Obama Ally: EPA Finding Will Boost Cap & Trade

I think we have some bitter medicine to swallow to comply with capping greenhouse emissions. However, I’m never one for the doom and gloom that our economy will be in tatters because of this (on the other hand, the economy is already in the toilet).
I’m not sure how the energy demands of the country will be met with these caps – who wants a nuclear plant in their backyard? Then again, if there’s a money incentive then I’m sure some enterprising person will figure it out. Seemed there was a lot of opposition to banning CFCs in the 1990′s but science figured out an alternative.

Boxer is out of touch with Senate moderates. There is no will to get caps in place.
http://www.political-buzz.com

And you fools wonder why the “tea parties”? This idiocy is why. We are sick of the government cooking up schemes to take more money from us and for regulating us. Global warming!! what a pop culture hoax.!!

The taxation and spending of the money of the hard-working people of America for unproven theories. That’s what the Democrat party stands for.

Science Chief Discusses Climate Strategy
Obama Adviser Hints at Compromise on Cap-and-Trade Emission Allowances By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 9, 2009; Page A02
Terrible, terrible, terrible; two special interest groups dividing “a big loaf of our bread”; increased Govt revenue and Industry investment $s for free to them (“pass through to Consumers”), Point is consumers pay big time see below max efficiency alternative! 1st specific article comments:
“…..a move that would please electric utilities and manufacturers…..” Why wouldn’t they be pleased, they would get a “cut”!
“…. having to pay for all the allowances at first would drive up energy costs too quickly.” Concern for consumers, I think not; I believe who bankrolls the necessary investment of this “scheme” of more interest to them; and who takes title to investment facilities, i.e., the industry or the investors (consumers)?
“Carol M. Browner, has convened regular meetings with roughly a dozen key administration officials to develop national energy and climate policy.” The fact they are having meetings a distraction from “ are they moving toward reducing CO2 at minimum cost to consumers while preserving or improving Nation’s lifestyle. Clearly not, see below comparison!
“……said giving utilities free allowances would be less efficient than rebating the revenue from auctions directly to taxpayers.” Sounds like “money redistribution”!
Question: just lack of competence or worse?
To: all 3/10/09
From: : Francis W. Jackson – BSME 1952 (Northeastern Univ.), MME 1957 (U of Del.), 50+ years experience (36 with GE), PE in PA&formally Ohio; 110 Summit Ave Hatboro, PA 19040; Tel 215 672 3805; frnjks@juno.com; If anyone interested in more specifics, just ask; and I am prepared to testify in Congress under oath as to my information.
SUBJECT: House Democrats Plan to Introduce Greenhouse-Gas Bill By Juliet Eilperin WashPost web post 3/30/09
1st specific article comments:
‘…..that aims to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020….” Aim poor, i.e., C&T greatly misses mark. Greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions, by my analyses, with very expensive C&T up 3 % over 2005 level. How can EPA be so far off: 1. they emit then excuse (i.e., do not count) about 30 % where monies are paid to others that claim to be not polluting this amount, called offsets. Worse yet 15 % of offsets attributable to overseas therefore money leaving our economy and increasing our foreign exchange deficit, 2. appears only fossil fuel CO2 counted, i.e., not all CO2, e.g., renewable wood burning adds CO2 to atmosphere; distinction of when sequestered millions of years ago fossil fuel and sequestered in previous century seems moot, if adding CO2 it has to be counted, 3. not all emitters are in “covered” group.
“…. an energy-efficiency-resource standard that would reduce electricity demand by 15 percent by 2020.” True plan calls for, not clear how this will come about and more importantly 15 % inadequate and we can do much better, try 50%.
“By 2050, the bill would cut national greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent compared to 2005 levels.” Only at great cost in $s and lifestyle, is this what we really want to do, especially when far better options exist – see maximize efficiency below predictions!
