CARB Cuts AB 32 by Half

It's a momentous time in California, with the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB) just announcing reduced targets for CO2 emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32. see this link. The short version is that ARB have cut the required reductions approximately in half. The reasons cited are 1) reduced economic activity in California, and 2) some federal laws that were not in place in 2008 now require similar reductions, thus, it would be double-dipping to count those.

Some background, and the numbers, California's AB 32 requires the state to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions to 427 million tonnes per year of CO2-equivalent, by the year 2020. The CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) allows non-CO2 gases to be converted and counted as if they were CO2. The 427 million tonnes is what ARB calculated were emitted during 1990 - and it's really just an educated guess. No one really knows how much was emitted in 1990. Before the recent announcement, ARB had estimated that in 2020, California would emit approximately 600 million tonnes CO2-e without AB 32. This is the BAU (business as usual) case. The difference, 600 minus 427, is 173 which must be reduced by a long list of items that make up the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

I am not trying to take any credit for the reduction that ARB has just announced, however, in December 2008, I did write a letter to ARB's chairperson and stated that it was not accurate for AB 32 to claim credit for federal laws already on the books. see this link for the letter. Those reductions would occur even without AB 32. Of course, I received no reply to my letter. One particular item I wrote about was reduced emissions due to more-efficient cars, which in California is known as the Pavley standards. The federal law recently adopted most of the Pavley standards.

ARB's new target for reductions by 2020 is about half of the previous target, with 80 million tonnes CO2-e. ARB states that the deep and prolonged recession has reduced some of the CO2-e already.

We can all stay tuned, as California's economy worsens still more. At the current rate of collapse, the target 427 million tonnes CO2-e will be met entirely by economic recession in about, let's see, four more years. Call it 2016.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Chinese Nuclear Power Plant Costs

This post was prompted by something I've seen written many times on various blogs and news reports for the past couple of years, that new nuclear power plants are NOT expensive. In fact, they say, China is building dozens of them for about $2 billion (US dollars) per reactor, where the reactor produces 1000 MW. I have my doubts about the $2 billion per reactor, (which is $2,000 per kW) as those who read and follow SLB are probably aware. In the USA, some recently-published numbers for proposed new nuclear power plant projects are more like $8,000 per kW. As an example, the now-defunct South Texas Nuclear Power Plant Expansion was to have two reactors at 1100 MW each, with a published cost estimate of $17 billion. That works out to $7,730 per kW, but it also ignores the inevitable cost over-runs, and extra interest costs for long delays. I would be surprised if that STNP Expansion would be built for less than $25 billion or roughly $12,000 per kW.

Therefore, I was quite interested to read a news item today, regarding a large new nuclear power plant under construction in southern China. The plant will have six reactors, at 1000 MW each. Total cost should be $12 billion, using the $2,000 per kW figure I've seen bandied about. Yet, CLP Holdings, LTD, purchased a 17 percent interest in the plant for $11 billion. CLP is a utility company in Hong Kong. CLP's 17 percent represents roughly the output from one-sixth of the entire plant, or one reactor. If 17 percent of the plant is worth $11 billion, then the entire plant is worth approximately $64 billion. That works out to a bit more than $10,000 per kW. That is much more in line with what new nuclear plants are projected to cost in the USA.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Nuclear Plants Delayed Again

More news this week from the dismal world of building a new nuclear power plant. As if the AREVA-designed project in Finland is not having enough troubles, now the same design is having serious problems and delays in France, at Flamanville. (on the Normandy coast near the English channel). see this link for one of several stories.

New nuclear power plants are routinely plagued by costly delays, and cost over-runs. The recent news states a two-year delay, from 2014 to 2016, and a cost over-run of 1 billion Euros (from 5 billion up to 6 billion). As always with these monstrosities, it is very likely that neither target will be met. Startup will likely be later than 2016, and the final cost much more. How much more, it is difficult to say.

In a perfect world, governments would require each nuclear power plant to be a self-contained business entity, responsible for its own profits and losses. If this were the case, the true costs of nuclear power would be transparent and available for all to see. Would the new reactor in Finland sell power for 3 cents per kWh, as so many pro-nuclear advocates insist is the true cost of nuclear power? That is very unlikely, since approximately 25 to 3o cents per kWh is required just to pay off the capital costs, and the operating costs. How about the new reactor at Flamanville? Same thing holds true.

