Energy Matters

  ENERGY MATTERS INDEX  ( with apologies to Harper's Index ) Current total number of U.S. jobs in the fossil fuel industries (coal, oil, gas) : 200,000 Current total number of U.S. jobs in the solar and wind power : 450,000 Potential number in the wind and solar as fossil energy is phased out : 1,000,000+ Annual sustainable energy from one acre of corn ethanol : 3.1 MWh (140 gallons)  Annual sustainable energy from one acre of trees : 6 MWh (1 cord) Annual sustainable energy from one acre of wind power : 200 MWh Annual sustainable energy from one acre of photovoltaics : 800MWh Miles that an acre of corn ethanol could move a typical small SUV in a year : 2,500 Miles that an acre of photovoltaics could move an electric car in a year : 2,000,000 Minimum acres of farmland to supply biofuel to one jumbo jet for a year : 65,000 (100 sq.mi.) Median grams of CO2 produced per kilowatt-hour of electricity at a coal fired power plant : 950 At a natural gas fired plant : 450 By a

  Biomass Revisited Our recent column “Is Biomass a Climate Solution?” generated some feedback from members of the biomass industry in Maine. We greatly appreciate feedback, so we would like to respond. To review the column’s content, our main point was that using wood pellets from mature trees in place of oil or gas is not going to budge the global warming needle. If curbing greenhouse gas emissions drastically and expeditiously is our mission, switching to another combustion fuel is not better enough. We made a distinction between what is happening in North Carolina, the annual clear-cut of 60,000 acres to be pelletized and sent to the E.U. for biomass to meet their “renewables” quotas, and what the Maine biomass industry comprises. Perhaps we didn’t make this point clearly enough, and thereby regrettably offended some Maine biomass proponents. However, our thesis still stands: biomass burning as it is being employed by E.U. countries to meet their greenhouse gas reduction calculus i

  One More Time: What Is “Carbon Pricing?” The reason we bring this up is that national carbon pricing is important.  It is recognized by a full spectrum of economists, conservative to liberal, as key to reducing the role of fossil fuels in our economy, and by climate policy experts as critical for cutting emissions rapidly enough to avert catastrophe.  Why do economists and climate policy experts promote carbon pricing but politicians do not?  We believe the answer lies with voters - voters who do not pressure their elected officials to enact carbon pricing because they aren’t sure what it is. So here is what it is, in a nutshell.  Carbon pricing refers to placing a sort of “pollution fee” on fossil fuels to make their prices reflect their TRUE cost to society.  If the actual effects of fossil fuels -- in health damage, in environmental damage, in damage to the atmosphere -- were priced into those fuels, consumers would respond by avoiding them and favoring alternatives, including ene