US Wind & Renewable Energy Review, plus ...

Download PDF
52 downloads 219 Views 4MB Size Report
Comment
Katana Summit closes plant, cuts 300. - Jan. 2013: 2.3 cents/kwh PTC extended. Photo From Windsor Beacon, Windsor Colorado http://tinyurl.com/mjxu4xy ...
U.S. Wind & Renewable Energy Review, plus Climate Change Impact Ray Kamada Kamada Science & Design [email protected]

Whatcom Museum of History and Art Bellingham, WA, Feb. 20, 2014

Installed Global Wind Energy Capacity is Still Increasing Exponentially By the end of 2013: - Global installed capacity = 318 GW, which at 30% use is only ~0.6% of our 16 TW of total global power output; - Euro Union 117 GW, ~37%; - China had 91 GW, ~20%; - U.S. was 3rd w 61 GW, ~19%, w/ 11 GW under construction. But total electricity from wind exceeds China, due to better transmission system (grid).

What's driving wind energy growth? a) environmental sustainability policies b) money

Over 30 Years, Wind Energy Cost Has Dropped about 5.5% per Year Note: logarithmically compressed vertical axis for pricing.

Levelized Cost of New Energy, 2013 (U.S. Energy Information Administration)

U.S. Wind Energy is Becoming Big Business - In 2013, 168 TWHRs or 4.2% of U.S. electricity came from wind, 19% more than 2012. - 70% of hardware built in U.S. - 39 of 50 states have utilityscale wind farms, average turbine size ~2mw - Wholesale power purchases for onshore U.S. wind farms fell to 3.1 – 8.4 cents per kwh in 2012, cheaper than coal and competitive with natural gas. http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547

%Total Electricity Generation for Denmark, Top U.S. States and Washington 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

s

s xa a om

sa

t on

o

ing sh Wa ing om

Te

lah

n Ka

ho

Wy

Ok

Ida

ad lor Co a ot

es

ta ko Da N. ot a

k Da

nn Mi

S.

a Iow rk ma

n De

http://awea.rd.net/resources/statefactsheets.aspx?itemnumber=890

Where are these U.S. Wind Farms? - The USA has > 1000 wind farms: 110 > 140 MW generating capacity Washington has 36 for 3.5 GW or 0.51 kw/person. At 14.3 GW, Texas has 0.55 kw/ person; California: 0.15 kw/person. - Mostly in central plains: Texas to Dakotas (due to cheap land, good roads/railways), Great Lakes to N. Atlantic, California, and Columbia River region – Oregon/Washington. From windpower.net: http://www.thewindpower.net/countrydatasheet-windfarms-4-usa.php

But what about Offshore? Offshore Euro wind farms show offshore winds are stronger, steadier, allowing much larger, 5 – 20 MW turbines, due to low turbulence and lack of roadway, rail, and bridge size limits. Utility companies are willing to PAY MORE for steadier (less intermittent) energy. Offshore turbine size is limited only by materials strength and ship size.

Why Stronger, Steadier Winds Offshore Allow Bigger Turbines - Everyone's seen Einstein's famous E = m c2 where E is energy, m is mass of a subatomic particle, and c is speed of light. Likewise for wind: E = m v2 Maximum ideal energy extraction = 59%

where m is air mass and v is wind speed. BUT air mass thru a turbine also increases with wind speed. So, for wind energy E α v3 ! So, if wind speed doubles, E rises by 8x ! - Wind speeds also increase with height, even faster for smooth sea surfaces, because they cause less turbulence. So, steadier, smoother, stronger winds at sea allow for bigger, longer- lasting, MUCH more powerful OFFSHORE wind turbines.

Wind Speed vs Typical Power Out ~ 3.5 m/s Cut-in speed; max power from 12 to 25 m/s, above which blades automatically lock down (Cut-out speed). Blue curve is wind speed probability for a typical onshore site's mean speed of ~6 m/s. http://tinyurl.com/n5gkx66

Speeds at offshore sites are typically higher.

