flwyd: (1895 USA map)
Hey, I've got a favor to ask you. Please call your Member of Congress and ask them to support including the Energy Permitting Reform Act in the budget continuing resolution. This legislation is moving fast, so please make the call this weekend. I hear that House Democrats particularly need to hear from constituents about this. If you don't have Congress on speed-dial you can use the tool at https://cclusa.org/take-action. It will take approximately one or two minutes total.


Background: Democrats passed the biggest climate bill in U.S. history, the Inflation Reduction Act, this congress. But only about 20% of the IRA's potential benefits will be realized if we can't build clean energy projects and connect them to the U.S. electric grid faster. It currently takes federal agencies an average of 4.5 years to complete environmental impact assessments for large energy projects. This timeline can be sped up without negatively impacting quality: we want the same decisions to be reached—yes to good projects and no to bad projects—faster. This July, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee introduced a bipartisan bill to address some of the problems which unnecessarily delay energy project; this bill passed through committee on a 15 to 4 vote and has broad support in the Senate. With a divided Congress the bill is naturally a compromise, and does have some provisions about fossil fuel permitting. This led many environmental groups to reflexively oppose the bill when it was announced. However, more than 95% of projects waiting to be built are clean energy projects, so if we make the process for permitting (or rejecting) all projects faster, clean energy will outcompete and replace fossil fuel energy. Careful modeling indicates that the Energy Permitting Reform Act will have between a modest climate benefit and a large climate benefit by 2050, the typical target date for net-zero emissions. Additionally, many of the fossil fuel pieces of the bill are things that the Trump administration is likely to do anyway, so please encourage your Democratic House members to support this bill, rather than getting the fossil fuel parts without the clean energy parts next year.
flwyd: (red succulent)
I was listening to Listening to a podcast featuring Jack's Solar Garden. The idea is to install solar panels on farmland and then grow shade-tolerant crops below it, or let livestock range and benefit from the shade on hot days. This provides the farmer with multiple income streams: electricity sales and agricultural produce. Agroforestry follows a similar farm-as-ecosystem approach—trees, crops, and livestock grown together can be more productive in the long term than the three grown in separate monocultural areas. (This is partly because the three work symbiotically with soil health. Also, chickens are a pretty effective insecticide and fertilizer, reducing cost of inputs.)

This led me to think about maps and statistics I've seen about land use, which tend to account for just a single use for any given acre of land. You might see an infographic about the percentage of land devoted to cattle, to wheat, to forests, to solar power. This accounting system makes the math easier, but blinds the reader to the possibility of multi-use synergy. Why settle for 20 acres of lettuce and 20 acres of solar when you could have 40 acres of both?

As we combat climate change and account for a rapidly-growing global population, the more creative we can get with the mostly-fixed amount of land on the planet the better chance we'll have of thriving as a human species.

Rain Power?

Friday, May 31st, 2019 10:52 pm
flwyd: (sun mass incandescant gas)
The other day in the shower I was thinking about how most of our forms of energy are essentially either solar radiation (possibly assisted by gravity), tectonic forces, or stored results of these processes.

Solar energy comes from solar radiation, of course
Wind energy comes from solar radiation, causing motion of air (and helped by past tectonic activity to focus the flow)
Hydroelectric power comes from solar radiation evaporating water, wind depositing it elsewhere, and gravity pulling it towards a generating station (with past tectonic activity providing a narrow channel)
Geothermal energy comes from tectonic processes, bringing energy up from Earth's hot interior
Biofuels like ethanol and wood come from solar radiation helping plants grow
Coal comes from plants that grew thanks to solar radiation, then got concentrated thanks to tectonic forces
Petroleum comes from plants that grew thanks to solar radiation, then got concentrated thanks to different tectonic forces
Natural gas comes from plants that grew thanks to solar radiation, then got concentrated thanks to more different tectonic forces (consummate forces!)
Tidal power is an outlier, depending entirely on gravity (and, I suppose, tectonic forces from long ago)
Nuclear power doesn't fit this model, and derives from the atomic strong force

So, I thought to myself, could you harness the power of solar radiation plus gravity by intercepting falling rain or snow? Like a turbine that gets turned by sufficient raindrops? Or a fulcrum which raises one side when the other side gets covered in snow, creating potential energy which can be converted?

I was thinking this could be deployed in places that get a lot of rain like Mount Wai‘ale‘ale, Mawsynram, or López de Micay or a lot of heavy snow like Sapporo or Syracuse.

I wonder if the problem with this idea is the wide coverage area needed to get a reasonable amount of power. A hydroelectric dam gets to use time-delayed rain from a whole region, but misses out on the cloud-to-ground potential energy.
flwyd: (earth eyes south america face)
(slightly different wording based on existing positions)

Senator Gardner,

Thank you for your recent op-ed in the Coloradoan arguing that science should be nonpartisan. Thanks also for your work to ensure that Colorado’s leading research institutions like NIST, NOAA, NCAR, and NREL receive sufficient funding to further understand our complex and dynamic world. For over 50 years, Colorado researchers have been instrumental in understanding the Earth’s weather and climate.

