A tale of two overkills

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.fig.5.large.gifThe pyramid of aluminum shown in the photograph figures greatly in our nation’s history. This once rare metal was so prized that it was placed into a national monument by a grateful nation. Can you guess where? Now, aluminum is so common, thanks to an electrical refining process and plentiful, cheap electricity, that we throw it away in soda cans.

Two seemingly unrelated events on opposite sides of the globe occurred this past week.

One was the closure of an aluminum plant in Montana, and the other is the president of a European metals association threatened to move production overseas citing environmental rules and energy costs escalating due to emissions trading schemes.

Both stories are presented below. At the end, is the story of our “Aluminum Pyramid”, now in a  national monument.

cfalls_aluminum_co_aerial_lg
The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana - click for larger image

Google Map of above is here

First, Montana.

How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America

by Edwin X. Berry

On October 31, 2009, the once largest aluminum plant in the world will shut down. With it goes another American industry and more American jobs. The Columbia Falls Aluminum Company in Montana will shut down its aluminum production because it cannot purchase the necessary electrical power to continue its operations.

How did this happen in America? America was once the envy of the world in its industrial capability. America’s industrial capacity built America into the most productive nation the world had ever known. Its standard of living rose to levels never before accomplished. Its currency became valuable and powerful, allowing Americans to purchase imported goods at relatively cheap prices.

America grew because of innovation and hard work by the pioneers of the industrial revolution, and because America has vast natural resources. A great economy, as America once was, is founded on the ability to produce electrical energy at low cost. This ability has been extinguished. Why?

Columbia Falls Aluminum negotiated a contract with Bonneville Power Administration in 2006 for Bonneville to supply electrical power until September 30, 2011. But, responding to lawsuits, the 9th US Circuit Court ruled the contract was invalid because it was incompatible with the Northwest Power Act. Therefore, the combination of the Northwest Power Act and a US Circuit Court were the final villains that caused the shutdown of Columbia Falls Aluminum.

But the real reasons are much more complicated. Why was it not possible for Columbia Falls Aluminum to find sources of electricity other than Bonneville?

We need to look no further than the many environmental groups like the Sierra Club and to America’s elected officials who turned their backs on American citizens and in essence themselves, for they too are citizens of this country. These officials bought into the green agenda promoted by the heavily funded environmental groups. Caving to pressure, they passed laws and the environmental groups filed lawsuits that began turning off the lights in America. The dominos stated to fall.

They began stopping nuclear power plants in the 1970’s. They locked up much of our coal and oil resources with land laws. They passed tax credits, which forces taxpayers foot the bill for billionaire investors to save taxes by investing in less productive wind and solar energy projects.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency called a meeting of atmospheric scientists and others with environmental interests. I remember well the meeting I attended in the San Francisco Bay Area. The meeting was in a theater-like lecture room with the seating curved to face the center stage and rising rapidly toward the back of the room. Attending were many atmospheric scientists whom I knew from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute and some local colleges.

The room became silent when a man walked up to the lectern. He told us that the next big national problem was global warming. He explained how human carbon dioxide emissions were trapping the earth’s radiation like a greenhouse and causing the atmosphere to heat beyond its normal temperature. He said this will lead to environmental disasters. He finished by saying the EPA will now concentrate its research funding toward quantifying the disasters that would be caused by our carbon dioxide.

The room was silent. I was the first to raise my hand to ask a question, “How can you defend your global warming hypothesis when you have omitted the effects of clouds which affect heat balance far more than carbon dioxide, and when your hypothesis contradicts the paper by Lee in the Journal of Applied Meteorology in 1972 that shows the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse?”

He answered me by saying, “You do not know what you are talking about. I know more about how the atmosphere works than you do.”

Not being one to drop out of a fight, I responded, “I know many of the atmospheric scientists in this room, and many others who are not present but I do not know you. What is your background and what makes you know so much more than me?”

He answered, “I know more than you because I am a lawyer and I work for the EPA.”

After the meeting, many of my atmospheric science friends who worked for public agencies thanked me for what I said, saying they would have liked to say the same thing but they feared for their jobs.

And that, my dear readers, is my recollection of that great day when a lawyer, acting as a scientist, working for the federal government, announced global warming.