This scattergram (real data) combines idealized red and blue curves above http://tinyurl.com/mtrrwgj

U.S. Nat. Renewable Energy Lab Report says 4.1 TW available offshore - 4x current U.S. electrical needs, with good wind farm prospects in N. California, Oregon & N. Atlantic states. However, if you consider... Offshore U.S. Wind Resource by Depth - Very little shallow water on west coast, except S. Washington & San Francisco Bay (expect environmental dog fight there) - Good sites off Louisiana & east of Texas Panhandle (w/ oil platforms) & along Atlantic Seaboard - Prime sites are Delaware, Rhode Island, S. New York, Wisconsin by Lake Michigan, and w. New York by Lake Ontario (freezing temps.!) So, plans & potential Look Good. What's offshore in the U.S. now?

One Grid-Connected, 1/8th Scale Test Turbine, currently 12 miles off the Coast of Maine - 50 U.S. Offshore wind farms proposed; none built. - Four major on-going projects, all East Coast. - Rest are preliminary or have already been scrubbed

http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/234256/offshorewind-advances-create-greentech-investment-opportunities

The Atlantic Wind Connection (Cart before the Horses) - 560 km of sub-sea cable for $5B from NE New Jersey, New York City to Delaware, Norfolk, VA, eventually Cape Hatteras, N. Carolina - Partners: Trans-Elect Development, Google Energy, Good Energies, Marubeni - Power rating: 6 GW - Planned Completion: Phase I - 2021 TBD: Phase II, III, and IV - Right-of-way issued by U.S. Dept. of Interior – May 2012 - 21 years of U.S. NOAA data shows average 8.5 m/s winds at 90m hub height. For 4 connected, widely spaced sites from Cape Hatteras N. Carolina to Cape Cod, Massachusetts, (34 to 43 degs latitude) along the mid-Atlantic bight (shallow water), expect zero power 2% of time; 6 sites yields zero power 0.3% of time. http://atlanticwindconnection.com/

CAPE WIND PROJECT - Horseshoe Shoal, Nantucket Sound, Mass. BLUE AREA + air/ship/ferry routes, power cables for proposed Nantucket Sound Site + my Limerical Sound Bite: Renewable's a drop in the bucket, say some, so why not just chuck it? But if Cape Wind's sustainable, half a Gigawatt's attainable, via winds offshore from Nantucket ! - Cape Wind initial permit to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nov. 2001; - 12 lawsuits filed 2001–2011 (scenic beauty, bird kills, endangered species, etc. - Dept. of Interior/Ocean Energy Management approved construction, April 2011; - Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Pension Danmark approved financing, mid-2013. - Construction to begin 2014; finish in 2017 130, 3.5mw turbines, blade length 55m, tip height 135m, ~700m spacings, total area ~62km2, (454mw total, 37% availability expected, 6-18 kms offshore), mean wind speed – 8.7 m/s, water depth < 10m, 8kms from nearest town (Mashpee). Expected cost: 21 cents/kwhr (~double average retail). http://www.capewind.org/index.php

DEEPWATER, BLOCK ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND $200M PILOT PROJECT: may be 1st U.S. Offshore Wind demo - 5 Alstom (French) 6 MW turbines (total 30 MW, height 590 ft. each), 3 miles SE of Block Island, Rhode Island. Construction began 2014 - Eventual $4 Billion build out -1 GW (150 turbines), 13 – 25 mi. offshore

Viewing South from Block Island

- Deepwater proposes two more 1gw projects in Hudson Canyon, to include Long Island New York, to replace 2gw Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2013 and 2015 when their nuclear licenses expire. http://dwwind.com/block-island/block-island-project-overview

First West Coast Offshore Wind Farm off Coos Bay, Oregon? 2 MW prototype of five 6 MW turbines proposed by Principal Power (Seattle, WA), for 17 miles off Coos Bay, Oregon. This prototype is being towed 250 miles from Portugal's Sado River to Aguçadoura on Portugal's coast. Offshore lease application was accepted by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Dept. of Interior) Jan. 2014. Floating triangular platforms for ¼ mile deep water deployment. From Seattle Times – Feb. 17, 2014

Dubious PTC renewal halts Chesapeake Bay VA prototype turbine project - March 2012: Virginia Marine Resources Commission approved proposal by Gamesa for ONE 5mw turbine - May 2012: Gamesa stops work on initial 146m, 5mw turbine, 5km west of Cape Charles. Cites uncertain 2013 extension for U.S. federal energy production tax credit (PTC). http://hamptonroads.com/2012/05/plans -chesapeake-bay-wind-turbinesuspended

2012 Layoffs due to uncertain Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension - July 2012: Gamesa cut 165 staff in Pennsylvania; NRG Systems laid off 30 in Vermont.; Iberdrola Renewables cut 50 in Oregon; Windlogics cut 10 in Minnesota.

Photo From Windsor Beacon, Windsor Colorado http://tinyurl.com/mjxu4xy

- Aug. 2012: Clipper Wind Power, Iowa cuts 32%; Vestas in CO cut 120; Walker Component Group cut 15 of 39; DMI Inds. cut 167, w/ 216 more at risk in N. Dakota. (N. Dakota gets 22% of its electricity from wind. LM Wind Power riffs 94 full-time + 140 temporary workers; Trinity Towers halts tower construction. - Sept 2012: Siemens cut 900, half of U.S. staff 92 of 370 cut at Molded Fiber Glass; Katana Summit closes plant, cuts 300 - Jan. 2013: 2.3 cents/kwh PTC extended

How Much Does the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit Matter? - The PTC Lapsed in: June 1999, Dec. 2001, Dec. 2003 - PTC lapses/near-lapses create boom/bust cycles that add cost as investors scramble to finish their truncated installations. - A stable tax policy would allow developers to finish projects in orderly fashion, lowering total cost.

Comparing Subsidies: -From 2003 – 2008, three largest fossil fuel subsidies were: Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion) non-conventional fuels production credit ($14.1 billion) Oil/Gas exploration and development credit ($7.1 billion) -From 1973 to 2003, U.S. feds paid: $50 B to support nuclear R&D, $24 B for fossil fuels, $26 B for renewable energy & energy efficiency. -Texas State Comptroller says direct fossil fuel subsidy is just $3 B, but larger costs are U.S. Defense Dept., external health costs of coal, and of course, GLOBAL WARMING

Why Bother with Renewables? 3 Reasons: - Finite fossil fuel & uranium - Atmospheric pollutants, acid rain, ocean acidification - loss of fisheries, radioactive waste - Global energy use is 16 TW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resou rces_and_consumption#Primary_energy

But 400 TW excess incoming radiation means further global warming, w/ trapped to waste heat ratio (TWHR) ~25. How big is TWHR = 25? For energy use to match population growth in the next 50 years, we need 7 TW more power, which means 110 new 1.3GW nuclear plants or 700 200 MW wind farms - every year. Can't happen. So, we are headed for an era of lower per capita energy consumption via efficiency or via scarcity.

Warming rate is now 50x our last big extinction event PETM which had +5 degs. C warming Only civilizations with nearzero TWHR are sustainable.

We've had 0.8 degs. C warming above 1900 AD base line. 0.6 degs more is pipelined, due to eventual warmth lagging current CO2. Thus, most climate models predict 2 to 5 degs. C more warming by 2100 AD. - SO WHAT? So, inspect just one impact among hundreds.

From ~15 to 25 Million BC. Antarctica was Ice-Free at +3 degrees Centigrade

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png Note: logarithmically compressed time axis

So, how much longer will the land ice last?

Feet

Sea Level Rise Rate (assuming 30 Year Doubling Time) 300 No More Ice 200 100 0 2000

2050

2100

2150 2200 Year

2250

2300

2350

140 yrs of data yields 25 - 30 year doubling period, which says icefree Greenland/Antarctica by 2300 AD. This matches IPCC climate modeling results thru 2100 AD, extending them 200 more years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Note: exponential increase until ice is gone.

An Ice-Free Antarctica + Greenland would mean 230 feet of sea level rise Swamping Earth's coastal cities. - Atlantic Seaboard gone entirely - Locally: Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Blaine, White Rock, Delta, Richmond, Maple Ridge - Little Rock, Arkansas tips new “Mississippi Bay”. - California Central Valley (most U.S. food grown there) becomes a great inland sea !

http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2013/09/aninteractive-map-of-rising-sea-levels.html #.UwUhWoW9aEY

Manhattan/New York City

Guess Who!

Simulations via Google Earth

U.S. Transmission Grid: @ 2008 according to FEMA

http://www.cyblog.cylab.cmu.edu/2010/05/truth-and-consequences-for-critical.html

Proposed U.S. Super-grid - Cost estimate: $100 billion - w/ low-loss HVDC (high voltage direct current red lines) for long-distance transmission. http://greenthoughts.us/2007/04/15/building-the-electronEconomy-part-ii-smartgrids-supergrids-ecogrids-and-hypergrids/

Proposed European Super-Grid - Claims affordable 100% renewable electricity - Energy from non-Euro neighbors can be large part of future supply - Energy from different climate zones improves supply security and lowers costs. - Many nations cooperating combines economic goals with climate politics in multilateral win-win http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf

- How Affordable Can 100% Renewable Be? Current confluence of logarithmically declining renewables costs may continue, as in...

17%annual drop in PV Panel Cost over 40 years, much faster than Wind (5.5%) (2013 was 1st year more solar than wind energy was installed - world-wide)

Lithium Battery Pricing on Similar Logarithmic (1/Exponential) decline

For continued progress, see lithium-silicon/ carbon, lithium-air batteries http://tinyurl.com/luxqr5f http://tinyurl.com/ecc6p

200 mile range electric vehicles in a few years; potential 500

Bottom Line: Clearly, we are in a race to save us from ourselves.

For now: all following slides are considered to be addenda:

How did we arrive at 400 terawatts of excess, incoming energy? Studies show large incoming net energy flux at the top of our atmosphere (TOA). Given Earth has a finite heat capacity, ergo, Earth must be warming. Watts per Time sq. meter Period

Journal Paper

0.54 +/- 0.2, 1850-2010,

M.Huber,R.Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in earths energy balance,Nature Geosci.Letts.,Dec.4,2011, http://tinyurl.com/dyop4fm D.M.Murphy,et al. An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J.Geophs.Res.,114-128,D17107, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/7q8h622 B.Stevens,S.E.Schwartz,Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows, Surv.Geophys.,33,779-816, 2012, http://tinyurl.com/llzqfy2 K.E.Trenberth,J.T.Fasullo,Tracking Earth's energy from El Nino to Global Warming, Surv.Geophys.,DOI 10.1007/s10712-011-9150-2, 2010, http://tinyurl.com/kb2amrc J.Hansen,et al.,Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications, Sci.,208,5727,1431-1435, 2005, http://tinyurl.com/yjslghx N.G.Loeb,et al., Nature Geosci.,5,110–113 doi:10.1038/ngeo1375, 2012, ngeo17375.pdf J.Hansen,et al.,Earth's energy imbalance and implications, Atmos.Chem.Phys.,11,13421-13449, 2011, http://tinyurl.com/7b443s3

1.10 +/- 0.4, 1970-2000, 0.90 +/- 0.3, 1998-2010, 0.90 +/- 0.5, 2000-2005, 0.85 +/- 0.15, 2003, 0.50 +/- 0.43, 2001-2010, 0.58 +/- 0.15, 2005-2010,

The time periods suggest net radiation at TOA has fallen lately, perhaps due to increased aerosols from unscrubbed coal-fired power plants. Confirmation awaits 2014-2016 satellite launches to monitor changes in reflected solar radiation from aerosols directly. Since area subtended at a typical satellite altitude of 160 kilometers is ~ 5.36 x 10 e14 m 2, this yields 2.68 - 5.9 x e14 watts. One terawatt = 1 e12 watts. So, Earth's been gaining ~268 to 590 terawatts, with a recent average of ~400 terawatts.

