Skip to main content

Oddities and Counterintuitive Snow Fall

4198063059_e09e430769_o This comment from President Barack Obama struck us as a little odd:

He said Congress needs to pass a bill that includes Republican preferences such as incentives for nuclear energy and "clean coal" technology, as well as Democratic proposals for incentives to develop alternative energy sources like solar, biodiesel and geothermal energy.

"I think that on energy, there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take a both/and approach rather than either/or approach," Mr. Obama said.

Obama usually seems exceptionally clued in on partisan premises, but we’re not sure we’d divide the Republican and Democratic energy preferences this way – this formulation seems left over from the 70s.

We think Congress has demonstrated a fairly comprehensive embrace of clean air technology regardless of party affiliation. Maybe the comment seems odd given the President’s own touting of nuclear energy during the State of the Union. Obama usually has this about right. 

---

Speaking of odd, here’s a blog post from Chicago Tribune business writer Greg Burns:

The acquisition of Allegheny Energy by rival utility FirstEnergy Corp. shows how far cap-and-trade has fallen from the top of the nation's political agenda.

Allegheny gets 95 percent of its power from coal-fired plants, emitting 45 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the blunt report here that the company prepared when cap-and-trade legislation still had momentum in early 2009. "This is a major challenge," the report concludes.

Apparently it's less of a challenge today. The $8.5 billion deal announced here Thursday includes a roughly one-third premium on Allegheny stock. That likely reflects how the potential threat of a government-sanctioned carbon-trading scheme has receded into the background.

We’re not major business buffs, but Allegheny just got bought by its rival  - which might well be just what happens - after you issue a report noting a tough environment for your company. Even if cap-and-trade fails, EPA rulemaking is still pending. Burns seems to want to make a point his example does not really support. We’ll be interested to see how FirstEnergy means to proceed with Allegheny.

---

Well, odd is as odd does – this one just strikes us as assuming something unattractive about the American people:

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the blizzards that have shut down Congress have made it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger.

“It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments,” said Bingaman, who as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction over energy and climate change issues.

“People see the world around them and they extrapolate,” Bingaman said. “I think that it’s hard to see an economy-wide cap-and-trade [proposal] of the type that passed the House could prevail,” he added, though he suggested a more limited alternative could have a better chance.

On the other hand, the massive snow fall broke records all around, suggesting that something is not well with the weather.

While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow.

Or a lot of rain when temperatures no longer reach 32 degrees. We suspect Bingaman knows this and was making a comment on how people see things in fairly straightforward terms – lots of snow, no climate change. But it’s not precisely counterintuitive to say that bizarre weather patterns accompany changes in the climate.

Time’s Bryan Walsh provides the correct conclusion:

Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change.

Baltimore. The row houses provide the clue.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Bingaman's logic is particularly odd. Why would the American (all 330 million) be overly influenced by weather in Washington, D.C.? I'm sure it was still pretty warm in his home state of N.M. Talk about 'inside-the-beltway' thinking. News flash: DC is not the universe.
DocForesight said…
"Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change."

Or to prove climate change is happening. But we have heard claims to that effect, have we not? Hurricane Katrina, wildfires in southern California, dry spells in the midwest, hot summer desert temps (surprise!). Add your favorite bleat here...

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…