Union On Line Reader Numbers In Decline

Russ Steele

I have posted the latest on line visitor numbers for the Union Web Site since they went behind a pay wall.  Click on the Navigation Button above to see the latest trend line.

Is PPIC Really an Independent “Research” Organization?

Russ Steele

I have always been suspicious of the non-partisan claims of the Public Policy Institute of California.  They seem to be leaning way to far to the left to be truly independent. According to the PPIC Plan for a Better Future: California 2025, the 2012 Update:

The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research.

Here is what our nonpartisan research organization has to say about climate change in California:

Climate change threatens California’s FUTURE Increases in global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are leading to higher air and water temperatures as well as rising sea levels, with serious consequences for California. Air temperatures are projected to increase throughout the state over the coming century. Sea level is expected to rise 39 to 55 inches by 2100, and the frequency of extreme events such as heat waves, wildfires, floods, and droughts is expected to increase. Higher temperatures will result in more rain and less snow, diminishing the reserves of water in the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Even if all GHG emissions ceased today, some of these developments would be unavoidable because the climate system changes slowly.

 Why is this “independent, objective, nonpartisan research” organization not examining both sides of the climate change issue? There has not been any significant global warming in California for 0ver 80 years, there is no change in the snow pack over the last 130 years, and sea levels have stopped rising since about 2009, while CO2 continues to increase. How can a “independent, objective, nonpartisan research” organization ignore these facts and still publish the intellectual dishonesty they are promoting as a better plan for the future of California.

You can get your own copy of the report HERE.  Even though it is clear there will be economic impacts from the implementation of AB-32, they recommend continued implementation. No mention that climate change may not be happening and that AB-32 is an economic albatross. So much for the “independent, objective, nonpartisan research”.

Are You Up For This?

Russ Steele

Or this?

H/T to Power Line

KQED’s Climate Watch Reacts to Gleickgate

Russ Steele

Peter Gleick was one of KQED Climate Watch’s go to guys when it came to climate change issues.  The would report on all of Gleick Climate Change Reports that he wrote for California government agencies. When ever I would comment on flaws in those reports, Peter Gleick was quick to respond on the Climate Watch Blog. It was almost like Climate Watch and the Pacific Institute was joined at the hip.

It will interesting to see how Climate Watch reports the story, including the future of Dr Gleick, who appears to have severely damaged the global warming movement and put himself in legal jeopardy. He has admitted to obtaining the Heartland documents by fraud, and releasing them to warmer web sites. He has yet to admit to writing the “smoking gun” fake memo, but there are multiple bloggers on the trail of the writer.

It will be interesting to see how this episode plays out on National Public Radio in San Francisco. Stay Tuned.

I do not listen to NPR in Sacramento. Have they report and comment on the Heartland ethic challenge by Dr. Gleick?

UK Reality Check – Is Gov Brown Listening?

Russ Steele

Governor Brown’s Tax Initiative includes a provision to raise the personal income taxes on the wealthy.  While this provision was found to be popular with the general public by the California Public Policy Institute, it may not be popular with California millionaires.

The UK government passed a surtax on high-income earners, raising the tax to 50%, which too effect at the beginning of the year. It was expected to raise a billion pounds a month. How did that work out?  Tax revenue dropped by more than £500 million pounds.

It turns out that the wealthy in the UK are finding ways to shelter their income when the government drove the cost of taxes high enough to make it worthwhile.  Does Governor Brown thinking the California’s high-earners and millionaires are dumber than those in the UK and they will just accept his new taxes without seeking to shelter there wealth?  If he does, he is stupider than I thought.

Not only will the state lose tax revenue, but it could also loose access to the personal wealth of California’s millionaires that could be invested to spur local economic growth. I wonder if our Governor will take note of the lessons being played out in the UK?  I doubt it, he is a liberal Democrat.

AB-32 Has Consequences – BP Refining Leaving California

Russ Steele

Joining a long parade of business exiting the state, BP has announced that they will divest it self from all refineries in Carson CA and Texas City, TX, halve the companies U.S. refining capacity.

SAN FRANCISCO — As political maneuvering continues over the fate of the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline, one of the world’s largest energy companies — BP — is already signaling the direction it plans to take: it’s positioning itself to tap the burgeoning supply of Canadian tar sands oil.