“….Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act …. The money would be raised through assessing fees on retail electricity suppliers.” Public pays; if it’s taken from you it’s gone; doesn’t matter how it’s gone.
Maximizing the efficiency with which we convert energy resources into lifestyle the way to go; see below comparison to a Govt Cap&Trade – Max Eff far more CO2 reduction at much less cost than inadequate CO2 reductions&expensive Cap&Trade projections.
DC “salivating” (very expensive but with a “cut” for Govt) over “Cap and Trade”. And I’ve been looking at assessments by EPA&NAM/ACCF and my own “Maximize efficiency: attack oil&Kwhrs&corn Ethanol “folly”&other demands with Max. Efficiency (converting resources to lifestyle)” and my information is as follows:
As EPA projects to 2025&NAM/ACCF projects to 2030 and limited data presented after 2030, I settled at 2025 as the place to compare; albeit, it gets far more painful to achieve after 2025 much tighter CO2 caps. Some variations in projections can be explained by differing assumptions, i.e., different assumptions compute different answers. Here are some significant assumptions I have identified for year 2025 and the 2025 results I computed:
Assumptions——————— FWJ 2025 Predictions($s 2008)——-
2025 Kwhr 2025 2025—————————————
Nuke Demand Carbon $/MT MMT $T US $T US oil
Mwhr vs 2025 Tax reduced CO2 Energy Oil mbd
Capacity Reference $/MT retail shortfall demand
EPA +48 % -13 % 50 287 5652 2.21(32.49) 0.86 23.0
NAM/ACCF
Low cost +25 % -9 % 95 566 6056 2.33 0.86 23.0
High cost +10 % -13 % 110 432 5868 2.28 0.86 23.0
“Max. Eff.” +100 % -60 % N/A -141 2346 1.03(22.80) 0.09 13.1
2025 NAM C&T MMT target 4389
2025 Reference (business as usual) 6800 2.17 0.69 23.0
note: $T US retail energy costs 1st number is for 2025, number in parentheses is
cumulative.
Bus as Usual BMT CO2
C&T Targ C&T Target BMT CO2 BMT CO2 EPA C&T BMT CO2
Max. Eff. BMT CO2
EPA C&T $T Retail
Max. Eff. $T Retail
EPA C&T USOilShortfall$T
Max. Eff. USOilShortfall $T
EPA assumes a 48 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 13 % from reference and I fixed oil at $75 ( EPA used $50) per barrel; I calc 5652 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US retail energy cost of 2.21 $Trillion. Very expensive and short of 4389 MMT target that has to be made up with purchased off-sets of 1263 MMTons. Big problem not addressed enough here is oil; it‘s demand remains high therefore considerable MMTs from oil continues; and at continued high price per barrel (big cost item). Also some of the MMT reductions assumed require sequestering CO2, an expensive technology still in it’s infancy, i.e., considerable cost and risk.
NAM/ACCF Low Cost assumes a 25 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 9 % and again oil fixed at $75 (NAM/ACCF used $57) per barrel; I calc 6056 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 2.33 $Trillion. Again very expensive and short of CO2 target and has to be made up with purchased off-sets; and CO2 results comparable to EPA CO2 results. And again, big problem for MMT&cost is oil and CO2 sequestering.
NAM/ACCF High Cost assumes a 10 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 13 % and again oil fixed at $75 (NAM/ACCF used $93) per barrel; I calc 5868 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 2.28 $Trillion. Again, very expensive and short of CO2 target. And again big problem for both MMT&cost is oil with the added cost of less Nuclear capacity, the lowest cost least CO2 available method to generate electricity 24/7; and MMT that has to be made up at more expensive and/or higher MMT ways.