Fast forward to today. The federal government is spending 1000 times more money to promote the global-warming charade than is available to those scientists who are arguing against it. Never before in history has it taken a massive publicity campaign to convince the public of a scientific truth. The only reason half the public thinks global warming may be true is the massive amount of money put into global-warming propaganda. The green eco-groups have their umbilical cords in the government’s tax funds. Aside from a few honest but duped scientists living on government money, the majority of the alarms about global warming – now called “climate change” because it’s no longer warming – come from those who have no professional training in atmospheric science. They are the environmentalists, the ecologists, the lawyers and the politicians. They are not the reliable atmospheric scientists whom I know.

Nevertheless, our politicians have passed laws stating that carbon dioxide is bad. See California’s AB32 which is based upon science fiction. (For readers who take issue with me, I will be happy to destroy your arguments in another place. In this paper, we focus on the damage to America that is being caused by those promoting the global-warming fraud.)

In the year 2000, America planned 150 new coal-electric power plants. These power plants would have been “clean” by real standards but the Greens managed to have carbon dioxide defined legally as “dirty” and this new definition makes all emitters of carbon dioxide, including you, a threat to the planet. Therefore, using legal illogic, the Sierra Club stopped 82 of these planned power plants under Bush II and they expect it will be a slam-dunk to stop the rest under Obama.

And now you know the real reason the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company had to shut down. America stopped building new power plants a long time ago. There is now no other source where the company can buy energy. Our energy-producing capability is in a decline and it is taking America with it.

I used to belong to the Sierra Club in the 1960’s. It used to be a nice hiking club. In the late 1960’s the Sierra Club began turning its attention toward stopping nuclear power. Then I quit the Sierra Club. It continues to prosper from the many subscribers who think they are supporting a good cause. What they are really supporting is the destruction of America brick by brick. The Sierra Club and similar organizations are like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside. They are telling us we have no right to our own natural resources, and in doing so they are sinking America.

Inherent in ecology are three assumptions: “natural” conditions are optimal, climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions. By assuming climate is fragile, the global warming supporters have assumed their conclusion. In fact, the climate is not fragile. It is stable. The non-adherence to physical logic in the global-warming camp is what makes many physical scientists say that global warming is a religion.

So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.

Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion … her many resources saved for whom?

Edwin X Berry, PhD [send him mail] is an atmospheric physicist and certified consulting meteorologist with Climate Physics, LLC in Montana. Visit his website.


Now, Europe

 

From Heliogenic Climate Change:

Economic death march in Europe

“European non-ferrous metals producers may move to countries where environmental legislation is less strict unless the impact of forthcoming measures is reduced, an industry spokesman said on Thursday.

Javier Targhetta, president of Eurometaux, said the industry was concerned over high and unpredictable power costs [and] the added cost of a new emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2013 …

Targhetta was particularly concerned over what he said was the reluctance of utilities to sell power for terms of three years or more following deregulation for heavy users in Spain last year.

“This increases long-term insecurity and leads to a halt in investment. If we carry on like this, the industry is destined to disappear,” he said.

Eurometaux estimates a new phase of the ETS could hike its power costs by an unsustainable 150-200 million euros ($221.1-294.8 million), and may prompt “carbon leakage,” or relocation to countries where emission costs are low or nil.

“Carbon will still be produced, it will still be producing the greenhouse effect, but a European plant will have been lost,” Targhetta said.”

Electricity accounts for an average of 35 percent of production costs for non-ferrous metals — 60 percent for aluminum — and producers say big differences in policy between European countries and lack of interconnection make power more expensive.

Source: Reuters, “Europe metals producers warn of relocation

Read the Eurometaux press release here (PDF)


About the “Aluminum Pyramid”, here it is being set:

 

File:Washington Monument-setting the capstone.jpg

From Wikipedia:

The building of the monument proceeded quickly after Congress had provided sufficient funding. In four years, it was finally completed, with the 100 ounce (2.85 kg) aluminum tip/lightning-rod being put in place on December 6, 1884. It was the largest single piece of aluminum cast at the time. In 1884 aluminum was as expensive as silver, both $1 per ounce.

Over time, however, the price of the metal dropped; the invention of the Hall-Héroult electric refining process in 1886 caused the high price of aluminum to permanently collapse. The monument opened to the public on October 9, 1888.

Still confused? It is the Washington monument.

