Straight Talk About Energy Policy

I promised Kimball that I wouldn't post or editorialize about his paper - he was worried that I'd make him look too radical. So instead I will only reprint what other publications have already said about his paper:

Kimball Rasmussen, president and CEO of Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, the Utah G&T, gave a presentation this week to CFC employees at their Herndon, Va., headquarters based on his recent position paper, “A Rational Look at Climate Change Concerns and the Implications for U.S. Power Consumers.” The 50-page white paper does a skillful job of discussing NRECA’s “Our Energy/Our Future” campaign and explaining the complex science—and its inconsistencies and shortcomings—used to calculate the effects of global warming, referencing the recognized authority on global warming science, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Rasmussen acknowledges that global warming is occurring and that mankind’s activities contribute to it but advocates a thoughtful consideration of what to do about it based on the demand for electricity, the need for technology development, the costs associated with efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and the effect those efforts will have on rising temperatures.

Here are a few of the points presented by Rasmussen:

* The IPCC model is based on an average global temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius (range of 2 to 4.5 degrees) from a base calculation in the year 1750 to the expected temperature in 2100. This is due to a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere from 275 parts per million (ppm) to 550 ppm; the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 ppm.

* Climate change legislation is expected to be considered by the U.S. Congress. At a potential $50 per ton of CO2 settling price, a cap-and-trade program would cost the U.S. electric industry a staggering $100 billion per year—enough money to retire the net book value of every coal-fired plant in America within 3.5 years.

* The likely result of a U.S. cap-and-trade program is the exodus of U.S. industry and manufacturing to other parts of the world to reduce costs.

* If the United States were to develop enough renewable energy resources to replace current carbon-based resources within 10 years, as some have called for, we would need to duplicate the current amount of U.S. installed wind energy capacity once every 31 days for the next 10 years or build 1,247 new solar facilities similar to the 140-acre facility at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. (the third largest in the world) every month for the next 10 years. Neither outcome is possible.

* The United States emits about 6 billion tons of CO2 annually; the U.S. power sector emits about 2 billion tons of CO2 annually; and world CO2 emissions are approximately 30 billion tons annually. The U.S. percentage of annual global CO2 emissions is expected to decline over time.

* According to the IPCC formulae, if the United States were to shut down all of its fossil-fueled electricity within the next 10 years, the climate response would be a temperature decrease of just 0.07 degrees Celsius.

“I would hope that we could get past the extremes and apply reason and wisdom as we explore the best energy policy,” Rasmussen concludes in his white paper. “We should be cautious that international pressures do not overcome prudent domestic energy policy. An economically healthy America will have the best opportunity to develop technologies that can efficiently and methodically lead to a prudent transition from carbon resources. A misguided carbon tax, or cap-and-trade program, will grievously damage the U.S. economy, will accelerate the out-migration of heavy industry and will have no beneficial effect on future climate.”