MUENCHHAUSEN, November 9, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

NOVEMBER 9, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above.

TIVOLI GARDENS

TGB has been in Copenhagen a number of years ago—last time in March 1986—but he has not been in that city’s world-famous Tivoli Gardens since 1962. The way things currently look on climate change negotiations at the forthcoming Copenhagen climate meeting, perhaps the delegates’ time might be better spent visiting the Tivoli Gardens, or are they open in December? (The Tivoli Gardens, by the way, are the second-oldest amusement park in the world, having opened for the first time August 15, 1843.) Currently, it does not look as though the US will be able to carry much weight at Copenhagen, aside from uttering some lovely words, because it does not appear that Congress will have passed a climate-change bill (for better or for worse) by mid-December.

“I cannot believe that the United States will come to Copenhagen empty-handed,” Andrzej Olechowski, former foreign minister (FM) of Poland, told TGB. “If the United States does come empty-handed, the Copenhagen [climate] negotiations would collapse. Russia cannot replace the United States in this” (1). TGB’s query: Without a climate bill passed through Congress and without President Obama’s personal appearance at Copenhagen, does the United States not come empty-handed? Currently, up to this writing, President Obama has not indicated that he would attend.)

On the other hand, Tomáš Pojar, First Deputy FM of the Czech Republic, suggested to TGB that the world climate conference in Copenhagen will be mostly talk and that little of earth-shaking significance would emerge from it (2). TGB is inclined to agree largely with Minister Pojar at this time.

Currently, prospects seem bleak for Senate passage of a climate or greenhouse gas (GHG) control bill. Republicans boycotted the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which voted approval by 11 to 1 Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) voted against the bill because of his concern that farmers would be adversely affected. One bill sponsor, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is now trying to negotiate a more bipartisan-appearing bill with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) that could expand the number of nuclear power plants to be licensed and the amount of oil drilling to be allowed off US coasts (3). Whether those negotiations will result in a bill that would be reported out to the Senate floor by the end of November is anybody’s guess; TGB’s guess is no, barring some unforeseen factor. So perhaps the US delegation that does go to Copenhagen might have more time to spend in the Tivoli Gardens, assuming that they are open in December.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, also known as COP15, is to take place between Dec. 7 and Dec. 18, 2009. Given the time of year and the weather expected in northern Europe, might not a tropical-paradise setting have been a bit more appropriate? Anyhow, a news site is available concerning COP15 (4).

THE SLOW-MOTION COUP

The United States is going through a slow-motion palace coup d’état, now with the aid of many in Congress. As Poul Anderson put it some years ago, in 1935, America was in the very early stages of transformation from republic to corporate state (5), a process which is now in its more advanced stages. This process began in earnest with the accession of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the US presidency March 4, 1933, and has continued at varying rates of speed ever since. In America, the corporate state, actually a form of fascism, will treat its citizenry, or might TGB more aptly put it, subjects, with velvet gloves. Rest assured, however, that those velvet gloves will cover fists of burnished steel.

Why does TGB bring the term “fascism” in? Don’t take his word for it: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power,” an aphorism attributed to the late Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, also known as Il Duce (6, 7). Whether he actually made that statement in so many words, and where it was said or written, has not yet been fully ascertained. Nevertheless, TGB maintains that we are seeing the development of the corporate state in the USA, perhaps not quite as harshly as Mussolini would have done it, but perhaps using the basic model.

REFERENCES:

1. Olechowski, A. Personal communication at Conference, “The United States and Central Europe: Converging or Diverging Strategic Interests?”, Washington, DC, Nov. 4, 2009; Center for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS) and The Polish Institute for International Affairs (PISM, Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych), sponsors.

2. Pojar, T. Personal communication at CSIS-PISM Conference (see Reference 1).

3. Eilperin, J. Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2009, p. A3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110502195.html?wpisrc=newsletter

4. http://en.cop15.dk/

5. Anderson, P. The Time Patrol.

6. Mussolini, B.; Gentile G. La dottrina del fascismo. Enciclopedia Italiana 1932, 847—884.

7. http://www.benitomussolini.info/pdf/the_doctrine_of_fascism.pdf

MUENCHHAUSEN, November 3, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

NOVEMBER 3, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above.