In the USA, the South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion has been scrapped, which is a shame actually. It would have been very instructive to have that project proceed, with massive cost over-runs, and lengthy schedule delays so that the true cost of nuclear power from it would be at least 30 cents per kWh. In a world literally running over with natural gas at $4 per million Btu, and technology easily available to build efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plants that produce almost 60 units of electrical power for each unit of natural gas input, 30 cents per kWh puts nuclear power plants out of the running.

Still, there are a couple of other candidates for demonstrating the nuttiness of new nuclear power plants in the USA, in particular the Vogtle proposed plant. Perhaps it will be the new poster-boy for why the USA cannot afford any more nuclear power plants, and inflict high utility bills on the good customers in the South.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

California's AB 32 Jobs Still Absent

From my earlier posts on SLB regarding AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Nunez), it is clear that I hold a dim view of the law, the necessity for the law, the so-called scientific basis for the law, and its effect on the state's economy. This post is an update on the last aspect, the effect on the state's economy. For some perspective, AB 32 has a multitude of components, with more than 70 separate line items in the Scoping Plan. It is generally stated by the media, and even some within the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB), that AB 32 will not be implemented until January, 2012. That is misleading at the best, and an outright false statement at the worst. AB 32 has a number of line items already in place, in fact, there are "Early Action Items" listed prominently on ARB's website. However, some of the line items will be in force next January, while one rather large piece has been delayed until at least 2013. The big delay is for Cap and Trade. More on that a bit later.

AB 32 was (or is) supposed to change California's emissions of CO2 and a few other so-called "greenhouse gases" by reducing those emissions according to a timetable. The initial reduction and time-target was down to 1990 levels by 2020. This means that, on an absolute tons emitted per year basis, by 2020 California would emit the same amount as was emitted in 1990. In practice, that requires approximately a 30 percent reduction compared to the "business-as-usual" case. CARB uses the abbreviation BAU for business-as-usual. An additional target was then set by the Governor to 80 percent below the 1990 level by the year 2050. Stated another way, California in 2050 can only emit 20 percent of what it emitted in 1990. After allowing for economic growth and population growth, the "80 by 50" requirement actually requires more than a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the BAU for 2050.

As I've written elsewhere on SLB, expecting to achieve this is quite absurd. The "80 by 50" requirement is absolutely a death-knell for California's economy. No economy in modern times (or ancient times, for that matter) has ever demonstrated an ability to conduct commerce, transportation, supply reliable and affordable energy (i.e. electricity), produce agricultural crops, produce and deliver clean water, collect and dispose of waste, and all the other aspects of a large and diverse economy with such a low CO2 output. None. But, CARB and the California government have the utmost faith that it will be done. They have some vague notions that fossil fuel-fired power plants will have the CO2 captured and sequestered, that cars, trucks, and buses will run just fine on bio-fuels or hydrogen or electricity, and a great portion of electricity supply will be from renewable sources such as wind and solar. They have grand plans for each citizen to conserve and reduce electric power consumption by some vague means, and by a "smart grid" that will reduce power consumption even more.

So much for the basics.

All of AB 32's requirements are supposed to be technically feasible, and are touted as creating jobs for California's economy. With January 2012 less than six months away, it is time to look for those jobs. Supposedly, California companies are producing bio-fuels, for example. Solar panels are another big requirement, and the jobs to manufacture and install them. Smart grid components and the installers for them is another item. The list of AB 32 items and the jobs they are supposed to create is long. Yet, the most ridiculous of the jobs-related aspects is what ARB stated in the beginning: each Californian will have approximately $250 per year of extra, disposable income as a result of AB 32. That works out to approximately $5 per week, which is enough to buy a cup of premium coffee each week. The additional sales of coffee will create great numbers of jobs in the retail sector.