I am writing in support of Citizens' Climate Lobby, a nationwide nonpartisan group committed to fair, effective, and sustainable climate change solutions. Earlier this month, 1000 Americans, including 35 Coloradans, traveled to Washington and met with representatives and senators from across the country. CCL is building bipartisan support for a carbon fee and dividend proposal. This proposal would help relieve Americans from the challenges faced by climate change while accelerating American businesses focused on clean energy, all without increasing the size of government or putting American exports at risk.

The last two decades have seen remarkable changes in temperatures and climate, contributing to bigger heat waves and more frequent natural disasters. I experienced the changing climate first hand during the 2013 Boulder floods. When I woke up on September 12th, the thousand-year flood had turned the canyon road to my house into a roaring river. While I was fortunate and avoided significant loss, my family’s lives were disrupted for several months and several friends were much harder hit. Without systemic action to address the rapidly warming atmosphere, this kind of disaster will become more common, straining the ability of first responders and relief organizations to help those impacted.

Energy lies at the core of any economy, and fossil fuels have long played a key role in the American economy. We now know that carbon dioxide emissions are a major contributor to climate change. It is therefore crucial that we transition to a lower-carbon energy mix. The most efficient way to make this transition is to put a price on carbon emissions so that the costs of fossil fuels are no longer externalities. To avoid sudden disruption to the American economy, CCL’s proposal begins with a modest $15/ton fee, rising predictably every year. The money collected will be rebated equally to all Americans. This dividend will give citizens and businesses the opportunity to respond to market changes and to invest in transitioning to a affordable clean energy solutions. These investments in turn will create new jobs and help keep America competitive in global energy technology. Over the course of a generation, we can make the transition to a resilient low-emission economy.

Although President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Accords, it is still crucial for America to take action on climate change. CCL’s proposal would help America take the lead in clean energy while boosting our economy and creating jobs. The proposal includes a border adjustment to ensure that American exporters remain competitive. This will also incentivize our trading partners to implement their own national carbon fee, leading to a global decline in carbon emissions without the need for complex multinational treaties. A substantially similar proposal was put forth by James Baker, George Shultz, and the Climate Leadership Council. It has received support from many leading organizations and individuals including Larry Summers, Stephen Hawking, ExxonMobil, and The Nature Conservancy (https://www.clcouncil.org/founding-members/).

Sincerely,
Trevor Stone
Boulder, CO 80304


Senator Bennet,

Thank you for speaking out on the Senate floor in support of climate science. Thanks as well for publicly questioning President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Although the U.S. is no longer part of that international process, we can still work as a nation to reduce carbon emissions, grow the American economy, and build resilient communities.

I am writing in support of Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nationwide nonpartisan group committed to fair, effective, and sustainable climate change solutions. Earlier this month, 1000 Americans, including 35 Coloradans, traveled to Washington and met with representatives and senators from across the country. CCL is building bipartisan support for a carbon fee and dividend proposal. This proposal would help relieve Americans from the challenges faced by climate change while accelerating American businesses focused on clean energy, all without increasing the size of government or putting American exports at risk.

The last two decades have seen remarkable changes in temperatures and climate, contributing to bigger heat waves and more frequent natural disasters. I experienced the changing climate first hand during the 2013 Boulder floods. When I woke up on September 12th, the thousand-year flood had turned the canyon road to my house into a roaring river. While I was fortunate and avoided significant loss, my family’s lives were disrupted for several months and several friends were much harder hit. Without systemic action to address the rapidly warming atmosphere, this kind of disaster will become more common, straining the ability of first responders and relief organizations to help those impacted.

Energy lies at the core of any economy, and fossil fuels have long played a key role in the American economy. We now know that carbon dioxide emissions are a major contributor to climate change. It is therefore crucial that we transition to a lower-carbon energy mix. The most efficient way to make this transition is to put a price on carbon emissions so that the costs of fossil fuels are no longer externalities. To avoid sudden disruption to the American economy, CCL’s proposal begins with a modest $15/ton fee, rising predictably every year. The money collected will be rebated equally to all Americans. This dividend will give citizens and businesses the opportunity to respond to market changes and to invest in transitioning to a affordable clean energy solutions. These investments in turn will create new jobs and help keep America competitive in global energy technology. Over the course of a generation, we can make the transition to a resilient low-emission economy.

Bipartisan support for climate change legislation is growing in Congress, and I urge you to help bring it about. Please also ensure that any climate legislation passed by the Senate follows the fee and dividend model. Not only will the dividend help offset higher energy prices for struggling citizens, the revenue neutrality is crucial for gaining Republican support. Both climate change and renewable energy affect everyone, so it’s important that the bill is supported by leaders and voters across the political spectrum.

Sincerely,
Trevor Stone
Boulder, CO 80304
flwyd: (intense aztec drummer DNC 2008)
The wrong words said with the right energy are better than the right words read stiffly from a page.
December 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 2025

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Subscribe

RSS Atom
Page generated Saturday, January 3rd, 2026 12:56 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios