The climate change sceptic

OK, so you are a climate change sceptic. So am I. Have you heard about exposure. No I'm not talking about streaking across a football pitch or being out in the snow without a parka on. I'm talking about what a rock climber/mountaineer calls exposure. Let me give you an example.

First example. You are out with your 10 year old and you take him to a nearby climbing club where he can try bouldering. There is a really difficult pitch he tries. If he falls there is a thick mat a couple of feet below him.

Second example. You are high in the mountains. You are on a very easy path - almost like a sidewalk with your 10 year old skipping along ahead of you. The only problem is that there is a 2000 foot drop on either side just off the path. Which of these situations makes your testicles pull right up into your chest.

The bouldering situation has virtually zero exposure. The mountain walk, huge exposure. The consequences of a slip are not to be countenanced. Climate change is like that. If climate change is a reality, the consequences are enormous and it will effect your 10 year old in just about as disastrously as slipping off the path.

Further more, If we are to believe the scientists who study climate change, sudden catastrophic climate change is not some remote unbelievable happenstance such as aliens coming to earth and wiping us out. We know from various records that rapid severe climate change has happened in the past. The signatures are in rock strata ice cores and ocean bottom mud cores. A couple of pretty relatively mild ones are also contained in our culture in the form of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The end of the last ice age was another quite severe sudden climate change and it  ended a blink of the eye just 11,000 years ago.

We have sufficiently sophisticated science to know that there are good reasons to believe that we could cause rapid catastrophic climate change. We know, for instance that there are huge reserves of clathrates (methane ice) both in the frozen lands of the Northern Hemisphere and in the mid depths of the oceans of the world that only need a little warming to start them disintegrating. A little warming and they will release their methane at a rapid rate, accelerating the warming and releasing more methane etc. We know that methane is a far more powerful green house gas than carbon dioxide. It could be that it is too late to stop them being released as there are already indications that the tundra is melting and releasing its methane*.

*Since writing this article an item in New Scientist reported that 250 methane seeps have been detected on the ocean bottom around Spitsburgen.

We also know that ice and snow reflect most of the incoming energy from the sun and that open water absorbs most of this energy. If the Arctic ice melts, the heat budget of the world is going to be strongly and suddenly changed. Already,it is reported that the Arctic ocean has heated up about 3 degrees. If the ice disappears as predicted, most of the solar radiation falling on this ocean in the summer, 24 hours a day, will cause a rapid further rise in temperature. Clathrates which have been accumulating on the bottom of the Arctic ocean since the Ermian interglacial, 125,000 years ago will start to break down.

Despite all these logical arguments none of us can be sure that a sudden catastrophic climate change is in our near future. We can not be sure that our release of Carbon dioxide is causing climate change and we can't even be sure that through some as yet undiscovered chain of cause and effect that we may not be about to go into a new ice age. However whatever you believe with regard to climate change, there are some things which are certain unrelated to climate change. In no particular order:


* The EROEI* for new oil discoveries is declining. *Energy returned on energy invested ratio. With early oil discoveries it took the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to discover, refine and deliver to the petrol station the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil. Now the ratio in the US is around 3:1 and in Saudi Arabia 10:1. Tar sands with advances in production techniques run now at about 5.8:1 (calculating using only direct energy inputs) and the ratio falls (gets worse) sigificantly if you include the true energy inputs). It is clear that that oil is becoming more difficult to find and more energy consuming to bring to the petrol station.

Incidentally, the EROEI for wind turbines is about 20:1

*Peak oil has been reached in many countries. For instance: USA-1970, Indonesia-1997, Australia-2000, UK-1999, Norway-2001, Mexico-2004. Combining all oil producing countries together we have arguably already passed global peak oil production. Peak oil for any country or for the world is only apparent a few years after it has been passed so we will only be wise in hindsight.

*P10's, the carbon particles of less than 10 micron size are serious health hazards. They are produced by internal combustion engines and by the burning of a wide range of fuels in cooking fires. They exist in the air of all countries but are particularly prevalent in Asia, especially where there are high densities of internal combustion engines crowded together into cities and people cooking with wood and kerosine.

*There can be no doubt that we are running out of oil at a rapid rate and coal at a slower but significant rate. Lets look at measures which will ensure us a source of energy long into the future and while we are at it, lets concentrate on measures which will reduce the emissions of Carbon dioxide just in case climate change is a reality. Fortunately many measures we can take which solve the first also solve the second.


