causing voltage/current swings that can take down the nation’s entire electric grid.  Converting national distribution from HVAC to HVDC to add sun and solar energy to the national electric grid is going to be VERY expensive if not impossible, even if the concept of DoE SYNCHROPHASOR should happen to work.  If Los Vegas needs more energy, I suggest they get it from new nuclear electrical energy facilities built along the West Coast with access to seawater cooling.  Nuclear energy is less expensive and safer to build than “renewable” energy farms or coal/gas fired electrical plants.

When WAPA electrical power runs low (as in the current 10-year drought conditions), WAPA would need to secure power from other regions to supply power to their 15 state contract customers. WAPA contracts expiring in September 30, 2017 is a very important national economic and energy event. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Los Vegas uses about one quarter (23%) firm electrical energy generated by Hoover Dam.  Current costs for Hoover Dam electricity (and water) consumed is according to 1930s pricing, which is well under current market value.  WAPA contracts expire September 30, 2017.  Congressional legislation for WAPA electricity pricing is now under political review.  New Hoover Dam Congressional legislation and post WAPA September 30, 2017 contract terms must reflect current and increasing market values for energy and water. What happens to the surplus revenue above costs from government provided energy and water must now be decide.  Remember, with increasing populations, increased energy use, and increased temperatures there are decreasing potable surface and ground water stored reserves and decreased available hydroelectric power.  

Because of decreasing water resources, additional dams and surface storage capacity need construction for increasing hydroelectric demands for clean energy, municipal water use, and agriculture water irrigation.  New conjunctive water management systems may (or may not) require increased surface water storage capacity for surface water transfers into long-term groundwater storage. Demand for fresh water is exceeding water supply in California and Midwest and many other parts of the world. How local agencies long-term manage water resources must change.  Conjunctive water management is a strategy recognizing the interconnection between groundwater and surface water and has broad water management and hydrological implications.  Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a water resources management technique for actively storing water underground during wet periods for recovery when needed, usually during dry periods. The period of aquifer water storage can range from months to decades.    Conjunctive use is a combination of management practices intended to make the best use of surface water during wet periods and ground water during dry periods, but does not necessarily imply the active water storage activities used in ASR.  Artificial recharge (AR) actively moves water from the surface into ground water systems. AR is the storage part of aquifer storage and recovery. More than 100 ASR facilities are in operation worldwide. Many states (Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas to name a few) have ASR sites ranging from pilot projects to full operations. Global warming is going to alter weather patterns and decrease surface water resources. Groundwater over drafting is increasing.  Aquifer storage and recovery programs require expansion.  Reference: USGS "Aquifer Storage and Recovery" (ASR) http://ca.water.usgs.gov/misc/asr/  Matching clean nuclear energy power facilities for viable energy hungry desalination facilities also needs to be a requirement of new and old desalination facilities.    

To assure future base-load electrical energy availability for Los Vegas and others, President Obama and Senator Harry Reid need to complete construction of the Yucca Mountain geologic repository and restart the U.S. nuclear energy sector.  Obama/Reid must fund many aquifer storage and recovery programs.    

● $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for power transmission system (smart SYNCHROPHASOR western grid) “smart grid” upgrades is PORK BARREL FUNDING.  Congress created BPA in 1937 to deliver and sell the power from Bonneville Dam, Oregon.  About one-third of the power consumed in the Pacific Northwest comes through BPA.  BPA provides transmission to direct service industries and public and private utilities.  BPA is another private/government funding administrator of federal funds. NOTE: Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) are political run semi-government units operating in competition with private/public energy generators.  

 Other notable private/government administrators are home loan agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Electrical administrators WAPA, BPA, WECC have $17 billion to implement the left Europe-U.S neo communist’s “smart western SYNCHROPHASOR grid” that has not worked as required up to now.  “Renewable” energy continues to be a political fraud. Instead of funding billions for the “smart western SYNCHROPHASOR grid,” the left Democrat neo communists need to restart the U.S. nuclear electrical energy generation.    

The basic technical problem with SYNCHROPHASOR and “smart grid” is solar and wind electrical generators are indefinable and unpredictable electrical suppliers.  Solar and wind power output comes-and-goes and shifts unpredictably from region-to-region.  These shifting power supply sources transmit eclectic energy via long high voltage transmission lines to base-load electrical generators and energy using customers.  Base-load generators are large machines operating on nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, oil, or natural gas that does not take well to either rapidly changing customer load requirements or electrical transmissions from some wind turbines that suddenly stops generating electricity.  Power generating utility companies have 10,000s of person-year base-load experience handling customer power-requirement changes.  However, no one knows how to manage shifts in power supplied by 1,000s of solar panels and wind turbine farm energy and over long distances.  The problems with attaching indefinable wind and solar to base-load electrical generation and customers is tied up in the laws of electrical physics and time. One can no more change electrical physical laws than change the laws of gravity.  Funding “renewable” solar, wind, and “smart western SYNCHROPHASOR national grid” does not work and making “renewable” energy bigger is not improving a bad situation.  “Smart grid” and SYNCHROPHASOR constructed for “renewable” energy do not now have necessary solutions to the electrical laws of physics and time.  Big and small EU-US “smart grids” do not work. The Obama/Chu Department of Energy (DoE) is now building an unproven $10s billion “smart grid” North American Synchrophasor Initiative (NASPI) for the left Democrats’ green energy project.  U.S. President Obama and German Chancellor Merkel have acted upon the similar energy policies: phase out nuclear energy, promote sun and wind "renewable" energy, and both leaders are developing expensive German Siemens Ultra-HVDC SYNCHROPHASOR systems that most likely will never work adequately with non base-load electrical sources.    