BP announced it will divest from its oil refineries on the Southern West Coast — in Carson, Calif. — and Texas City, TX, and expand its operations in the Pacific Northwest and the Midwest — a move that would halve the company’s U.S. refining capacity. 

More details HERE. Some good news for the Northern California, BP owns the ARCO brand and will continue to supply fuel to ARCO stations in Northern California.

“They don’t want to be in refining and marketing in the Pacific Southwest — Southern California, Southern Nevada, and Arizona,” he said.

The company has significant market share in these states, Hackett says, through the ARCO brand, which BP bought in the ‘90s. The company will continue to operate and supply fuel to ARCO stations in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest.

The Power Line Challenge to Peter Gleick

Russ Steele

John Hinderaker, a Lawyer at the Power Line blog, has a challenge for Peter Gleick.

. . . Let me be perfectly clear: I think it is obvious that Peter Gleick fabricated this document–the only one he posted that makes the Heartland Institute look bad–because the real ones he stole from Heartland didn’t serve his partisan purpose. Or, if he didn’t make it up himself, he got it from an ally who fabricated it. No knowledgeable person could mistake Gleick’s hoax for a legitimate top-secret Heartland memo.

So, Peter Gleick: if I am wrong, sue me. If I am right, apologize for fabricating a document and attempting to perpetrate a hoax, and retire from public life.

And let me just add this warning: litigation is a two-way street. If you sue me, I get to take your deposition under oath. If you lie again, you can go to jail. I get to subpoena your telephone records and find out exactly whom you have been talking with, when and for how long. I get to examine the hard drives of your computers and reconstruct every email you have ever sent or received, especially those that you have deleted. I get to depose third party witnesses under oath. If someone other than you faked the Heartland memo, I can get his testimony, under penalty of perjury. I can trace the development of every Word document you have ever had a hand in creating, and I can identify the precise moment when you converted it to PDF and posted it on the internet in hopes of embarrassing Heartland. So, Peter Gleick: if you are afraid to sue me, then admit that you are a liar and a hoaxer and slink away in shame.

Exit Question:  Do you think that Peter Gleick will sue, or admit he fabricated the fake Heartland Memo?

Gallup — Unemployment Rising Again

Russ Steele

Remember the sudden drop in delivered gasoline in October, November and December, and my questions about the impact on the economy?

 According to Gallup unemployment is on the rise again.

The question is are these to graphics connected? Was the decline in fuel use connected to the increase in unemployment?  My guess is there is a connection and that rising fuel prices will on  make the problem worse.

Gas Prices Jumped Over Night – Now What?

Russ Steele

The prices of gas is becoming a political issue and Obama is seen to be standing in the way according to a Blogger Mom.

 This president has been nothing but bad news on the energy front. His moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico bankrupted Seahawk Drilling and put over 600 people out of work. His rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline to transfer crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas not only robs the United States of thousands of jobs, but harms the planet because now Canada will ship that oil to China, which will create a lot more pollution than if it had gone to Texas.

We import nearly 60% of the oil used here in America, and much of that comes from the Middle East. In case you hadn’t heard, things aren’t all sunshine and rosebuds over there. On Monday, Iran announced that it would no longer export oil to Britain and France. The U.S. does not import oil from Iran, and now Britain and France are going to be going after the same sources as us. It’s basic economics: Limited supply plus increased demand equals skyrocketing prices. 

What’s that? We should be focusing on green, renewable energy? We should invest in, oh I don’t know … let’s say … a solar panel company? How about $535 million in taxpayer dollars? Is that enough? Ok, done. Wait … that already happened. Solyndra went bankrupt after George Kaiser, one of Barack Obama’s campaign bundlers, got a big fat payout. Just because that wasn’t painful enough on its own, they later threw the existing solar panels into the trash.

As more nations industrialize and develop a need for oil, it becomes more and more important that we increase our supply. We have plenty of oil — tons of it. We just have to get it. Right now, our president is standing in our way. It’s a good thing it’s an election year, because if Barack Obama won’t get out of the way in making America energy independent, we’ll vote someone in who will. 

But is Obama standing in the way? Consider this from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: 

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

There are doubts that energy independence is that close. But many say the booming shale oil fields in Texas and North Dakota and the growth of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will allow the nation to cut its reliance on oil imports significantly over the next couple of decades.

Last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration upgraded its forecast of crude production in 2025 to 6.4 million barrels per day – 1 million barrels more than were pumped in 2010.