First it is a no-brainer that we should put wind turbines in any location where the wind allows. Allowing NIMBY's to block the construction of wind farms is insane. With the exception of solar-electric panels, energy generation by wind has to be about the most ecologically benign form of energy generation ever invented. Yes, you get some bird kills and if you live too close, you may be able to hear them (although they are getting ever quieter and their sound is often masked by the russle of leaves when the wind is blowing). Ironically in areas such as New Zealand where we are worried about the survival of a rare daisy or threatened snail, wind farms can be positively benefical. Once there is a commercial enterprise on a ridge, there is money available to fence in the whole area and eliminate stoats, rats and cats and weed out foreign species of plants. Each wind farm ridge can become an ecological preserve to gladden the heart of the most ecologically conservative preservationist. Instead we allow them to block wind farms. If they continue to succeed and if NIMBI's rule world wide, the various things they are trying to preserve will likely go extinct due to climate change anyway. Wouldn't that be a giggle.

Secondly, all levels of government have to come to the party. There is a huge amount governments can do, primarily by waving their cut, to encourage the uptake of all forms of renewable energy. Without a government bleeding off profit at every turn, many renewable energy projects would cost half as much with the commensurate improvement in the financial viability of these projects. Of course, reasonably priced, sustainable energy would encourage enterprise which would increase the government take. It would create a source of tax revenue so that the MP's could afford to clean the moat.

Thirdly, we can put in smart grids which provide price incentives to the consumer such that the grid is demand balanced to a large extent by the customer. At the same time, smart grids should allow a fair profit for the small generator and for the large power company so that the system is in the interest of both. A system which is punitive to any one of the interested parties is doomed to fail.

Fourthly, we can encourage the uptake of electric cars and especially cars which are simple, very well engineered, durable, inexpensive and easily repaired. If you want the car with all the bells and whistles, no problem but you will have to pay for it. The Volkswagen/Deux Cheveaux/Model T Ford of electrics would make a huge contribution to a sustainable future.

Lets put in measures which make us independent of the fossil fuel purveyors of the world and at the same time take out an insurance pollicy, just in case Climate change is a reality.

Legislation for Electric Cars

New Zealand may not be amongst the top countries in electric car technical innovation* but that in no way stops us from introducing the best legislative framework to encourage their uptake. The best time to enact such legislation is right now when there are virtually no electric cars on our roads and the government has not become addicted to a new revenue stream.  The government could gently nudge us toward electric cars and hence away from fossil fuel cars.

* Since writing this blog, Tesla has released all its patents to the world.  If we wanted to, we could produce the affordable electric car (lets call it the Kiwi)

The benefits of a large uptake of electric cars in New Zealand are far too evident to need rehashing here so right into the legislation. At the end of this blog is an Appendix listing the benefits of replacing our fossil fueled cars with electrics.

There are a number of measures which can be taken. Most of them don't involve dipping into the public purse. Institute all of them and we will be the leaders in the world in electric car uptake just as Germany is the leader in the uptake of solar panels. Governing, at it's best doesn't involve doing things but rather in setting the framework so that we do 'the necessary'.   Measures which could be taken include:

1. Wave GST (sales tax) on the purchase of electric cars. This will reduce the price of an electric car by a ninth. The uptake of electric cars is in our National Interest.

2. Do not impose road taxes on electric cars. Here there is no need to do anything. Simply desist from doing anything. There will be no use of gasoline and hence no gas tax and of course no diesel road miles. Avoid the temptation at-all-costs of finding some innovative way of taxing electric cars. Remember this is in the interest of New Zealand as a whole (see appendix below). If you can't resist putting on a road tax, wave it for 20 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The uptake of electric cars is in our National Interest.

3. Allow the use of KiwiSaver (pension) funds to purchase an electric car just as is done for a first home. Owning an electric car is the same as getting a pension, except the pension starts immediately at the date of purchase, not at age 65. This is because the cost per km of driving an electric is about a third of the cost of driving a petrol car even when you charge your batteries at the full daytime rate.  The saved money can either fuel the economy directly by daily purchases of other products or go into savings which also power the economy through investment. Electric cars are in New Zealand's national interest.

4. Ensure that there are absolutely no import taxes, stamp duties etc. on electric cars. We don't produce our own electric cars so there is no industry to protect and once again, fight against the temptation to collect money for the government from electric cars. Remember that replacing our fleet of fossil fuel cars with electric vehicles is very much in tada tada tada........... You get the message.