Happy Election Day!!

COPENHAGEN: TO THE WIRE!

On November 3, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, commenting on climate change before a joint session of Congress, called for immediate action: “We have no time to lose” (1). According to Eilperin’s account, many Democratic members of Congress gave Merkel a standing ovation, while most Republicans remained in their seats. Congress is still wrangling over a climate-change bill—well, a carbon emissions abatement bill, probably in the form of cap-and-trade (detractors call it cap-and-tax)—and currently seems to encounter difficulty in cobbling a bill together. Meanwhile, the Copenhagen (Denmark) conference, aimed at supplanting the Kyoto Protocol of December 1997, starts next month, to things are getting down to the wire. It is possible that the United States could come to Copenhagen empty-handed, and appear ineffectual before the world, given the stance of President Obama on this issue.

Meanwhile, a pre-Copenhagen conference is taking place in Barcelona, Spain, perhaps without accord among its attendees. For instance, African delegates boycotted the meetings until they won promises for more in-depth talks on how much so-called “rich” nations need to cut their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (2). This was the first time African nations stood together so solidly on the matter of climate change. They may have some cogent arguments. Climate scientists have warned of more intense droughts and floods, as well as a greater spread of tropical diseases. It also was noted that as of 2007, Mount Kilimanjaro (Tanzania) had about 85% of the ice that girded it in 1912.

Thus, the US finds itself under increasing pressure to take some sort of a concerted stand before the Copenhagen meeting starts. However, it currently appears that Congress will be unable to finish work on pertinent legislation before “show time”.

The Kyoto Protocol had called on 37 industrialized nations to reduce their GHG emissions by 5% below those of 1990 by 2012. Nations such as China and India were exempt. Provisions of the forthcoming Copenhagen Protocol—if there will indeed be one—would end the exemptions for China, India, and other developing countries, and likely increase the amount of GHG emission reduction that will be required by a given year, referred to a base year, both factors to be hammered out. TGB is leery of forecasting what ultimately will come out of Copenhagen; and, even if some solid goals are set, whether they will be honored more in the breach than in the observance. We will know more by Christmas Eve.

BIOFUELS: ZERO-SUM GAME?

The contributions of biofuels such as ethanol, wood chips, diesel from restaurant waste, and the like to GHG emissions may have been underestimated according to Steven Hamburg, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, who co-authored a paper on this topic in the October 22, 2009 issue of Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (3, 4). Apparently, the emissions accounting was not done well.

For example, when calculating the greenhouse-gas emissions limit, government officials in the United States, Europe and elsewhere do not count the carbon that biofuels release when they are burned. But carbon is released when a producer clears and burns trees, even to grow a crop destined for the biofuels market. Officials also established a legal system that limits emissions from energy use but not from land-use activities such as clearing forests. Bioenergy producers were quick to heap criticism on the Science paper. Tom Buis, chief executive of the ethanol trade association Growth Energy, said his group opposes a change in accounting procedures. "In truth, there's no new science in this report,” he said in a statement. “It's a policy proposal, trying to get a new standard that would limit the ability of developing countries to provide food and fuel -- and would keep our own nation addicted to imported oil” (3).

All this brings back some memories for TGB, going back to the early 1980s. Reginald (“Rex”) Arah, who had earned his PhD in analytical organic chemistry at the State University of New York at Binghamton, asked TGB to coauthor a paper on ethanol as a fuel, to be presented at a meeting on energy held in Owerri, Nigeria (Arah himself was originally from Nigeria). The general idea was that the use of ethanol would amount to a zero-sum game: The carbon emissions from the ethanol would be taken up by the growth of fast-growing plants from which the ethanol would be produced, so the carbon would be in balance. There would be no added emissions of carbon to the atmosphere, but neither would there be any reduction. TGB believes he has a copy somewhere in his maze of files; after all, he typed the final paper. TGB suggests that Muenchhausen readers consult References 3 and 4.