Previously, the EIA had projected the U.S. would peak at 6 million barrels in 2022.

So, if we have the oil, why are prices spiking and becoming a political liability for President Obama.  Obama promised us higher energy prices and now they are here, and the only reason seems to be the administrations energy policy.

Note: The next EIA price release is sometime today. When it come out I will up date my fuel graphs at The Next Grand Minimum.

Heartland Deniergate: Gleick Did It For The Planet (updated)

Russ Steele

Note: You might want to keep up todate with this breaking story at Watts Up With That.

I have had several run-ins with the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick when he was truncating sea level data that did not fit his rising sea levels agenda in reports for the California Energy Commission. It was deception.  Now he is admitting he used deception to obtain the Heartland Institute documents involved in “Deniergate.” Below is Gleick’s confession, as posted on Huffington Post.

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
By Peter Gleick,
February 20, 2012, Huffington Post

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal. Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute’s apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

Given the potential impact however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Peter Gleick

This confession is under some additional evaluation at Climate Audit, read the comments. Glick appears to be confessing to the wire fraud, as well as being stupid.  However, he is NOT admitting to drafting of the fake document.  Stay tuned,  it won’t be long until the author, or authors, of the fake document are also identified.

Now, let’s see how our local lefties respond. They were breathless when the Heartland documents were first announced. My guess the silence will be deafening!

Update (02-21-12, 07:45) Silence so far!

Setting the Record Straight

Russ Steele

In addition to my blogging activities, freelance writing, and consulting I am also the Executive Director of the Sierra Economics and Science Foundation.  SESF’s sponsorship of TechForum2012 has sparked some negative comments and factual distortions on the Sierra Foothills Report blog. These distortions of the facts need to be corrected.

According to the Sierra Foothills Report Editor:

• SESF has been posting alarmist and partisan reports on the environment. In fact we have done exactly the opposite in exposing the AGW alarmist reports. It is true that members of the SESF Board, on this and other blog sites, have gone to great pains to dispel the leftwing climate change alarmism.  The SESF Board does not currently have an official position on AGW.

• SESF suggested that the county had to pay its unfunded liabilities right away. Not true. That impression was the result of poor reporting of County Staff’s attempt to lessen the impact of SESF’s report and Mike McDaniel’s presentation to the BOS.  We did not make any such suggestion, we just pointed to the cost if they did have to pay it off. The point was that the county did not then, nor does it now, have a plan to raise the revenues required to pay what is known in addition to the increased amounts that today are not known.  Using CALPERS predictions on portfolio returns to gain and broadcast comfort is tantamount to being criminally ignorant.

• SESF as an organization never attacked Kildow’s lecture series, as claimed.  As individuals, George Rebane and I pointed out the one-sided partisan propaganda that Dr Kildow was proposing to dispense.  We did not thinking it was appropriate for the County to sponsor a one sided presentation when there was strong evidence for another point of view.  Our views are not the  official views of the SESF Board, which is implied in the Sierra Foothills Report.

• I was total mystified by this statement  “… and hold them accountable for a successful lecture series.” ??!!  What is the editor talking about?  This series has two purposes, one is to promote community economic development and the second to increase TechTest funding for our middle and high school students. This is all done is a very public way.  George and I fully support the Editors SBC economics lecture series, which unfortunately crashed and burned on take-off once we picked up the gauntlet and offered to participate.  What kind of recourse does the Editor consider in his demand for accountability?  What agency will be responsible for such recourse?

I deeply regret our effort to provide community access to some of industries best and brightest thinkers has been turned into a left/right finger pointing political contest.

I respectfully request that the Sierra Foothills Report Editor not confuse the views and opinions of individual directors with the official positions of the SESF Board of Directors which are posted at sesfoundation.org

Wired: Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust

Russ Steele

Juliet Eilperin has written a long a detailed article on why the clean technology bubble has burst HERE.

Here is couple of the money quotes from the article:

 In 2005, VC investment in clean tech measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The following year, it ballooned to $1.75 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association. By 2008, the year after Doerr’s speech, it had leaped to $4.1 billion. And the federal government followed. Through a mix of loans, subsidies, and tax breaks, it directed roughly $44.5 billion into the sector between late 2009 and late 2011. Avarice, altruism, and policy had aligned to fuel a spectacular boom.