5. Do some bargaining with the manufacturers of electric cars for good prices. Promise them all the government business if they will give good prices. Have all government employees who get cars as part of their package, driving electrics instead of gas guzzlers. Reticulate government parking lots with charging points where you plug in, swipe your credit card and fill up your batteries.

6. When there is a fair penetration of electric cars in the national fleet, institute the system they have in Canada in many places where a special lane is set aside for cars with two or more people in the car. In our case make the special lane for two or more people in an electric car.

7. As you take over and upgrade the railways, set up a system whereby you can piggy back your electric car on the train for a reasonable price like you do on the ferry, for long trips between towns. Get some of the rail cars that ply the Chunnel. They are already set up for this. Modify as necessary and then manufacture our own. Make sure you can charge your car on the train so you have a full charge when you reach your destination. Put the cherry on the top and electrify the trains as well and we will really be on our way. Put wind turbines along the easement of the railways wherever technically feasible, especially on scenic routs used by overseas tourists. They will love the thought that the train is running on wind power.


8.  Start negotiations with VolksWagen to manufacture the Bulli here in New Zealand when they have it  sorted out or even:::

9. Hire the best, most innovative, small team of engineers available and start a car industry in New Zealand producing an affordable electric car called, of course, the Kiwi. And why not. What Jackson has done for movies, someone could do for electric cars.



Appendix
Benefits to New Zealand from the uptake of electric cars.

1. Improved balance of payments. The importation of fuel and lubricants is a large expense for our country.

2. Reduction in green house gases. Surprisingly this is so even if coal is used to generate the electricity due to the efficiencies of large coal plants. It becomes doubly so as a country replaces coal generated electricity with renewably generated electricity. This is the rout to zero net emissions.

In the case of New Zealand we already produce half our electricity from hydro, perhaps 20% from geothermal and a bunch more from wind and a tad from solar.   To quite an extent, cars can be charged when electricity is available so we enter the realm of demand balancing rather than supply balancing.

3. Increased profitability of our existing hydro electricity generation plants and of any soon-to-be-built renewable energy plants since, by using demand balancing, excess power can be used to charge electric cars "when available*" rather than letting this power go to waste. (Incidentally, power can be fed back from an electric car, when needed, further increasing the efficiency of the whole system.)

*We need a truly smart grid rather than the pale shadow of one we have now.  It should be possible to vary the price of electricity, making it least expensive when there is an excess available.  Sending water down a slip way rather then through the turbines or letting wind turbines free wheel is a waste.  The signal must come through to the consumer.  The consumer can then set his car charging or water heating to come on when less expensive electricity is available.  This is Demand Balancing.

4. Cheaper travel. Even when charged at the full daytime rate, it costs about a third as much to drive a km in an electric car as for a petrol car. Remember the main function of government is to look after the good of her citizens, not to look after business. Often measures that serve business, serves the needs of the people but this is not axiomatic.  There are many instances where the opposite is true.

5. Reduction in pollution with the reduced emission of oxides of nitrogen, soot and other combustion products. Electric cars will result in reduced public health care costs.

6. Reduction in a our financial obligation under Koyoto/Copenhagen as we use less fossil fuel.

7. Far cheaper repair bills for cars*.

*note a recent small item in the Press reported how European mechanics and car dealers are worried about the advent of electric cars. They realize that it will pretty well put them out of business - much like the harness and carriage makers were put out of business when the motor car replaced the horse.  A DIYer of modest ability should be able to maintain and repair pretty well anything on an electric car.

8. Much longer life for cars (electric motors, by their nature, can be made to virtually last a life time) and hence less mining of minerals, less destruction of the natural environment etc.

9. Possibility of balancing the grid both by charging when electricity is available and even more so by returning electricity to the grid when power is needed.

It is very much in the interest of New Zealand to replace our domestic fleet as quickly as possible so lets be innovative, think outside the box and get it under way.

Wood Waste and Urea

There is a pretty wide agreement that if we don't reduce the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are all going to hell in a hand basket. Some people believe that we have already gone too far and no matter what we do, it is too late. Others believe that with the head in the sand attitude of most world leaders, there is very little chance that we will succeed in making any significant reduction in our output of fossil carbon. Assuming that the above is true and the world will not gain control of her carbon emissions, what can New Zealand do about it.