REFERENCES

1. Eilperin, J. Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110301925.html?hpid=topnews

2. Max, A., Associated Press, Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/03/AR2009110300195.html

3. Eilperin, J. Washington Post, Oct. 23, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102202889.html

4. Searchinger, T. D.; Hamburg, S. P. et al. Science 23 October 2009, 326: 527-528.

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

                                                             OCTOBER 18, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above.

QUI BONO?

“Qui bono?” loosely translated means “Who profits?” A gentleman now retired from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and its predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission (FPC) points out several concerns that stand to profit if the proposed cap-and-trade legislation for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions becomes law. This letter will be reproduced verbatim below:

Washington Times Oct. 9, 2009, A22

Capping and trading for profit (1)

“The Washington Times reports that three utilities and two manufacturers, Nike Inc. and Apple Inc., resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [C-of-C] because of the chamber's fight against the proposed "cap-and-trade" legislation ("Backers of climate bill quit chamber," Page 1, Tuesday [Oct 6, 2009]).

“I worked for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, for 32 years, and that experience taught me that no corporation or utility acts in the interest of the American environmental or social conscience. You can be assured that Nike, Apple and the three utilities want a cap-and-trade bill to pass the House and Senate because it will strengthen their position in the marketplace and increase their profits.

“Nike has installed energy-monitoring devices in its manufacturing plants in China and Vietnam in an effort to cut energy consumption. That's a noble effort, but even if Nike fails to cut its energy consumption, it will not be penalized by a U.S. cap-and-trade law because its energy consumption and its manufacturing take place outside U.S. borders.

“Apple is in the same boat with its overseas production. It has undertaken a program to reduce the energy consumption of its finished products, but it will not suffer any impact to its profits due to passage of a cap-and-trade bill.

  “The three utilities that want to see a cap-and-trade bill passed are PG&E of California, Exelon Corp. of Chicago and PNM Resources Inc. of New Mexico. PG&E has been heavily invested in hydroelectric generation since it came into being and has significant nuclear power generating resources; both of these will be profit boons under a cap-and-trade bill. Eighty-three percent of Exelon's electric generation resources are nuclear, which will make it a profit king under a cap-and-trade bill. PNM Resources is a 10-percent owner in the Palo Alto nuclear-generating station near Phoenix. All of these corporations have everything to gain and nothing to lose if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

“These corporations don't care one iota that cap-and-trade will greatly increase the cost of electric energy, all fossil fuels, all goods produced and all food grown or transported within the United States. They don't care because their only consideration is their increased profits under cap-and-trade.

“These corporations may talk a good game when it comes to energy conservation and environmental protection, but the motivation behind their corporate decisions is their bottom line and only their bottom line. I guarantee that Nike and Apple would rethink their positions if American consumers decided to boycott the products of all companies that are selling them down the river and supporting cap-and-trade.”

JACK DUCKWORTH

Burke [VA]

Res ipso loquitur—The thing speaks for itself.

“SHELL WILL NOT LEAVE C-OF-C”

Unlike Apple, Inc., Exelon Corp., and others, “Shell Oil will not leave the Chamber of Commerce,” Jorma Ollila, chief executive officer of Shell and of Nokia (the Finnish electronics and cellular telephone form) told attendees at a National Press Club (NPC) Oct. 15. Companies such as Apple and Exelon left the C-of-C to protest what they saw as the Chamber’s negative stance with respect to the Obama administration’s desire to pass a cap-and-trade GHG control bill by the end of this year or early next year. Ollila suggested that it is better for a company such as Shell to remain in the Chamber and work from within to change its position (2).

In any case, Ollila said that with respect to energy use and climate change, “business as usual doesn’t work any more.” He predicted that only companies that develop solutions on environment and GHG abatement will be around for the long haul. He also forecast that the world’s population will grow to 9 billion by 2050, and that 85% of this growth will be in developing countries. Moreover, by that year, about 70% of people will live in cities, up from around 30% currently. “They will need energy, clean water, food, and transportation for a better life.”

Ollila cautioned that more GHG emissions must not be allowed. The world must convert to a low-carbon (low-C) economy. But how does it get there? Ollila called for cap-and-trade as an effective first step. He also said that technology exists to abate GHG, especially including CO₂ substantially, perhaps by 50% by 2050. “We would get the most ‘bang for the buck’ by modifying buildings to make them more ‘green,’ and to build new ones from the ground up with energy conservation and environmental protection in their design.