Anyone who has heard the name Solyndra knows how this all panned out. Due to a confluence of factors—including fluctuating silicon prices, newly cheap natural gas, the 2008 financial crisis, China’s ascendant solar industry, and certain technological realities—the clean-tech bubble has burst, leaving us with a traditional energy infrastructure still overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels. The fallout has hit almost every niche in the clean-tech sector—wind, biofuels, electric cars, and fuel cells—but none more dramatically than solar.

ooo

Perhaps the biggest force working against not just Solyndra but clean energy in general is this: Because natural gas has gotten so cheap, there is no longer a financial incentive to go with renewables. Technical advances in natural gas extraction from shale—including the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—have opened up reserves so massive that the US has surpassed Russia as the world’s largest natural gas supplier.

The price of natural gas peaked at nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in 2008. It now stands at around $3. A decade ago, shale gas accounted for less than 2 percent of America’s natural gas supply; it is now approaching one-third, and industry officials predict that the total reserves will last a century. Because 24 percent of electricity comes from power plants that run on natural gas, that has helped keep costs down to just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour—and from a source that creates only half the CO2 pollution of coal. Put all that together and you’ve undone some of the financial models that say it makes sense to shift to wind and solar. And in a time of economic uncertainty, the relatively modest carbon footprint of natural gas gets close enough on the environmental front for a lot of people to feel just fine turning up the air-conditioning.

The most insightful part of the article are these reality checks by Rachel Swaby.

Power Struggles

For each unique green-tech sector, a unique set of challenges.—Rachel Swaby

Solar

Promise: Enough sunlight hits Earth in one hour to power the world for a year. In 2010, the solar industry predicted that as many as 500,000 people would be directly or indirectly employed in the US solar sector by 2016.

Reality: As we head into 2012, the number is more like 100,000. Prices for conventional solar cells have fallen 40 percent in the past year, due largely to a flood of panels from Chinese manufacturers, which have benefited from plunging silicon prices and government support. The price drop has eviscerated the US solar manufacturing industry.

Outlook: China’s 54 percent share of the global panel-making market will grow, and we’ll remain locked into older technology. But cheap panels mean more of them on rooftops, which is good.

Wind

Promise: The US has the potential to generate enough wind energy to meet the nation’s total consumption 12 times over.

Reality: At $35 a megawatt-hour, wind looked like a good deal back in 2007, when wholesale electric prices ranged between $45 and $85 per megawatt-hour. But the natural gas boom, plus the 2008 recession, drove prices under $30 by 2009, eliminating wind’s financial edge. Also, NIMBY protests have made getting approval for a wind farm in the US as difficult as getting it for a coal-fired plant.

Outlook: Cheaper prices for turbines should result in lower costs for wind power by 2014. Though growth has slowed since 2008, this sector is still expected to cover about a third of any increased energy consumption in the US between now and 2035.

Algae

Promise: Algae is, by some measures, up to 30 times more energy-dense than other biofuel crops. It ought to yield cheaper fuel, saving huge swaths of arable land.

Reality: A recent Department of Energy road map includes a 33-item list of R&D challenges—from assessing environmental risks to creating efficient conversion methods—that must be overcome for algae to be viable. In fact, researchers still aren’t able to cultivate the stuff on a large scale.

Outlook: In 2010, the DOE cautioned that “many years of both basic and applied science and engineering will likely be needed to achieve affordable, scalable, and sustainable algae-based fuels.”

Fuel Cells

Promise: Zero-emission energy for everything from laptops to cars to power stations, all fueled by the most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen.

Reality: To compete with fossil fuels, the electricity from fuel cells needs to sell for around $30 per kilowatt. Right now, that figure is about $49. Also, there are only about 60 hydrogen refueling stations in the country, serving around 200 small vehicles and 15 buses. Industry leader FuelCell Energy lost $56.3 million in 2010 and has never turned a profit.

Outlook: Even if fuel cells become cheaper and more reliable, a workable hydrogen infrastructure is still decades away.

Batteries

Promise: Zero-emission vehicles (assuming that the power for recharging the batteries comes from zero-emission sources).

Reality: The federal government injected $2.4 billion into the battery industry in 2009, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with the stated goal of getting more electric cars on the road. But expensive materials means that advanced lithium-ion batteries still cost about $650 per kilowatt-hour of usable energy. At that level, the 24-kWh battery pack for a Nissan Leaf costs more than some cars.