The reality is that California is leading the entire nation in unemployment rate - with the sole exception of Nevada. The recent figures for June, 2011 are now public and show California with 11.8 percent. (Nevada is at 12.4 percent). So, the question remains unanswered, where are the AB 32-related jobs in California? Only six months from now, nearly all of the 70-plus line items are to be in place. Will millions of new jobs magically appear on January 1, 2012? Will coffee baristas be in short supply, so that most of the just-graduated teens can find employment? Somehow, that seems rather unlikely.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Nuclear Nightmare Approaching Fast

UPDATE 1: (see end of article)

A few facts: nuclear fission power presently provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., through 104 nuclear reactors that were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, and constructed primarily in those decades. The plants were designed for a 40 year life.

Nuclear proponents would have us believe that new nuclear power plants should be built in great numbers because, they say, that nuclear power is perfectly safe, reliable, and cheap. It also has no need for importing fuel from nations that would do us harm, plus we can keep American money at home in America. Furthermore, they say, the nuclear power plants produce zero pollution and no greenhouse gas, CO2.

I have written previously on several of these points, disputing each one.

This article has as its main theme the fact that nuclear power is dangerous, and grows more dangerous with each passing week and month. These plants are old, are beginning to show signs of wear and tear, and are dangerously close to creating a nuclear radiation release that will produce great harm. This is based on a just-released report from The Associated Press, found at this link.

A brief excerpt:

"Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety - and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States."

The article goes on to list a number of areas where the nuclear power plants - rather, their owners - are allowed to continue operating without repairs. The standards are relaxed to meet the situation, rather than requiring the situation to be corrected to meet the standards.

Nuclear power plants are, in some ways, similar to other facilities that engineers design and construct. For example, oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, automobile assembly plants, shipyards, ports, even locomotives, ships, trucks, and cars are all designed and built by engineers and workmen. A nuclear power plant, for example, has vessels that are made of a type of steel, with a designated wall thickness to provide the desired strength. There is a safety factor applied to that wall thickness, just in case the steel is not quite as strong as is expected. Also, an additional thickness is added to the design, to account for corrosion. The usual procedure in refineries and chemical plants is to periodically inspect the vessel, measure the wall thickness, and decide whether the vessel can continue in operation until the next shut down period, or if it must be removed from service and replaced. Yet, in the nuclear industry, the AP investigation found that the allowable standards are reduced, rather than force the nuclear plant owner to replace the part.

This policy of changing the standards may, and I must stress, MAY, be appropriate where the initial design had a very large safety factor. However, from reading the AP's report, it appears that the deficiencies are far greater than what was expected.

It is time that the nuclear power industry in the US be held accountable. We can not afford a nuclear accident with the spewing of deadly radioactive material across hundreds of square miles and millions of people affected.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

UPDATE 1: (June 23, 2011) - AP reports also that more than three-quarters of all US nuclear plants have leaked tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, often into groundwater. The leaks are from corroded, buried piping. Tritium itself is fairly harmless, as its radiation cannot penetrate the human skin. However, if ingested via food, water, or breathing, it becomes far more toxic.

More troubling is the leakage of radioactive forms of Cesium and Strontium.

See this link. -- End update 1 -- RES

The Quiet Sun and Approaching Cold Era

Today, June 14, 2011, is an important day in the on-going debate over whether man's activities * cause the Earth's climate to change, in particular to over-heat. The reason today is important is that the AAS, American Astronomical Society, today announced publicly that the sun has entered an unexpected calm period, which could lead to the Earth's cooling similar to another Maunder Minimum (the Little Ice Age of 1645 to 1710). The lack of sunspots is the key issue. It is well-known that the Maunder Minimum period also had few, if any, sunspots.

For more on this, see Anthony Watts' excellent blog, at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/

* Some of man's activities definitely show up in the measured temperatures, for example, the urban heat island (UHI) effect is quite apparent in many cities. Farming activities that release huge clouds of dust also must certainly impact measured temperatures. Planting greenery and crops, as was done for decades in Southern California as the area was populated, also likely has had some effect on the local temperatures, probably downward.

The importance of the AAS announcement is that there is now a formal, leading scientific body that goes against the "consensus" that climate science is settled, that man is responsible for global warming, and that man's use of fossil fuels is the leading cause. What is more likely is that some warming was caused by the sun's very active state in the past few decades. How can one distinguish between an active sun and its effect, and CO2 and its effect (if any)? We will probably find out over the next decade or two, if the sun continues in its quiet state.