Ollila also noted that perhaps 60% of Earth’s ecosystems are degraded. He and his companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are working closely with the World Resources Institute (WRI, Washington, DC) to meet ecosystem degradation challenges. He warned, however, that it could take 25 years to get a real handle on ecosystem issues, and meanwhile, “ecosystem stress will increase and water, forests, and biological diversity will be further degraded.”

“Business, as an innovation engine, is part of the solution,” Ollila proposed. But business needs to work with government and civil society. The first approach would be investment in low-C technology, but business cannot do that alone. It would take a great combined effort, for example, to develop carbon (CO₂) capture and storage systems, which currently are in their infancy. The second approach would be a final international negotiation and treaty on climate change.

CHINA AND INDIA COULD BALK

The world faces huge hurdles in bringing about significant GHG reduction. For example, in China, 60 new coal-fired power plants have been commissioned. China generates a huge demand for energy, even during this current economic recession. The financial cost of conversion to greener technologies in China would be horrendous. Moreover, there are many in China and India who say, “America and Europe developed industrially with no regard for environmental consequences. Who are they to go preaching to us now that they have developed and trying to slow our development down?”

Nevertheless, the UN Copenhagen (Denmark) conference aimed at drafting a protocol to replace that of Kyoto (Japan, 1997) is scheduled for Dec. 2009. Theoretically the U.S. should come to Copenhagen with a GHG abatement law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. “The Copenhagen climate summit in Dec. won’t make much of a mark. The U.S. won’t agree to any binding commitments until Congress acts on legislation tackling the problem of CO₂ emissions back home. And the chances of that happening this year are now nil. That means China and India won’t budge, either” (3). The Kiplinger Letter notes that China and India “are not about to agree to fixed targets for their GHG emissions until the U.S. is also on the line for them.” Although one might disagree with the Chinese and Indian positions on GHG abatement, one still can see where they are coming from.

REFERENCES:

1.        Washington Times Oct. 9, 2009, p. A22

2.        Ollila, J. Presentation to National Press Club, Washington, DC, Oct. 15, 2009.

3.        The Kiplinger Letter 2009, 86(41), Oct. 9, 2009, p. 4

MUENCHHAUSEN, OCTOBER 8, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

                                                              OCTOBER 8, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above.

IRONY DEPARTMENT

Irony 1. Headline: Saudis ask for aid if world cuts dependence on oil (1). This was from an online story in The Houston Chronicle, Oct. 8, 2009: Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations — demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels.

That campaign comes despite an International Energy Agency report released this week showing that OPEC revenues would still increase $23 trillion between 2008 and 2030 — a fourfold increase compared to the period from 1985 to 2007 — if countries agree to significantly slash emissions and thereby cut their use of oil. That is the limit most countries agree is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as “biased” and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.

“We are among the economically vulnerable countries,” Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

“This is very serious for us,” he continued. “We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources.”

TGB’s heart bleeds for them!

Irony2. TGB went looking for some weather snapshots with respect to global warming/climate change. One example comes from NBC in Chicago (2):

No Kidding: Snow on Sunday!

What’s worse than the snow is the below freezing temperatures that are expected to accompany it.

By ANDREW GREINER

According to Greiner, this would be the earliest October snow on record for Chicago. In 2006, the first snow there was recorded on October 12. And Chicago is not the only place to be this early. For example, TGB has some chat room friends; one in southern Idaho complained on October 6 that it was snowing very hard in her area and that she was in a car crash because of the snow. Some ski resorts in Idaho and Colorado announced early openings to take advantage of the early onset of winter in autumn. Moreover, in the Boise, ID area, schoolchildren got their first “snow day” excuse from school. Likely they will have to make it up at some unspecified future time.