Outlook: Despite a White House call to get battery prices down to $100 per kWh by 2020, the rosiest predictions foresee nothing cheaper than $300 per kWh over the next decade.

Cellulosic Biofuel

Promise: Biodiesel derived from stalks, trunks, stems, and leaves—rather than plant oils or the edible parts of crops—would supply cheap renewable energy without hitting the food supply.

Reality: In 2010, the US produced 88 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel—less than a year’s output from a single corn ethanol plant. Large-scale commercialization is still not viable, because the sugars in biomass are harder to tease out than those in corn. Building a cellulosic ethanol plant costs up to four times as much as building a first-gen biofuel plant.

Outlook: In 2007, the government set a target of 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel reaching pumps annually. In 2010, that target was revised down to just 6.6 million gallons.

Smart Meters

Promise: Replace analog meters with digital devices that provide real-time feedback to both customers and utilities, which would help build more efficiency and stability into the grid.

Reality: Smart meters are being widely deployed. But fringe groups have voiced concerns about privacy and health that have slowed or canceled rollouts in several communities. And faulty meters that led to higher bills have caused several local governments to require independent reviews of the systems.

Outlook: Smart meters are the linchpin of the smart grid—computer-based automation of electricity delivery. None of these early glitches are likely to get in the way for long. Analysts predict 250 million smart meters will be installed worldwide by 2015.

Charging Stations

Promise: A network of 240- and 480-volt charging-station kiosks could dot roadsides and parking lots, like ATMs for electric cars.

Reality: The fastest charge for a Nissan Leaf takes about 30 minutes at 480 volts. Unless we could suddenly install enough stations to guarantee no waiting (there are currently only 1,800 nationwide), the time commitment means that recharging on the go just isn’t feasible. For the most part, electric-car owners are limited to as much driving as they can get from a single at-home charge.

Outlook: The cost of kiosks (up to $35,000 each) plus relatively low demand means they’ll be limited to metropolitan areas for years to come.

 

What if CARB is Wrong and Reality Does Not Support AGW?

Russ Steele

Californian’s are locked in an economic struggle with their own government, specifically bureaucratic agencies like CARB that are busy implementing AB-32 to reduce the emissions of CO2. Lets assume for a moment that CO2 reduction is the true mission of CARB and they truly believe that AB-32 will produce hundreds of green companies and more than a hundred thousand private sector jobs as forecast by TechNet, a bipartisan policy and political network of CEOs who promotes innovation in the economy.  TechNet CEO’s have become true believers in the theory anthropogenic global warming, according to statement they made in 2010.

“In an increasingly competitive global economy in which countries are vying for preeminence on clean energy, California’s leadership in implementing AB 32 has positioned our state for job growth and long-term competitiveness,” said Jim Hawley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of TechNet.

“After Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32 into law, venture investment in clean energy surged throughout the Golden State, creating hundreds of exciting new companies and more than one hundred thousand private-sector jobs. The development of clean energy is a capital-intensive enterprise, requiring a stable long-term investment climate. Changing course would jeopardize California’s economic leadership in emerging clean technology industries, costing the state not only thousands of existing jobs but also the opportunity to create many more in the future.

“Quite simply, if California suspends implementation of this historic measure, investment will go elsewhere. To build a strong economic future, California must continue to lead,” added Hawley.

California Academy of Sciences Pulls the Plug On Climate Change Exhibit

Russ Steele

My friend Anthony Watts visited the California Academy of Science with his family this weekend and discovered that Climate Change display is being dismantled.  He referenced my original post at NC Media Watch and noted the that when I visited in 2009 no one was paying any attention to the display.  Anthony posted some of my observations and pictures and then added some more of the vanishing display.

Details HERE.  He concludes:

When the über green California Academy of Sciences pulls the plug, you know “climate change” is a dead issue with the public.

From the evidence locker:

RV Update: Harper is On Trailer Life Cover

Russ Steele

Ellen and I are RVers and we take our standard poodle Harper with us when traveling.  Harper is on the front page of the March issue of Trailer Life and inside is a photo spread and story about traveling with large dogs in a small trailer.

The photos in the magazine were taken by Fred and Margie Buhler.  Unfortunately the editors left off the photo credits. I will be asking the editors for a correction, as there would have been no article without Fred’s and Margie’s outstanding photos.

Note: Trailer Life has been going trough a rough transition from California to Minnesota and has been without a full time Editor for several months.