Dramatic cooling can and will cause major disruptions in the Earth's economies and the lifestyles of billions of people. Anecdotal evidence from the Little Ice Age show that growing crops is a challenge. Heating buildings and homes is also a great challenge. Keeping animals alive during brutal winters is also a problem.

More importantly, from a legal viewpoint, California's global warming law, AB 32, can now be challenged as not being based on the best science.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Is Sea Level Rising in Santa Monica Bay?

This article is to document the extent of sea level rise on coastal flooding in an area near where I live and work, in Santa Monica Bay in Southern California, USA. The photos below are mine, taken on Thursday May 19th, 2011 in the late afternoon. The occasion was a combination of some fairly large waves, or ocean swells, with the high tide. There was no flooding of property from this event, as is evident in the photos. If the global warming alarmists are correct, this area of coast should be flooded regularly in the coming decade or two, certainly by 2050 when, they predict, sea levels will rise by a foot or more. It is my hope that someone, somewhere, will also have photos or videos of the present and can contrast these photos with the sea levels at that time.

The high tide of 6.2 feet occurred the night before these photos were taken, on Wednesday May 18th, 2011 at 10:35 p.m. Another, smaller, high tide of 3.6 feet occurred just before these photos were taken, at 12:28 p.m. The large swells were from the south, and were predicted to be 7 to 9 feet and occurring approximately 15 to 16 seconds apart. My observations showed the waves were quite a bit smaller than predicted. My estimate is approximately 5 to 6 feet swells. They were almost exactly 15 seconds apart.

This part of the coast is directly south of Marina del Rey's channel, and the mouth of Ballona Creek. There are many homes and condos built right on the beach, approximately 400 feet from the water. This is Dockweiler Beach, a public beach, with a well-used concrete sidewalk for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The first photo, Figure 1 below, shows the aftermath of debris and wet sand from the high tide and waves. The concrete sidewalk is approximately 15 feet wide. The bay is to the right, approximately 100 feet from the sidewalk. The water barely made it to the far side of the sidewalk.

Figure 1

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking South

(click on image for a larger view)

Next, the photo in Figure 2 shows another incursion of the water, and the debris carried by that water right up to the sidewalk. This view is just a few feet north of Figure 1. Note the tire track to the left of the photo.

Figure 2

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking North

Next, here in Figure 3 is shown the same image as in Figure 2, but looking just a bit to the left (or west) to show the distance to the bay. The tire track in the right of the photo is the same as that shown in Figure 2. The wave breaking in the left center (white foam) is approximately 4 feet high. There are four people taking some sun in the center-left of the photo. The buildings on the horizon (center right) are the two-story lifeguard headquarters and one-story public restrooms.

Figure 3

View of Dockweiler Beach, 5-19-2011 looking North

Next, in Figure 4 is the same water debris incursion, looking to the east and showing the many homes located at beach level. There are also many homes on the hill in the background. The unidentified person walking by provides some perspective and scale.

Figure 4

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking East

Finally, in Figure 5, is shown another area of water incursion along and just past the bike path. This is just a few feet to the north of the previous photos. Many more beach-front homes are shown to the right. Also shown to the right are several volleyball nets. Beach volleyball is a popular pastime in Southern California, both as a participatory and people-watching event.

Figure 5

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking North

It can be seen that the homes depicted above will be flooded if the sea levels rise as much as is predicted by the global warming alarmists. There are other homes and structures along the California coast that are in much more danger than these. These homes sit well back from the water. The expanse of sand acts as a sponge to absorb the water from the waves. However, if the sea levels rise two or three feet, these homes will likely be flooded regularly.

Of course, the satellite data shows the seas are not rising, in fact, the Pacific Ocean's level is dropping as I described in an earlier post. These homes are quite safe. CO2 has nothing to do with any changes in climate. If CO2 caused any type of global warming, the sea levels would indeed be increasing, and all the oceans would rise. Clearly, the Pacific Ocean did not get the word that it is supposed to be rising.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California