dont force ignorance.

the Detroit News published an article today that seems irresponsible. i have emailed this post to the News in response to the article, which has no author.

Your op/ed piece today on renewable energy comes off as written by a coal company executive. In a day when it is widely accepted that the climate is changing and resources are dwindling, advocating for antiquated coal power is irresponsible.

Renewable energy, like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, are essential in moving forward. Bashing our state government for pushing a progressive agenda that reduces pollution and the tax on resources is not only counterproductive, but also ignorant. No, the wind doesn't always blow everywhere. No, the sun doesn't always shine in Michigan. But streams and rivers always flow. No, a power grid in isolation in Michigan cannot function on such sources alone. No grid functions in isolation. But most of the US and Canadian grids are connected.

Perhaps you missed the black out a few years back. Your coal/nuclear power grid wasn't so stable back then. Had large wind farms, hydroelectric, and solar generation been in place, they would have continued to provide at least some power when the more traditional plants went down. Perhaps then we would not have had to boil water and trash all our food. Even if there were still outages, I don't believe that they would have been as wide reaching or long lasting.

Yes coal must still play a part in our energy needs, but lets not start building more dirty coal plants. Nuclear also has a role, but no nuclear plants have been built in the US in decades. Concerns over safety and nuclear waste are real, and big deterrents. I would prefer to have a seagull or a duck meet an unfortunate end with a misguided crash into a windmill(i cant believe that happens all that often, most birds are pretty agile, and the blades are the size of tour buses) than have Chernobyl right here at home. (Thats hyperbole, by the way)

Michigan legislators are on the right track with setting modest renewable energy goals. It sparks innovation and what could be a new industry to bring some jobs and wealth back to the state. Coal's role in our power needs going forward must be balanced against the pollution that it puts out. We should never allow any new coal plants to be built that are not gasification plants, as the pollution is drastically reduced and efficiency is greatly increased.

Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. In some coal combustion plants, only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity, the rest is lost as waste heat.

A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for use in a more conventional steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant in this type of combined cycle can potentially be boosted to 50 percent or more. (source)

I applaud my home state's push toward green energy. I hope other pass similar mandates and goals. I hope under a new president we get leadership on a national level and funding for R&D to push further green power options.

Our energy use in the US dwarfs much of the world and we lead the industrialized world in polluting. Check out this website to see how well, or more accurately, poorly we do compared to the rest of the world.

Lets not bash anyone for taking steps to lessen our impact on the Earth. We should all do what we can.

detroit diesel

really the lack there of. for some reason the big 3 are struggling with bringing passenger diesels to the market, relegating them to trucks and heavy vehicles. diesel vehicles are a huge portion of the European car market. granted, diesel prices are a bit lower in Europe than in North America, but the benefits are easy to see, even at 10% up charge from the old world.

VW has diesel engines in Jettas and Rabbits that get 40+ mpg. 'nuf said. not to mention the longer life of diesel power plants, the crazy high resale of diesels, and now the ability to meet emisions standards without a huge cost. i wanted one when i bought my new car, but even VW didnt have any available in my price range. and the domestic brands claim there isnt a market.

the market doesnt exist because you dont sell any. the only thing with a US badge you can get with a diesel is a truck. all this while they market and sell diesels like gasoline engines on the other side of the Atlantic. GM is going to bring its Opel Astra to the US under the Saturn badge, which is a great move, and may allow GM to compete more effectively against a number of popular small cars from foreign auto makers, a market in which GM is barely a presence in North America. the stupid thing is that they are not bringing with it the popular turbo diesel option. on that puts out equivalent horse power(~150), more torque, and nearly twice the fuel economy as its gasoline counterpart.

some claim that diesel is dirty, but with emissions standards inexpensively within reach, thats just nonsense. some say that they are loud, but any VW diesel owner can tell you thats not an issue with passenger vehicles. sure, they sound different, but not any louder. the only other barrier that the new world faces is population centers in colder climates that can be rough on diesels, making it difficult to start them. but guess what, people have been driving diesel trucks for decades in the north, and it takes a fairly inexpensive block heater to make it completely viable in any climate.

the only legitimate challenge that i see is that many urban gas stations dont have a diesel pump. but most stations near freeways have them, plus with 40+mpg economy, who needs to worry about passing a couple of stations by before filling up

ill leave the puns to the News.

crude behavior

for my generation, many folks' first recollection of an oil company or environmental tragedy, which are all over the news these days, was the wreck of the Exxon-Valdez. back in '89 the tanker ran aground in Alaska and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into a relatively pristine area of the pacific shore line. back in the day 'A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages.' of which Exxon paid the compensatory damages, but has been fighting, ever since the initial ruling, the the punitive damages.

punitive damages a put in place in incidents of all sorts of a rather negligent or heinous nature and to act as a deterrent for similar deeds in the future. well Exxon has fought those damages all the way to the supreme court where the case arrived today.

Exxon argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat. The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

to me it is clear that Exxon should have paid this fine before i reached my 10th birthday. they fucked up. they fucked up royally. they should be punished, and in my opinion, the fine isnt enough. i sincerely hope that with Alito abstaining from the case because he owns stock in Exxon, that the court will at least slap an oil company's hand. maybe just once??? please.

thanks to the Detroit News for this one.