Of course we should take measures which establish our credentials as responsible world citizens and reduce our output of green house gases. Quite cynically, this is important for our marketing.  More important, though, is to future proof New Zealand against the possibility of the break down of the ecology of the rest of the world and with it the demise of their economies. Our main trading partners are in the Northern Hemisphere and their demise is going to impact us severely.  There are many many measures we can take.  Below is one regarding our fertilizer supply which will both bolster our credentials for our export market in the near term and help future proof New Zealand against the likely coming breakdown in the world economy a few decades hence.

Sawdust into urea
It has been proposed by our New Zealand SOE, Solid Energy that they turn their lignite deposits into urea for the farmers. At present we import some of our urea so this would help our balance of payment, provide jobs and enrich holders of shares in Solid Energy (MP's???). So far so good. However, it would become the largest emitter of Carbon Dioxide in the country, even surpassing our large coal fired power station at Huntly. It would increase our atmospheric carbon output by 20%.  Is there another way. Well, yes there is*. You can make urea from almost any carbon based substance from methane to pure carbon. You can also produce urea from wood wastes.

*here is yet another way to obtain our fertilizers.

In New Zealand, we have a number of sources of such wood wastes. This includes the branches cut off pine plantations when they are trimmed to make clear wood (lifts), it includes trimmings during logging, the sawdust and off cuts from lumber mills, the left over wood ends from building construction and furniture manufacture plus wood from demolition sites. In addition, all waste paper and cardboard, which is nearly pure cellulose, can be added into this mix. It is pretty clear what the objection of Solid Energy is. Clearly they want to make profit by the vertical integration of their lignite deposits and a Urea plant. The first objection they will make is that the transportation costs of bringing this material from all over the country to their plant will make the feed stock(wood, paper etc) too expensive. So lets agree that whatever happens, they will pay the same for this material as it would have cost them to mine their lignite and transport it to the urea plant. If necessary, we will use government subsidies to make the use of wood waste instead of lignite, financially neutral.  This may sound counter productive at first but bear with me a moment.

However.............Of course we must take into account the carbon tax they will be charged if they do decide to use their lignite.  We have been generous to a fault by signing up to Koyota and have taken upon ourself the obligation to pay a carbon tax.  The use of lignite will incure an added cost which must be taken into account.  Once the Carbon tax is taken into account it remains to be seen, if a subsidy would still have to be paid for getting the wood waste to the company. Wood and paper have no carbon cost because they are recycled carbon recently removed from the air.   We must also factor in the likely effect on our tourism industry and our food exports of becoming the bad boy of the OECD with respect to our lack of carbon abatement. When all this is taken into consideration, it may well be that the use of wood and paper waste to make urea will be cheaper to New Zealand than using lignite.

Then we come to the effect on our railroads. Rail is the ideal medium for transporting high bulk low value products. What is good about transporting wood waste by rail is it gives them another revenue stream which can be used for maintaining and upgrading their infrastructure. This contributes to making the shipment of all other goods by rail more cost effective. We might even put the wood-transport revenue stream into electrifying our railways, further reducing our carbon footprint and so further increasing New Zealand's financial viability with respect to our carbon output. (not to mention our clean green credentials).

Another important aspect is the greenness of our meat exports.  New Zealand meat is for the most part grass fed.  In so far as this is true, our meat is carbon neutral.  The carbon contained in our meat is carbon recently removed from the air by the grass the animals eat.  At present we use fossil fuel to produce our urea which puts a carbon cost on our meat.  When other countries such as the UK try to interfere with our meat imports to their country, they often quote carbon miles.  In actual fact, the carbon footprint of our meat, even when transport is taken into account, is lower than meat they produce.  If we produce our urea from wood waste, our meat is even more carbon neutral.

There is a desperate need to calculate true costs when making economic policy. In this case, with our blinkers on, the use of lignite might be less expensive than the use of wood waste to produce urea. However, when all the benefits of using wood waste and the costs of using lignite are taken into consideration, the outcome is very likely to be quite the opposite.

ps.  On Jul 26,2011 on morning National Radio there was an announcement of plans to construct a turpentine plant for producing, not surprisingly, turpentine from forest waste.  This points to a couple of things.  First, it is apparently going to be financially feasible to bring the feed stock from the forests to the plant.  This suggests that it also might be feasible to bring wood waste to a urea plant.  The second thing is that as far as I know, after turpentine is distilled out of forest waste, what remains is the wood minus the pitch.  This is cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin which is exactly the feed stock that is needed for a urea plant.  All the other feed stocks mentioned above can also  be fed in.  Some of them, such as the offcuts from lumber mills may also be usable for turpentine production. Right beside the turpentine factory would be the ideal site for a urea factory.   The transport cost to each factory is cut in half.

pps.  If our production of urea from wood and other cellulostic waste exceeds our needs, the possibility opens up to export green urea at a premium.  Of course no nitrogen source is green if it is used in excess such that it contaminates ground water but in so far as it is produced from cellulose rather than fossil fuels, our urea would be completely green.