Irony 3. Currently, John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Obama, is one of the foremost proponents of measures to be taken against global warming, such as the substantial abatement of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). This December, a major international meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, will deal with drafting a treaty that would oblige nations to abate GHG emissions by a certain percentage below those of a certain index year. This treaty would supplant the Kyoto Protocol of December 1997. TGB guesses that Holdren would have a major input at Copenhagen (hopefully including a nice dinner at the Royal Copenhagen Yacht Club such as one that once TGB enjoyed!).  Currently, Holdren urges the quick passage of a climate change (GHG emissions) control bill by Congress. Here’s the irony:

Back “in the day”—the 1970s, to be more specific, Holdren was on a roster of scientists then predicting the onset of a new ice age (3). Do not be surprised; TGB remembers scare headlines from those years about global cooling as current events reading. In fact, cooling could take place if the sun has no sunspots for several years or more; remember from climate history the Maunder Minimum or “mini-Ice Age” during the Renaissance years when winters in Europe and North America were very cold and summers were cool and damp. Scientists believe that this was a long period of time during which sunspots were minimal or nonexistent.

Nevertheless, current thinking is that even if Earth experiences several cooler years, the secular climatic trend is still toward human-caused dangerous warming with all sorts of dire consequences. Unfortunately for TGB, he will not be here to see if that long-term forecast is substantiated. Those of younger and future generations, please stay tuned!

REFERENCES:

1.   http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6657947.html

2.             2.   Greiner, A. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday--63751227.html

3.              3.  Corsi, J.R. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112073

MUENCHHAUSEN, September 16, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

                                                           SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above or to Green_Baron99.muenchhausen@blogger.com.

PLASTICS TO OIL?

Every so often, an entrepreneur will announce that he/she has a new way to convert trash to new materials, fuel, or whatever. One new venture is that of a company that claims to be able to convert waste plastic to oil usable to fuel trucks and even jet aircraft (1). Entrepreneur Michael Han, founder of Envion (Washington, DC) acknowledges that other firms are working on converting waste plastic (or organic material, food wastes, and the like) to fuel oil, but states that his proprietary technique can widely outdo those of his competitors. Han is to demonstrate Envion’s oil generator at a hazardous/solid waste transfer site near Derwood, MD. He claims that his system can produce 3—6 barrels of oil per ton of plastic waste, depending on the type of plastic used as feedstock. The generator he is showing in Maryland could handle perhaps 6,000 tons of plastic waste annually to produce oil at $10 a barrel (the current world price of crude petroleum stands near $70 a barrel as this is being written; one barrel of oil equals 42 gallons). Remaining material comes out as an environmentally harmless ash.

Understandably, many are skeptical about the Envion system and Han’s claims. For instance, Kert Davies of Greenpeace says that he gets calls almost every day from people who say they can convert trash to fuel or other useful commodities. Assuming, however, that the Envion system indeed can generate oil as Han claims, Davies still seems dissatisfied. He notes that people would need to generate large amounts of plastic waste, and Greenpeace would like to see the use of plastic bags, cups, and other such items stopped.

Nevertheless, TGB must acknowledge that Han put much of his own money out of pocket for his system; he did get some outside investors. His immediate goal is to construct a system that could convert 10,000 tons of waste plastic of all kinds to about 60,000 barrels of oil annually. The system was designed originally in South Korea by an uncle of Han’s. TGB wishes him luck in his venture; starting such businesses always is hard and fraught with pitfalls.

BOOSTING ENGINE EFFICIENCY

An Israeli teenager, inspired and alarmed by the automotive-generated air pollution in his country, has invented a device that can boost engine efficiency by perhaps 40%; moreover, the engine burns cleaner and sharply reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, it aims at saving engine wear and tear. The device, easily installed, already has been tested in Israel and could find initial use in a truck fleet in Canada (2).

One person wryly asked: “Will the rest of the world boycott this?” There are moves afoot in many countries (Europe and Canada, for example) for total economic, trade, cultural, and academic boycotts of Israel. Indeed, TGB once overheard one man say—TGB believes he sounded Middle Eastern—that if, for instance, Israel came up with a cure for many kinds of cancer, he would rather suffer from the disease and die rather that accept help from what he sees as the devil incarnate and thus damn his soul to Hell. TGB is not making this up; he wishes he were.

RIFT BETWEEN US AND EU ON CLIMATE?