Read the history of the aluminum cap here:

The Point of a Monument: A History of the Aluminum Cap of the Washington Monument

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
192 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Brumby
November 8, 2009 12:26 pm

(11:12:40)
“What are the subsidies given to coal mines in the US?
Perhaps these should be closed. China can supply much cheaper.”
I would be amazed if coal production in the US is subsidised. It certainly isn’t in the UK. Indigenous coal is significantly cheaper than imports (mainly from Russia, nowdays. So it won’t just be gas supplies that Putin will use to twist out tails.) But The UK Coal industry can no longer meet our domestic energy production requirements.
And did you try to buy coal from China in recent years? See Crosspatch’s comment above!
And since ‘sustainability’ is your big thing, how sustainable is it to ship coal from the far east?

November 8, 2009 12:29 pm


crosspatch (11:09:18) :
… There should be a reliable liquid cooling designed where the servers have liquid cooled sinks rather than air cooled. Chilled liquid … heat directly from the heatsink … sent directly out of the building and the heat dumped to atmosphere. …
The military (Navy) has been using water cooled electronics for at least a half a century.

Do you have any idea of the technology and complications that would be involved here?
Leaks in QD (quick disconnect) couplers, bubbles in the coolant, what acts to perform as an agent to prevent corrosion? The pumps, the many pumps or one pump? Backup to the main pump?
And, it is more than just the ‘heatsink’ for the CPU that requires cooling: how about the I/O management chipset, the power supply to name a couple items. Presently, in a design at work we heatsink-cool five (5) FPGAs (big BGA chips that are Field Programmable Gate Arrays), the CPU, the I/O controller plus the CPU and power supply!
In the 80’s – 90’s timeframe we built a Silicon Oil cooled/insulated TWT-based
RADAR transmitter for an airborne app (the Panavia Tornado aircraft) … don’t need to tell you what fun that technology was (degreaser tanks, the transmitter ol-fill procedure, the moisture bake-out cycle …) not to mention the inevitable seepage from gaskets along the mating flanges …
.
.
.

John G
November 8, 2009 12:51 pm

Re. healthcare, I haven’t read the bill so I can’t quote chapter and verse but it’s been all over the news that it includes a requirement that everyone either buy health insurance or get it through work. It also forbids insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. The two go together since ‘no denial for pre-existing conditions’ requires everyone have health insurance or everyone would wait until they get sick to buy insurance. This, in turn, requires there be stiff penalties for not having insurance including jail time. You don’t need to read the bill to know that has to be the case, and also the only reason the insurance companies will go along with it.
Forcing Americans to buy health insurance is likely to be unconstitutional but should that be the ruling once healthcare becomes law it only means the insurance companies would all be out of business and the government option would immediately become the only option. If it’s ruled constitutional, the government option will win anyway, it will just take longer. Welcome to socialized medicine.

bill
November 8, 2009 12:56 pm

_Jim (11:53:17) :
The Dust Bowl in Canada and the United States (1934-1939)
Minamata disease – mercury poisoning in Japan (1950s & 1960s)
Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine
Love canal
December 3, 1984. The worst industrial chemical disaster ever, Bhopal
July 10, 1976. A plume of tetrachlorodibenzoparadioxin (TCDD) contaminated vapors is released from a pesticide plant in the town of Seveso, Italy.
the Mississippi delta is the world’s dirtiest coastal ecosystem, worse than the Ganges or Mekong. The runoff from farms has lead to a persistent “dead zone” at the foot of America’s mightiest river.
Deforestation without replanting
Aral sea shrinking
Over fishing with “factory ships”
etc.

Craig Moore
November 8, 2009 1:03 pm

Instead of the US importing coal from China, it appears the flow is the other way : http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news/bnsf-served-montana-mine-tests-market-in-china.html
============
Signal Peak Energy, an expanded coal mining operation near Roundup, Mont., with a new 35-mile link to the BNSF Railway mainline, has confirmed reports that it will send an undetermined number of coal cargoes to China on a trial basis by the end of this year.
It has been unofficially reported that two Panamax cargoes, 60,000 to 70,000 deadweight tons, and a Capesize cargo, 125,000 tons, could move through Vancouver, B.C., by year-end.
=============

bill
November 8, 2009 1:15 pm

Martin Brumby (12:26:59) :
I would be amazed if coal production in the US is subsidised. It certainly isn’t in the UK. Indigenous coal is significantly cheaper than imports (mainly from Russia, nowdays. So it won’t just be gas supplies that Putin will use to twist out tails.) But The UK Coal industry can no longer meet our domestic energy production requirements.
And did you try to buy coal from China in recent years? See Crosspatch’s comment above!