German FIT system - Brilliant

You have to admire the German government* and its Tax Department. Not only do they not themselves financially support the introduction of small scale renewable energy in Germany, they manage to tax it 6 or 7 times. This may seem a little surprising to you considering how the German FIT (feed in tariff) system is always held up as an example of how to increase the uptake of small scale solar-electric systems. And, don't misunderstand me. It has been tremendously successful. The generation from small solar electric systems in Germany is now almost equivalent to five large coal powered generating units and is increasing day by day. Lets have a closer look at how it work.

*I have started with the German system as it is the most insidious.  At the bottom there is a link to our New Zealand system.  There are almost an infinitely varied number of systems which can be used in terms of the regulatory framewrod that surrounds it.  Each one has it's own fish hooks.

The German government is not involved in financing solar-electric systems. The money to pay the small generator for every kWh he produces* is raised by the German Power companies charging all its customers a little more for the power they buy. Here is the first level of taxation. German VAT (sales tax) is just under a fifth so when you pay your power bill, a fifth is added to the charge and this goes to the German government. Toooo clever!! Remember, the power company is allowed to charge a little extra to all its customers to pay the FITs so all its customers pay a fifth of this little bit extra as Sales tax. It is only a little per customer but remember that in total it is equal to a fifth of the sale price of the power generated by 5 large coal powered generating stations.

*For the early adopter of a solar electric system, it is fantastic, at least for the first 20 years.  The FIT is over 50c for the first 20 years since installation.  At each year later that you install your panels, the amount you get per kWh over the first 20 years is less.

Then the government insists on double metering. All the power that the small generator/customer produces goes through one meter and everything he uses through the second meter. This seems at first glance to be very beneficial to the small generator. Since he receives approximately three times the rate for the power he produces than for the power he buys he is very pleased that all the power he produces is measured rather than the excess above what he uses. This way he gets the maximum return??? Are you ever suspicious when something seems too good to be true?

Since the small generator/customer is earning revenue from his solar panels and the amount is recorded by the power company, it is visible to the tax office and this amount is added to the income of the small generator. He is than taxed on this revenue at his marginal income tax rate*.  For a really well off German, and with the reunification tax,  this is over 50%. In other words, if a high salaried German earns 200euro per month from his power generation, he gets to keep only 100euro.

*  In most countries you are taxed at a certain rate for the first part of your income, a larger rate on the next portion and a higher rate on the rest of your income.  Let's say for the sake of the argument that it is 20% on the first thousand, 30% on the next thousand and 40% on anything above 2000 per month.  40% is your marginal tax rate and any additional income you acquire will be taxed at this rate.

Then the tax office looks at how much power the owner of solar panels buys. Remember, this is all the power he uses. Not just the extra he needs to make up his shortfall. Whatever you buy in Germany, including power, has sales tax attached to it and sales tax, as we said, in Germany it is just under a fifth. Suppose our same well off German buys 200euro of power. Once you have added VAT, he has to pay 240euro for it. The 40euro goes to the tax office. So far we are up to 3 taxations on the power produced. Now we come to the power company.

The power company earns money by selling power. The power it buys from the small generator, it sells on to its other customers. This increases its revenue and it pays tax on this added revenue at its marginal tax rate. It also pays sales tax on power it buys.  The power is taxed once more and since the power company has to make a profit, it passes on this added expense to its customers.  This added cost is also taxed.  We now have a tax on a tax.  (or is it a tax on a tax on a tax.  I am loosing track of all the compounding going on)

As I said, you have to admire the system. At a time when the world is desperate to replace fossil fuel power generation with renewables, the German government has come up with a way to increase the uptake of renewable energy, have a sixtiple dipping system of taxing every kWh of renewable power produced and gain the gratitude of its citizens and the admiration of the world. Machiavelli would be all a twitter. Imagine how much less expensive it would be for the installer of small generation equipment if it wasn't taxed this way; how much more worthwhile it would be to install such a system and how much less expensive power would be for  German consumers that don't have solar panels.  Imagine how much better if the German Government simply put in a system for the benefit of the German citizen.