Apparently, the US sent some climate negotiators to Geneva, Switzerland for a meeting with EU representatives, ostensibly to discuss their various positions to be presented at the Copenhagen meeting this coming December. That meeting is aimed at updating and, essentially superseding the Kyoto (Japan) Protocol of December 1997, which the US signed, but the Senate failed to ratify. Apparently, the EU people did not show up. Could this be a harbinger of how Copenhagen might turn out?

On the other hand, Congress and EPA want to impose stringent laws and regulations to make the US the world leader in GHG abatement. More on that in future postings. TGB, however, wonders what popular reaction to these laws and “regs” will be if some electric utility rates, especially for power from coal-burning plants, rises by up to 100%. Please stay tuned.

BOOK ON ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY:

Environmental Molecular Microbiology. Wen-Tso Liu Janet K. Jansson, Eds. Caister Academic Press. ISBS, Inc., 920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97213-3786, USA (for USA and Canada) or Book Systems Plus, BSP Hse, Station Road, Linton, Cambs, CB21 4NW, UK (for other countries). http://usa.caister.com or http://uk.caister.com. 250 pages, $310, hard cover.

Molecular biology has revolutionized the study of microorganisms in the environment and improved our understanding of the composition, phylogeny, and physiology of microbial communities. The current molecular toolbox encompasses a range of DNA-based technologies and new methods for the study of RNA and proteins extracted from environmental samples. Currently there is a major emphasis on the application of "omics" approaches to determine the identities and functions of microbes inhabiting different environments.

This book highlights the current state-of-the-art of environmental molecular microbiology. International experts have contributed chapters that describe the various technologies and their applications in environmental microbiology. The first half of the book focuses on the microbial diversity and phylogeny of microorganisms in the environment and describes the molecular toolbox currently available for the study of the composition and diversity of microbial communities and their functions. Topics include the use of the 16S rRNA gene as a phylogenetic marker, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microarrays, and molecular fingerprinting. The second half focuses on the application of these approaches in various environments including soil, marine water, plants, humans and wastewater treatment. The last chapter of the book discusses the genetics and environmental implications of microbial biofilms.

An essential book for advanced students, research scientists, environmental agencies and industries involved in any aspect of environmental microbiology.

REFERENCES

1.         Musgrove, M. Washington Post, Sept. 16, 2009; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503264.html?wpisrc=newsletter

2.         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Ded9eoxIM

MUENCHHAUSEN, September 2, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,

RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,

AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.

BETHESDA, MD

JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET

===============================================================

SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above or to Green_Baron99.muenchhausen@blogger.com.

EVEN THE STABLE IS GONE!

Invasive species are estimated to cost the US economy as much as $150 billion annually. Yes, you read that right. Invasive organisms of all sorts have traveled from one part of the world to the other by stowing away on ships, aircraft, altered geographic features, and even among travelers’ personal effects. One of the significant ways by which invasive aquatic species have traveled is in ballast water aboard ships carrying little or no cargo (ships need ballast to ride properly in the water). Until now, however, the US (through the Coast Guard) has set forth no regulations concerning killing invasive species in ballast water (1). True, oceangoing vessels must exchange their ballast or flush out their tanks in the open seas before entering a U.S. port, but the tanks might still contain species from distant waters.

The Coast Guard has now proposed regulations based on standards set forth by the International Maritime Organization (IMO, promulgated in 2004). Some authorities have not waited for federal rules, however, and have acted on their own. California, for instance, has ballast water cleanup regulations 1,000 as stringent as those of the IMO; New York will have similar rules going into effect in 2013. Also, some coastal and Great Lakes states have some ballast water rules on the books or being developed. The Coast Guard proposes IMO-type regulations as Phase 1, to take effect between 2014 and 2016, depending on a vessel’s size. More stringent standards of, say, the California and New York genre, might not go into effect for another five years. Understandably, environmental advocacy groups are unhappy with the current schedule, and even state regulatory authorities consider IMO standards as being too lenient (1).

Many are the aquatic species that have crossed oceans and seas in ballast water. One example is the Zebra mussel, originally from Europe that has become a bane of the Great Lakes; they have a propensity to clog power plant water intake pipes, just for openers. No doubt one can refer to Google® to find a long list of invasive species of many types that have come to America in ballast water or ships’ cargoes, and now cause many headaches. TGB also should add, in all fairness, that some were brought deliberately, some for supposed good reasons, but with then-unforeseen deleterious consequences.