Coal in the UK – 2008
The UK consumed 58.2 million tonnes of coal in 2008, including 47.8 million tonnes in power stations.
Coal imports to the UK were 43.9 million tonnes…Indigenous production increased by 5.3% to 17.9 million tonnes….
Almost a third of the UK’s electricity was produced from coal (gas 47.5%, coal 32.1%, nuclear 12.9%, others (including renewables) 7.5%).
UK imports 225Ktonnes of coal from china:
Belgium/Luxembourg 1
Denmark 7
Estonia 66
Germany 13
Irish Republic 23
Italy 7
Latvia 130
Netherlands 170
Poland(1) 130
Spain 11
Australia 4,745
Canada 1,662
Colombia 3,872
Indonesia 1,455
Norway 42
People’s Republic of China 255
Republic of South Africa 7,729
Russia 20,106
United States of America 2,523
Total all countries 42,975

bill
November 8, 2009 1:21 pm

During the fiscal years of 2002-2008 the United States handed out subsidies to fossil fuel industries to a tune of 72 billion dollars, while renewable energy subsidies, during the same period, reached 29 billion dollars
The subsidies are provided through tax breaks and direct funds provided for research and development
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0921-hance_subsidies.html

F. Ross
November 8, 2009 1:38 pm

Though “green” has five letters, it has become a four letter word to me.
Sadly, I must agree with the many posters who here write that we are witnessing the fall of our nation. It will not be pretty.

Vincent
November 8, 2009 1:40 pm

Bill,
“During the fiscal years of 2002-2008 the United States handed out subsidies to fossil fuel industries to a tune of 72 billion dollars, while renewable energy subsidies, during the same period, reached 29 billion dollars.”
But what proportion of US electricity is generated by fossil fuels compared to renewables? Now, instead of gross dollar amounts, tell me the subsidies of fossil and renewables per gigawatt hours of electricity generated.
I am sure you will be looking at an entirely different situation.

Vincent
November 8, 2009 1:46 pm

Bill,
You gave a list of environmental disasters caused by man. Can you now name one environmental disaster caused by man’s emission of CO2?
And yet, it is the race to curb CO2 emissions that is leading to a worsening of the very environmental disasters you have listed, viz: rainforest destruction to grow biodiesel, commandeering more and more land to grow ethanol crops, pollution caused by “carbon leakage” as manufacturing migrates to China and India.
CO2 mitigation is an example of the destructiveness (and stupidity) of humans.

Richard
November 8, 2009 1:56 pm

Falstaff (01:05:21) : Hold on, ….CFAC receiving SUBSIDIZES for its power …. The price of Al has dropped in the recession – no planes, cars, homes going up at the moment…CFAC is “…far from raw materials, far from markets, far from ports.” .. The plant technology is old compared to its peers… “Payroll easily undermined by newer Chinese smelters.”
So I have to say blaming enviros for this one is crack pottery.

bill (04:58:41) :
So who forced the closure?
Not the greens
Not lack of power stations
Just the great american public requesting lower cost electricity!

Falstaff the closure of the Aluminium plant is a symptom. A symptom of the loss of power generating capacity of America and the west.
Bill if the “great american public” requests lower cost electricity they are NOT going to get it with wind power (or solar power for that matter), which is costly to put up, does not generate when there is less wind and snaps when there is too much. They will get lower cost electricity by putting up coal power plants which are the cheapest and most reliable.
China is putting up 2-3 coal power plants per week to feed their huge manufacturing expansion. Here you are contracting your manufacturing and fighting over your contracting per capita electricity generation, which happens when there is not enough of anything. I dont know about Al but China already produces more than twice the amount of steel than the US

crosspatch
November 8, 2009 2:12 pm

Do you have any idea of the technology and complications that would be involved here?

Yes, in fact I do. I have worked on liquid cooled systems for military use.

Leaks in QD (quick disconnect) couplers, bubbles in the coolant, what acts to perform as an agent to prevent corrosion? The pumps, the many pumps or one pump? Backup to the main pump?

All problems that were solved decades ago. Double-sealed quick connections, self-purging designs that use gravity. And I said *liquid* cooled, not water cooled. There are a lot of things that can be used as a coolant besides water. Generally two pumps are enough. Each one on a different power circuit with either of the pumps sufficient to do the job. You only need a high pressure side for the supply and a low pressure side for the return. It doesn’t need to be high pressure. It is actually quite simple.