Government’s subsidized energy pricing structure undermines private capitalism.  This has not been an issue before.  However, there now is a neo-communist political energy monopoly that is anti-capitalism.  The U.S. neo communists have a policy and funding to nationalize U.S. energy sectors and undermine the capitalism energy sector.   

Government smart grids and energy efficacy investments have been ARRA funded $41.852 billion.  There is no resulting reduction in global warming temperature increase.

Renewable energy goes to the pockets of political special interests and collects votes for neo-communists who have been milking EU-US economies dry.  U.S. Neo-Communists have no interests at all in reducing global warming temperature increase.  President Obama and neo-communist anti-capitalism policies cause waste, economic decline, greed, fraud, and lies.

Most 2009 ARRA funds are spent.  It would take an act of Congress to stop spending money on the “renewable energy” political waste.  Perhaps in 2013 we will have a cost vs. benefit Congress that understands the value of money. To make maters worse, President Obama and left Democrat leadership have linked European and American neo-communist movements.  Resulting is that there is little hope that EU-US politicians will respond in time to save human races from complete destruction by global warming temperature increase.  Chances for our children living to an old age are decreasing unless global warming temperature increase politics soon changes.  

In 1992, the German Green Party came to power after decades of flower power and anti nuclear street protests.  U.S. left Democrats passed the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992.  The spread of Communism within Europe is a systemic occurrence. Also in 1992, UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (aka, ‘Earth Summit’) that formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The spread of Communism within the U.S. originates from Vietnam War protesters becoming politicians and universities/colleges providing departments to teach communist-activism.  U.S. communist oriented students in the tens of thousands are in support of an EU-US communist revolution.  Over the course of three or four decades, the communist movement built its presence in politics and anti nuclear movements.   

The U.S. ‘Energy Policy Act’ of 1992 established the shift from an energy policy contained expansion of nuclear energy to neo-communist politics that closes down nuclear energy and regulates corrupt “renewable.”  If the U.S. nuclear energy expands, the U.S. would have huge amounts of stored excess energy.  Instead of assuring necessary energy supplies for national and global economies, the U.S. neo-communists, working with EU neo-communists has turned critical energy sectors into social welfare programs. It took from 1992 until 2006 for the EU Commission to follow U.S. Democrat Neo-Communist “renewable” energy politics.  Before 2006, Senator Obama had established himself as de facto leadership of the EU-US neo communism movement.  Germany also followed the U.S. left Democrat lead in abolishing clean nuclear energy and nuclear geologic repositories.     

In 2006, the EU Commission established the future European (and U.S.) energy policy with the publication of a ‘Green Paper.’  The European Commission, following a consultation process, on 10 January 2007, published the decision to develop a common “green” energy policy.  First proposal, “Energy for a Changing World” (Texts adopted 17 December 2008 - Strasbourg).    

On 14 February 2007, the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution demanding that the key proposal cut carbon emissions by 20%.  The proposals were approved at a later meeting of the European Council on 8/9 March 2007.  The package was to reduce the EU's dependency on imported fuels and set the pace of “a new global industrial revolution.”  The EU neo-communists positioned Europe’s whole economy to rely upon unproven energy sources that have never worked properly under required growing energy demands.  The increase in EU-US carbon emissions as well as EU national doomed economies is a product of neo-communist policy failures.  

It is customary for communist politicians’ social transformations to ignore science, economics, and facts.  Communist politicians are social reformers who ram their legislation without providing verifiable justifications.  Communists’ words sound great, but communists’ systems have never worked.  Making proper energy decisions without sciences, engineering, or capitalist economic principals is unachievable and very costly.    

Since there is no political accountability for funds spent, to date, the U.S. and EU’s energy and climate change 'package' remains a costly unjustified failure while the global warming temperature keeps increasing.  Nuclear energy is the only energy source that has the clean energy capacity capable of reducing human and some natural greenhouse gas emissions.

However, Germany and the U.S. have anti nuclear fanatics while corruption is profitable.  The EU Commission chose to take an "agnostic" stance regarding faith-based anti-nuclear radical ant nuclear element.  The EU left it up to member states to decide the future of nuclear energy.

In January 2010, the European Union approved an energy tax-plan to “fight” climate change, at an average cost of three euros a week for every citizen of the 27-nation bloc, the president of the European Commission said at the launch of the project. Where is the accounting for EU energy tax monies collected?  Does the “three euros a week” reduce any global warming temperature increase or is the three euros per week another EU general tax increase?  Perhaps the EU energy tax is another transfer of income scheme.  

Under existing EU-US global warming politics, there is an assured global mass suicide by global warming temperature increase 2050-2099.   

Go to Blogger PHYSICS 3/4