“With a Max. Efficiency”, aggressively attack oil&Kwhrs&corn ethanol “folly”&other demand: I assume a 100 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 60 % from reference, terminating corn ethanol subsidies&mandates and oil at $75 per barrel in 2009 and due to reduced demand dropping off to $40 in 2025. I calc 2346 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US retail energy cost of 1.03 $Trillion. MMT target met with margin, i.e., no off-sets required, and at 1.14 $Trillion per year saved (and over half a $T/year less for US Oil Shortfall) in 2025 vs. reference; and over a $Trillion per year (and over half $Trillion for US Oil Shortfall) saved each year thereafter. I.e., as the “screw” is tightened to get to 2050 MMT target, the cost will increase substantially for “cap & trade”. While I indicate in the table carbon Tax not applicable (N/A) there is an investment in efficiency at (my estimate) 200 (half for oil and half for all other energy demands; preferably paid for via taxes: gas tax, taxes per Kwhr, etc. ) $Billion per year fazed in over next 4 years ; however cost drops from EPA Cap&Trade cost of 2.12 $Trillion to 1.03 $T (1.18$T cost includes Max. Eff. investment while reducing MMT from reference 5652 MMT to 2346 MMT, i.e., MMT reduced 3302 ), or get paid 141 $s for each 2025 MetricTon (MT) reduced from reference; net cost delta per MT of “Max. Efficiency” from EPA equals 428 (-141 to +287) $s less/MT reduced from reference!
And my cumulative predictions (2009-2025) of “Max. Efficiency” as compared to EPA projections is: 40,512 less MMTCO2, 10.45 $T less retail energy expenditure and 8.42 $T less for US Oil Shortfall (includes ethanol cost to offset oil imports, processing of US Oil Shortfall and carbon tax on imported oil); or cost of US Oil Shortfall to consumers, max eff saves (vs EPA C&T) 8.21 $T; very substantial economic&environmental “burden” reduction; we need to unburden the economy to make it prosper, e.g., Maximize Efficiency!!!!!
I firmly believe a Govt run fully funded mandate is way to go; with right people in charge whose mission is to have the energy products we need&desire available at least cost (financially, environmental and lifestyle) to Nation, citizens and world. Letting a number of “bottom liners” whose approach I believe is: minimize their investment, minimize their risk, earliest return and maximize their profits will accomplish what they are driven toward; and we will pay dearly (money, environment and lifestyle).
We need Govt to objectively and fully evaluate (& inform) all viable possibilities with Nation&citizens investment required and return on said investment. “Cap&Trade” appears to me to be promoted by special interests and appears to be only Govt option presented as alternative to business-as-usual scenario!!
Note: While I expect my above MMT predictions to compare well relatively with EPA&NAM/ACCF data there were instances where I felt adjustments were required; e.g., Actuals should be identical yet NAM/ACCF plots show 2005 Kwhrs at 3750 Billion while EPA shows 4067 an 8 % difference (I used EPA KwHrs also for NAM/ACCF calc); EPA benchmarks oil at 2005 ($ 50/barrel) and shows a very minor (less than 1 % per year) growth in price due to Carbon tax, i.e., Carbon tax having virtually no substantial impact on oil demand from baseline; NAM/ACCF Baseline shows total energy cost up 0.1 $T from 2005 to 2008, yet we know crude oil was up well over $50 a barrel or cost of crude alone up a half $T from 2005 to 2008! Given this obvious variance with escalating oil costs and having considerable info on oil, I decided to use my oil demand info at $ 75 a barrel crude for EPA&NAM/ACCF oil expenditures and oil MMT. Oil is a particularly important area as my calculations indicate in 2008 oil contributes 50 % of energy MMTCO2 and 60 % of the total US energy expenditure; and in my EPA 2025 estimates oil contributes 61 % of energy MMTCO2 and 65% of the total US energy expenditure; yet EPA&NAM/ACCF documents talk mostly about electricity; we have to deal with oil MMTCO2&demand&cost and reduce all with a Max. Efficiency, e.g., as per my “Max. Efficiency” predictions in above table!!! Demand is the key, significant demand reduction could significantly reduce both CO2 MMTs and cost, otherwise energy costs will continue to grow and “real” MMT targets very difficult and probably not possible, at an affordable cost, to achieve!
