| | | Steven Chu's vested interest <Under Chu's leadership, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has been a center of research into biofuels and solar energytechnologies. [11] He spearheaded the laboratory's Heliosproject, an initiative to develop methods of harnessing solar power as a source of renewable energy for transportation. [23]> That's cash flow to his projects. If CO2 is not a problem, then his projects will have to be economic without government protection or subsidies.
I see you are thinking BIG OIL and Steven Chu are on opposite sides of some theoretical divide. But look: <Chu was instrumental in submitting a winning bid for the Energy Biosciences Institute, a BP-funded $500 million multi-disciplinary collaborative project between UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois. This sparked controversy on the Berkeley campus, where some fear the alliance could harm the school’s reputation for academic integrity>
As I explained, during my time in BP Oil International [in the 1980s] I was promoting within BP that the company move towards being a capital investor in whatever is a good idea in BP's areas of expertise, to improve profits for shareholders and to provide the environmental benefits to the public and politicians that they are willing to pay for. BP in fact did that and there is another $500 million as evidence. There was also BP Solar which was a big producer of photovoltaics before the intense recent competition destroyed margins and resulted in BP Solar being closed. BP has invested in many alternative forms of energy including fusion reactors.
Steven has swallowed whole the CO2 mantra. That's understandable and if he wasn't a true believer, he would not have got his big shot job with Obama and would not be in the vanguard as he has been in developing alternatives.
I have no vested interest in CO2 being either a problem, or not a problem, or a benefit. I do in that I'm a person who wants a good and better world in which to live and which will supply my descendants and those of others who will still be alive and wanting a good world in which to live 100 years from now, and 500 years from now. My vested interest is in getting to the truth of what CO2 will mean. Steven Chu, Obama and Al Gore are much more invested in CO2 as a problem than me. I had the great advantage of being paid to learn about environmental matters related to oil combustion, and along with that various other matters in the alternatives technologies. BP did not require me to be anti-environmental. On the contrary, my job was to get things good.
As you might have noticed from the Macondo disaster, environmental damage is an enormous risk to BP. I was warning BP of such extreme hazard back in the mid 1980s, because the USA would sue BP for everything if something went wrong or they made some mistake, such as including lead in gasoline and then being found in a class action suit to be liable for $trillions in damage to people's brains from lead poisoning. BP realized the risk and started doing something about it. Obviously not enough in the right place.
As you say, coal miners and hydrocarbon producers are vested in maintaining demand for their products so one should be circumspect about their claims regarding the effects of CO2. But that doesn't mean that CO2 is a problem. It simply means any claims by them that CO2 production is inconsequential should be evaluated carefully.
In fact, I came up with a sequestration process, subsequently patented by Mitsubishi, to liquefy CO2 and pipe it below 400 metres deep where it would sit in huge puddles on the ocean floor, gradually dissolving. That would actually be GOOD for the fossil fuels industry because it would mean demand for 25% more energy to run the process, meaning even more coal, tar and oils would be required. Woohoo - increased profits while cutting CO2 emissions.
There are now existing CO2 liquefaction techniques which have been developed. But they are uneconomic since CO2 in air is not a problem, but is a benefit, at levels we are likely to reach over the next 50 years, which is the lifetime of thermal power stations and exceeds the lifespan of most living people.
Wouldn't it be ironic if your worries about CO2 resulted in your dreaded fossil fuel industry boosting production of fossil fuels to avoid CO2 emissions? They'd make more money at the expense of consumers of the electricity, or the taxpayers and citizens. That was the reason I was promoting such research to BP = if you really, really want no CO2 emissions, then here's a way for BP to provide you that result. But make sure before you commit your money that you really, really do want to pay more money to avoid CO2 going into the air. You wouldn't want to pay for all that investment and extra fossil fuel only to find you'd rather have the CO2 in the air than deep in the ocean.
If CO2 in the air turns out to be a problem, rather than a benefit, I'm happy to tax CO2 production which is not sequestered, such as by way of a carbon tax, with countervailing tax cuts elsewhere, which I suggested to my BP boss Nelson Cull way back in 1984 or 1985 [I forget which year it was] . You might find yourself whining "Don't be so worried about it Mq, it's not that bad". I'd be happy on a bicycle [which I already have and use] and wouldn't need to burn carbon. You might be more reluctant to go skinny on CO2 production.
Don't assume that people are scientific illiterates or evil-doers with vested interests because they disagree that CO2 emissions are a problem. From what I read, and hear from people, the illiteracy and vested interests are in the anti-CO2 brigade. Religions are notably not amenable to reason. CO2 has become a religion. Just because the high priests of the religion dress it up in superficially scientific blarney doesn't make them right. The beautiful raiment of the emperors of CO2 is wondrous, but the king isn't actually wearing any clothes.
Mqurice |
|