The forthcoming federal and state ballast-water cleanup regulations will be welcome, but TGB has to liken them to locking the stable after the horses have been stolen. Indeed, so much time has passed that even the stable itself is gone, having become old enough to decay into the ground.

Indeed, the accidental passage of invasive species goes much further back in time. One salient example was a cargo that came into California from Asia, perhaps in 1904, that brought the chestnut blight fungus. By 1911, the fungus was widespread throughout America and almost entirely destroyed huge forests of American chestnut trees (Castanea dentata), prized worldwide for their fine nuts. There are valiant programs aimed at bringing back the American chestnut, but TGB knows of none that have had any final and lasting success.

THE SEAWAY OPENED GATES

In 1959, the St. Lawrence Seaway opened with much fanfare, and made it possible for oceangoing vessels to transit from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes, as far as Chicago, IL and Duluth, MN. In the following years, many were the invasive species that came to the Great Lakes in ballast water, ship’s cargo, or directly from the sea. It was a textbook case of serious manmade ecosystem alterations; it opened the gates .to all manner of “immigrants”.

(TGB has his own memory of St. Lawrence shipping. In August—September 1950, he was a passenger on the S/S Captain Farmakides, a freighter, from Rotterdam, The Netherlands, via Narvik, Norway, to Montreal. It being pre-Seaway times, the ship’s cargo of Swedish iron ore had to be transferred to other modes of transportation to move it to the Great Lakes steel plants.)

Before the era of the Seaway, the Great Lakes had a thriving trout fishery. The opening of the Seaway allowed the parasitic sea lamprey to invade the Great Lakes and prey on the trout, almost killing the industry. Since then, lampreys have been brought under some control, but the effort was a monumental, costly task. Then, in ballast water came Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensis), mainly from Europe (principally the Black Sea) to stop up power-plant and municipal water intake systems and to feast ravenously on Great Lakes plankton (2). Invasive fish came to beat native fish out of their food supplies, and even fish pathogens made themselves manifest. The quagga mussel appears to have ranged as far as Lake Mead on the Colorado River.

Zebra mussel: Most unwelcome "guest"

Only since 2008 have ships sailing from the ocean to the Great Lakes been required to flush their holds and ballast tanks with salt water, with the purpose of killing invasive species that thrive in fresh water. Reportedly since then, no new fresh-water invasive species have been detected in the Great Lakes, but decades of damage already have been done (2). A recently published book examines the fearsome effects that the Seaway has had on the Great Lakes area ecology and economy, and is well worth reading for in-depth knowledge of that situation (3). The author, Jeff Alexander, was a reporter for the Muskegon Chronicle for 17 years, until April 2009.

REFERENCES:

1. Lydersen, K. Washington Post, Aug. 30, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082902298.html

2. Lydersen, K. Washington Post, Aug. 31, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002333.html?wpisrc=newsletter

3. Alexander, J. Pandora's Locks: The Opening of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, 2009.

MUENCHHAUSEN, August 23, 2009

MUENCHHAUSEN

AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER ABOUT ENVIRONMENT,
RENEWABLE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY,
AND RELATED TOPICS

By BOOTSTRAP PRESS, INC.
BETHESDA, MD
JJGREENBARON(at)VERIZON.NET
===============================================================
AUGUST 23, 2009
===============================================================

WELCOME!

The Green Baron (TGB) welcomes one and all who take the time to read Muenchhausen. He aims to “tell it like it is” as much as possible, and avoid advocacy and ideological positions. There are enough of those to go around in other publications.

The Green Baron also welcomes comments from anyone who may read Muenchhausen. Please send comments to the e-mail address above or to Green_Baron99.muenchhausen@blogger.com.