And, it is more than just the ‘heatsink’ for the CPU that requires cooling: how about the I/O management chipset, the power supply to name a couple items. Presently, in a design at work we heatsink-cool five (5) FPGAs (big BGA chips that are Field Programmable Gate Arrays), the CPU, the I/O controller plus the CPU and power supply!

Yup, and liquid heatsinks are available for all of them. In fact, you can buy a liquid-cooled PC for home use and bleeding edge gamers and other “overclockers” use them.
Last time I checked there was not a single fan in a submarine for electronics cooling. They make noise. I am not talking about new technology, I am talking about technology that has been in use for decades.
It isn’t as difficult as you make it sound. You can have quite reliable quick disconnects that don’t leak and are self-purging. All you need is a catch reservoir on the return side that collects the bubbles. Every so often you open the cock to let out the air that has collected.
And the more it is put into practice, the better and cheaper it becomes as competitors innovate to capture market share.

Zeke the Sneak
November 8, 2009 2:15 pm

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the country. Perhaps with enough interest from the public, this case could go further, and get their power contract back.

Zeke the Sneak
November 8, 2009 2:52 pm

Sorry, I should have read this first, before commenting:
The company had been able to buy discount electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration, a quasi-governmental outfit that for decades sold at-cost electricity to big industrial customers. But with an increase in population came an increase in demand for cheap hydropower, pitting industry against other users.
The amount of at-cost power available to industry was diminished and eventually was replaced entirely by a subsidy that helped the aluminum company and others buy down the cost of electricity.

It’s still the fault of the environmentalists–they hate dams. Here locally they are even talking about tearing down a dam on the Columbia and returning the river to its natural state. These greens talk about clean energy nationally, but locally, you will find they oppose ALL power production.

chmd
November 8, 2009 3:21 pm

Quote: “You gave a list of environmental disasters caused by man. Can you now name one environmental disaster caused by man’s emission of CO2?”
That is precisely what we, the “alarmists” are trying to avoid. There is still time, but not much.
In the meantime, avoiding the following would be an added bonus:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207445

Eric A
November 8, 2009 3:31 pm

Instead of falling for the BS in the featured article, it is worthwhile to do a little research on this subject.
http://justdigging.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/endangered-specie-us-aluminium-smelters/
“I attended Habor Intelligence’s Aluminium Market and Price Outlook in Chicago in June this year. One of the speakers was consultant who gave a presentation aluminium output costs which led him to identify the most profitable production locations throughout the supply chain. One of his conclusions was that in the mid- to long-term vertically integrated production in the United States would become unprofitable due to rising power costs. The most viable scenario for North American production is to locate downstream processing operations in the US and to supply those with aluminium produced in Canada.

As mentioned earlier, US smelters are vulnerable to rising energy costs. The unavailability of power and uncompetitive pricing were to blame for some smelters closing amid rising aluminium prices in the recent past. Considering the history of temporary shutdowns related to energy issues at the Wenatchee (Alcoa), Goldendale (Goldendale Aluminium which is owned by Glencore), Frederick (Alcoa-Eastalco) and Ferndale (Alcoa-Intalco) aluminium smelters, I assume that 23.9% of US nameplate capacity is vulnerable to rising power costs.
In sum, primary aluminium production in the US pretty much deserves to be labelled as old, fat and unfit. With vertically integrated production in the US likely to become less and less profitable relying on Canadian aluminium production is the sensible thing to do. The integration of the aluminium industry at the North American level is without a doubt well underway with the extruders gathered in a single North American trade association, and the US being Canada’s most import export destination for aluminium. The US should probably bet on the advantage that it has in recycling operations relative to Canada. In a context of GHG emissions being regulated this would give the United States a serious advantage as aluminium recycling consumes 5% the energy and 5% of the emissions that primary aluminium smelting produces.”
The reason the Columbia plant closed was that the subsidy it was getting for electric power costs was discontinued.
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/cfac_to_shut_down_by_end_of_the_month/13705/
“…The company had been able to buy discount electricity from the Bonneville, a quasi-governmental outfit that for decades sold at-cost electricity to big industrial customers. But with an increase in population came an increase in demand for cheap hydropower, pitting industry against other users.
The amount of at-cost power available to industry was diminished and eventually was replaced entirely by a subsidy that helped the aluminum company and others buy down the cost of electricity.
Critics successfully argued that the subsidy was too large and came at the expense of other rate payers, and in December a court ordered the Bonneville Power Administration to end its subsidy to Columbia Falls Aluminum…”
This is a case of an inefficient company losing a subsidy. Other sources of Aluminum, including recycling will replace these factories. I feel sorry for the workers but that is the way markets work.
The blogger who wrote the article is off base to blame this on environmentalists.