Detroit’s misguided business policies are a major part of the energy problem. Detroit needs to be forcefully informed – not one cent until they are ASAP part of the solution (80+ mpg for affordable to consumers purchase cost, e.g., under $ 20,000) with no residual parts of the problem!
I have no question an acceptable lifestyle 80+ mpg “doable” , but the under 20K a far more difficult challenge’ However I do believe under 20K to purchaser practical by reviewing all current requirements, burdens and Govt subsidies; and by Govt paying for subsidies by “scooping up” costs reduced ( terminate corn ethanol mandates&subsidies, buy ethanol from Brazil with no import tax, vehicle emissions testing reduced to only when necessary&costeffective, increased gas tax to “scoop up” some of the much higher mpg saved fuel costs, increased Govt revenue from economic activity stimulated by higher sales volume, evaluate worth of all vehicle features, etc.) Now the 80+mpg: there are many things that can ,and are not being done (and some that are, not to the fullest extent), Some known for several years (some since I was in school); so why has industry resisted – because they add to mfg cost and increased product cost results in reduced volume, this is why Govt subsidy is surest way keeps the sale price to consumers down so volume will be up. Don’t like Govt subsidies, neither do I, but I dislike not getting this job done far more!
Nat. Acad. Sci. info published in 2002 and again published in NHTSA SUV 2005 PRIA, so the info has been available within Govt and Industry for a decade. NHTSA document discuses 27 specific items to improve mpg ranging from 1 % to 30 % individually. What document does not do is “what if I did them all, or almost all?” So I used this NHTSA data and computed for all but hybriding a 50 % mpg increase for under $2K and by adding the hybriding a little over 100% mpg increase for under $6K.
NESCCAF 2004 published document covers much the same items and combines them in different packages that come close to my calculations cited in paragraph above, or for without hybriding a 50 % mpg increase for under $2K and by adding the hybriding a little over 100% mpg increase for under $6K.
MIT in 2000 published slightly better mpg improvements for less cost; or “B” design 50% more mpg for $800, “A” design 75% more mpg for $2,200 and “A” hybrid 155% more mpg for $3,900. MIT did not show a “B” hybrid but by manipulating the MIT numbers I estimate a “B” hybrid at 125 % more mpg for $2,500.
So pretty clear many conclude over double achievable; for a price!
Yet there is more not covered in these documents, albeit NESCCAF discuses A/C, impact can be reduced, which I agree with except I believe there are more thing that can be done that minimize A/C’s impact then NESCCAF covers. I also found very little in the above to substantially increase engine efficiency nor use traffic controls to get the most per gallon. Including all these other items and I conclude another doubling is a distinct possibility; and some of these are more cost-effective than some of the above documents items. So, I firmly believe a 4X mpg possible for a few to several $K per vehicle; but given the cost of oil greatly improved efficiency very cost-effective and we need to do it ASAP!
Additional comments on article points:
“..utility companies conduct energy audits and educate public…” Utilities will watch and try to improve their bottom lines, i.e., not the public’s if it impacts theirs. Govt needs to do audit and educate with Public’s bottom line the most important. Look at the utility promoted program to pay industries to curtail operations to reduce demand at high demand times. Sure it might avoid additional investment $s but reduces industrial output, pays to not add energy to the supply and at demand not stressing supply times demand is still up vs maximizing efficiency so demand is down at all times!
References:
NAM/ACCF document “Analysis of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191)….”
EPA document “Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008” March 14, 2008
All in All I expect Citizen’s lifestyles, economy and Govt revenue all gain with Max. Eff. Vs. Cap and Trade! The less the burdens, the more economies and the citizens flourish!
Time will tell if anyone with a mike or printing press will help inform Public as to what Govt could/should do if they would only act intelligently in the Nation&Public’s best interests!

I don’t doubt that there are some people in Congress who have good intentions in regards to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I’m not sure that Barbara Boxer is one of them, though.