EPRI AND CO2

In 1970, Congress passed a new version of the Clean Air Act, under which sources of air pollution would have to be abated. In 1972, Congress passed the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, mandating the same thing for “navigable waters” of the United States. (“Navigable waters” is interpreted to mean just about any water body, even a small landlocked pond.) In addition, it was becoming evident that petroleum shortages were looming (beginning 1973, even before the October Arab-Israeli War). With the combination of anti-pollution laws and regulations and worsening oil shortages, the electric power industry saw a need for research aimed at more efficient ways of using fossil fuel in such ways as to minimize air, water, and eventually ground pollution and contamination. Thus the Edison Electric Institute (EEI, Washington, DC) and others formed the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, Palo Alto, CA) during the early 1970s.

EPRI’s research comprises not only fuel efficiency and pollution abatement. The Institute also has been doing much work in nuclear and renewable sources of electric power. Currently, however, EPRI is faced with a new challenge: carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emission abatement. Although the combustion of all fossil fuels generates CO2, the biggest source is coal.

Accordingly, is examining various approaches to carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems, and retrofitting them to fossil fuel-burning power plants. In this case, the objective is to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. Currently, studies are being carried out at five power plants in the US and Canada (1). EPRI and 26 other utility organizations in the US, Canada, and Australia are sponsoring these CCS studies in post-combustion CO2 capture (PCC) to get out in front of possibly forthcoming laws and regulations requiring GHG emission abatement.

There are several approaches under consideration. One major project is CO2 sequestration, by which the carbon dioxide could be injected into secure underground reservoirs. More knowledge is needed about CO2 reactions, if any—there likely would be—with subterranean formations and potable aquifer waters. Another approach is capture of CO2 with chilled ammonia. Still another could involve the large-scale use of microalgae to “biofix” carbon dioxide. In addition, solvent-uptake methods are to be tested. Essentially, researchers are seeking breakthrough PCC processes; hopefully, such processes that do not “break the bank” will be found.

Muenchhausen readers might wish to visit EPRI’s Web site at www.epri.com. Much material on CO2 emission abatement and other EPRI research projects and efforts should be found there.

CLIMATE LEGISLATION? “A SOLID BET”

And EPRI probably is wise to get out in front. “Climate change legislation is a solid bet. There’s a slim chance it will squeak through this year [2009]…a much greater one that, come 2010, legislation to curb emissions of carbon dioxide will become law” (2).

The Kiplinger editors foresee CO2 abatement regulations as possibly reducing the US gross domestic product (GDP) be perhaps 2.3% by 2030. They could add 20% to electricity rates by 2020, “over and above any increases anticipated from changes in supply and demand” (2). Also, where coal is used, such as in the US Midwest and Southeast, ratepayers could find their power bills increased by 50% to as much as 100% as early as 2020. Moreover, Gasoline process could rise by $2 a gallon, in addition to any supply-demand price increases and tax hikes.

As far back as late 1973, TGB heard and read the experts and pundits saying, concerning energy, “You will pay a lot more and use a lot less.” It is taking longer than anticipated back in those years for this prediction to come true, but TGB is betting that come true, it will, inevitably, barring some technological breakthroughs that he cannot even begin to imagine.

OCEAN WARMING

The National Climatic Data Center put the average global ocean temperature at 62.6 degrees F (17 degrees C), the warmest since such record-keeping began in 1880. Beachgoers as far north as Maine enjoyed water at 72 degrees F (about 23.5 degrees C) and those at Ocean City, MD, experienced ocean temperatures as high as 88 degrees F, or about 31 degrees C (3).

Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria (Victoria, BC, Canada) reminds us that water heating is more ominous than air and land heating (3, 4). Water takes longer to heat up, but once heated cools down much more slowly than land and air. Water has a much higher heat capacity than do air, land, and soil; moreover, a basic law of chemistry and physics tells us that the warmer the water, the less capacity it has to dissolve and retain gas. That includes CO2.


REFERENCES:

1. Dillon, D. EPRI JOURNAL, Summer 2009, 7—9.
2. Kiplinger, K. The Kiplinger Letter, 86(33), Aug. 14, 2009.
3. Associated Press. Ocean Temperatures Rise to a Record. Washington Post, Aug. 21. 2009, p. A9.
4. McCallum, S. Back to the Future. UVic scientists use advanced computer models to simulate past climates—and help shape future climate change policies. http://communications.uvic.ca/edge/weaver.html.