crosspatch
November 8, 2009 4:21 pm

“In sum, primary aluminium production in the US pretty much deserves to be labelled as old, fat and unfit. ”
I would say that power production and distribution in the US is old, fat, and unfit. Power costs would not be so high if we could build a power plant. Power production isn’t “rocket surgery”. It takes a given amount of power to extract a given amount of aluminum no matter where it is produced. Canda can still build power. The US can’t. Don’t blame the aluminum manufacturer.
In case of a national emergency where we might need a lot of aluminum in a hurry, having that production in Canada doesn’t do us any good. The US government can’t order a Canadian plant to produce squat.
Pull down that dam and build a nuke facility there. Let the fish swim free and make aluminum.

chmd
November 8, 2009 4:27 pm

Thanks Eric. Great research. But someone is going to tell you that it’s the enviros fault that energy cost is rising. So it’s still their fault, no matter what.

November 8, 2009 4:40 pm

EM Smith and other replies to those who pointed out the subsidy of the plant were spot on. The question to be asked is why are energy costs so high?
Max Weber, a contemporary of Lennin stirred up great hate for capitalism. In Weber’s later years, he eventually perceived Lenin’s ideal of inserting a hierarchical mode of organization society, as an attempt to enslave the common man. Weber “ believed that workers in socialist society still would work in hierarchy, but this time in much worse form of it, fused with government power“ The bureaucratic tendency of socialist systems is immense and often unstoppable waste. As the US has moved towards socialism it is not immune from this concern. As one small example the Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. It’s purpose was to lessen US dependence on foreign oil. Currently, 32 years later, the budget for this “necessary” department is 25 billion a year with 16,000 federal employees and 100,000 contract employees. Energy, the life blood of any economy is not so complicated. The incredible benefits of inexpensive readily available energy are well documented in numerous studies and lead to cleaner energy, lower population, and increased wealth available for real needs and problems. Currently the enslaved people (producers employed in the private sector) in the US earn only fifty percent of the income compared to those who receive paychecks from the government. As an earlier commentator mentioned “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.” ~~George Washington

Editor
November 8, 2009 4:51 pm

Ok wrt the Bonneville Power Authority’s argument that the Aluminum plant’s power is ‘subsidized’, that is clearly false. Have you seen how BPA calculates the cost of the power it provides? I have. First they take the miniscule actual cost (75% of the costs of any renewable energy typically are capital costs, given there hasn’t been a new dam built in the Columbia River basin in over 50 years, it is safe to say that the capital costs of BPA power were long since paid off, leaving us 25% or less), then tack on capital costs which no longer exist but are still billed. Then tack on the administrative overhead of the BPA bureaucracy, and the Dept of Energy bureaucracy in the region (this includes Hanford Nuclear Reservation). Then tack on BPA subsidies for funding renewable (solar and wind) energy production facilities, and subsidies for funding energy conservation, both industrial, educational, residential, and for local governments.
Once all that crap is tacked on, you have the base rate. These rates are charged to industrial customers like this Aluminum plant (this is just the last one, there were once dozens on the Columbia feeding off the hydropower, they’ve been gradually all getting shut down since the early 1990’s), and to local public and commercial power utilities like Seattle Power and Light, Pacific Gas and Electric, etc. who then tack on their own overhead. The local utilities and the public utilities boards thought it unfair that these industrial concerns were not customers in their districts, paying the retail rates (or some wholesale rate like companies like Boeing does), without any logic to justify said argument.
See the local customers have been hornswoggled, hook, line, and sinker, as to the value of subsidizing energy conservation and wind/solar programs with DoE dollars. The locals did not want to bay for these programs “themselves”, but felt it okay if the DoE budgeted money because that would be taxpayer money coming in from all over the US. The BPA however still bills power utilities as if all the subsidy money is coming from the region, PLUS they tack on their and DOEs bureaucratic overhead, so conservation funding in BPA territory has an effective economic impact of about forty cents on the dollar upon delivery.
The more conservation/renewables money that was consumed, the higher local electric rates would rise. So then the “people” got it in their thick heads that it was unfair that they, who were “doing their part” to conserve energy, were paying so much more per kwh than those wasteful aluminum smelters on the river. The smelters of course did consume a crapton of energy, its the prime ingredient of the refining process for Aluminum. There are hard physical limits as to the minimum energy to refine aluminum, and the state of the art is pretty much at that limit. You can’t conserve more than that.
Which reminds me of how I know all this. I was a guy who invented the worlds best exit sign, it used a electroluminescent lamp, and came as a kit you could use to retrofit your existing exit sign with. The lamp consumed 1/3 of a watt and lasts for 30 years, so you save 10 times more on not having to change bulbs than in energy but thats a separate subject. BPA offered/offers a flat rebate fee on exit sign retrofits through the local utilities. All you had to do was reduce your exit sign consumption from 40 watts or more down to 20 watts. If you bought my product, which saved 99% of the rest of the energy too, you still only got the flat rebate, which damaged our sales and competitiveness. A few, like Seattle power and light, understood what we were doing and provided a graduated rebate based on energy saved, partly because they generated most of their own power from dams on Seattle owned reservoirs and could afford it, whereas most utilities did not own much of their own power generation capacity.
The people of the northwest willfully shut down the Trojan Nuclear Plant, prematurely in 1992 before its license expired! This reduced the Northwestern region from a situation of energy surplus to one of deficit, yet they continue to claim it was forced closed by “market conditions”. BS!!!!
The fuel is sitting in pools onsite, it could be restarted again, perhaps with some upgrades to the turbine generators and other work to ensure none of the systems are degraded. Will the government allow the Aluminum company to take over Trojan and restart it? Hell no.