One wonders what all this extra revenue is used for. If the German government ear-marks (ring fences) this money for installing wind turbines, making home solar equipment less expensive, subsidising house insulation etc. etc. the system would be justified in terms of the big picture of replacing fossil fuel generation by renewables. I wonder. That would be another story.

In another blog, I calculated that the small customer who installs solar panels would have to install a system between 1.7 to 4 times as big as he actually needs  to generate the power he uses if he wanted to end up paying nothing for his electricity.  This is, of course, only if double metering is the law of the land.  The wide range depends to a large extent on your tax status and the tax laws of your country.  Guess what extra you pay when you buy your solar system.  That's right.  GST.  So you pay even more tax to the government in order to buy a system which is far bigger than you actually need.  How many taxations are we up to now.  I have lost track.

Note that in New Zeland we have double metering but it only measures the excess and shorfall after you use your own generated power.  For a look at this system, click here.

American Wars and Wind power

It has often been opined that the real reason America gets involved in so many wars is to secure her energy imports. This always seemed a bit far fetched and I wondered how much extra energy America could have generated if she had used all the wealth expended on wars over the past decade or so to build wind turbines. The results are interesting but I have to depend on whatever information I can glean from the Internet. I'll put down the information I have found and where it comes from and show the calculations. If you have other figures, plug them in and see what you get. But first a word about units.

Two important concepts when you talk about electricity are power and energy. Think of a couple of lads who have to move a pile of bricks up from the ground to, say, the fifth floor. They walk up the stairs with the bricks. One of them is big and strong, the other small and weak. The more powerful chap can take the bricks 10 at a time and finishes the work in half a day. The smaller chap can only carry 5 bricks at a time and takes a full day to finish. When they both have finished, they have expended the same amount of energy (as measured by the weight of bricks times the height they have been moved to), but the big chap is more powerful. He has done the work faster. Power is a rate of expending energy (rate of doing work). In electricity the watt, kilowatt or megawatt is a measure of power. It is the rate at which you are expending energy. The Kilowatt hour is the measure of how much energy you have expended. If you expend energy at a rate of one kilowatt for one hour, you have used one kilowatt hour.

So what information do we have. From this web site, the electrical energy consumption of the United States in 2005 (latest I could find) was 3,816,000,000mWh/y (megawatt hours per year - a megawatt is a million watts). Incidentally, this was one of the few sites that used the correct units so perhaps its information is more trustworthy than some of the others.

From this web site, the cost to the Americans of the wars they have been engaged in since 2001(eight and a half years to August 2009) is $901,386,000,000US. Click on this site and watch the numbers go up.

From information from a friend in the wind turbine business, it costs about $2millionUS per megawatt of wind turbine generating capacity. Just a word here about what this means.

A wind turbine is rated for how much power it will generate when the wind speed is optimal (neither too much or too little). However, the wind does not blow all the time. Wind sites are monitored before a wind farm is constructed to find the capacity factor of the area. Below about 35%, a site is often rejected and a higher capacity factor is, of course, desirable. I will use the 35% figure since it is conservative for our example. What this means is that a one megawatt wind generator in a 35% site will be generating on average over the year just over a third of a megawatt or 350kilowatts of power. Over a year of 365 days of 24 hours this will produce 350 x 365 x 24 = 3066Mwh of electrical energy.

So how many megawatts of electrical generating capacity could we buy for the $901,386,000,000US of wealth that has been expended in the wars from 2001 to Aug. 2009. Dividing this figure by $2mUS per megawatt we get 450693Mw of generating capacity.

Since one megawatt of generating capacity in a 35% site will produce 3066mWh of electricity, 450,693 megawatts of generating capacity will generate 450,693 x 3066 = 1,381,824,738 mWh of electricity per year.

Since the electricity generation of the USA in 2005 was 3,816,000,000mWh/y, this is an extra 36% of the 2005 generation.

How much imported oil would this replace. How much better would the US balance of payments be. How many young lives would have been saved on both sides and would this have been enough to avoid the present economic melt down. How many terrorists would not have had a motivation to pursue their path of destruction. With the American example, how much further ahead would other countries be in their uptake of renewable energy. How much corruption and misery for their own people would have been avoided in the oil rich countries. If America is indeed fighting wars to secure her energy supplies, it is false economy. We should look at Ike's warning about the Industrio-military complex for the real motivation for all these wars the Americans loose.