November 8, 2009 5:05 pm

bill (08:11:15) :
E.M.Smith (05:58:57)
your article is typical America-think. . .

Yep, it is. America-think is what led America to become the greatest, most innovative, most productive, and the free-est nation in the history of the world. America-think looks to a bright future of ever-increasing growth and prosperity, reaching ultimately to the rest of the Solar System and the stars.
America-think knows that human ingenuity can solve any problem, and that ever-increasing energy is the secret to continued progress. For America-thinkers, the Star Trek vision of the 24th century is not fiction, but a future we can achieve, and a lot sooner than three centuries from now, if we put our minds to it.
The eco-Luddites are the polar opposite of America-thinkers. They are head-in-the-sand regressives, who insist upon scarcity and deprivation as a way of life, whose vision of the future is a world that has renounced technology, and lives in the squalor and misery of the deep Middle Ages, all in the name of ‘sustainability’.
I prefer America-think, for me and my grandchildren, thank you.
/Mr Lynn

Kevin Kilty
November 8, 2009 5:06 pm

J.Hansford (18:56:07) :
Excellent article Anthony.
Our civilization depends on cheap, plentiful energy. Any restriction to this has consequences to our freedom and way of life.

Not only these, but sustainability requires lots of cheap power, which inturn makes recycling of everything possible. Even half a billion people permanently without adequate power is not a pretty prospect for the environment.

old construction worker
November 8, 2009 5:55 pm

chmd (15:21:27) :
‘That is precisely what we, the “alarmists” are trying to avoid. There is still time, but not much.’
Please state your case that CO2 drives the climate. I don’t want to hear that coal, cars, manufacturing, other CO2 producing wiggets are bad.
CO2 lags temperature, hockey stick is broken and up side down, the heat in the oceans ran off with the hot spot in the atmosphere and can’t be found.
So please, state your case that CO2 drives our climate.

Evan Jones
Editor
November 8, 2009 6:47 pm

I agree with most skeptics that CO2 has a small, underlying effect. But I do not think it is particularly significant. Probably less than 1C per century.
I completely agree with those who blame the environmental movement for the current cost of energy. Energy policy has been irrational and self-destructive (and not even helpful to the environment).

November 8, 2009 7:00 pm

To Wyoming Citizens
Immediately build coal plants locally to generate your own electricity.
Pass a law making it illegal to sell power to Oregon, Washington, or California.
Elect a state Attorney General to prosecute all members of the EPA and supporting cast of violation of the Hatch act when they complain about CO2.
Sue all non-profit organizations that have hyped AGW for tax evasion.
File a complaint to remove all Dams on the Columbia to allow Salmon access to all tributaries.
Here is suit:
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/175/1156/637300/