What's causing global warming? Check what sounds plausible: Can't be the Sun.

Incoming solar's fallen slightly, but outgoing thermal's fallen more. And stratosphere's cooling while troposphere's warming – GHG fingerprint. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3585.1 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind.pdf http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml

Can't be volcanoes. Man-made CO2 exceeds volcanic CO2 by > 100x. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Can't be cosmic rays. They've been steady for more than 30 years. http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

BUT CO2 and other GHGs block OUTGOING energy. And the decreased OUTGOING spectral fingerprint over past 40 years of data matches GHGs. Ergo, GHGs warm Earth. http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Radiance/Anderson_Arr01.pdf http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/full/410355a0.html#B8 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.3867

Plants prefer to absorb carbon12 (C12). Burning fossil fuels (dead plants buried for eons) releases C12. The falling C13/C12 ratio and falling oxygen levels say excess CO2 is mostly due to fossil fuel combustion. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1685/2011/acp-11-1685-2011.html http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=FP08216

Add 10-15% more CO2 via deforestation/desertification, plus 5% via cement production.

Ergo: current global warming is essentially – ENTIRELY MAN-MADE.

Yet Another Way to Show that Global Warming is Man-Made For the past 10k years, until ~160 years ago, atmospheric CO2 only ranged from ~260 to 282 ppmv, striking a narrow balance, such that essentially all natural CO2 emissions were being absorbed by natural processes. Then, fossil fuel burning began, raising CO2 to ~400 ppmv, now rising ~2.3 ppmv annually. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/three_gases_historical.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

BUT we now emit ~4.5 ppmv (36 gigatons) of CO2 per year, which is twice the current rise rate. This means Earth still absorbs, not just all the CO2 produced naturally by biological respiration and geological weathering, but also half the excess, man-made CO2. Again, this says the current CO2 rise is all man-made. And CO2 lowers Earth's outgoing thermal radiation flux, directly causing global warming. Indeed, even if a skeptic posed (counter-factually) that natural CO2 had somehow also increased to perfectly mimic the anthropogenic rise, our current man-made 4.5ppmv of emissions would still be double the current rise rate, which still requires that

our current CO2 rise, and thus global warming is all man-made. The foregoing logic is air-tight, ergo QED.

How 36 billion tons of anthropogenic, EXCESS CO2 translates to an annual 4.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in emissions, about double the annual CO2 rise rate of 2.3 ppmv. Earth's radius = ~6,370 kms. Scale Height of the atmosphere (height if it were all at sea level pressure) ~8,000 meters. Sea Level Air Density: ~1.29 kg per cubic meter Mass of the atmosphere is: ~4pi x 6.37 e6 m2 x 8,000m x 1.29 kg/m3 = ~5.26 quadrillion metric tons. How much of that is CO2? At a current 395 ppmv, it's (395/1,000,000) x 5.26 quadrillion tons = ~2.08 trillion tons. So, 1 ppm of CO2 is 2.08T/395 = 5.26 billion tons. But by volume 1 ppmv of CO2 is 44/29 (relative molecular weights CO2 vs. air) x 5.26 = 8 billion tons. Thus, consistent with far more detailed carbon inventories, humans are annually adding 36 billion tons of CO2, divided by 8 billion tons per ppmv = ~4.5 ppmv of CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

So, the above, back-of-envelope estimate says Earth is still absorbing about half the annual load of excess, anthropogenic CO2. Thusly,

we have had a 40% CO2 increase from ~280 to 395 ppmv since 1850 AD.

My quick check on: do we really emit 36 billion tons of man-made CO2? We know from the Energy Information Agency that Americans emit ~20% of global anthropogenic CO2, ~21% via auto exhaust, 40% for home heat/light­/appliances, the rest for industrial/commercial, transport, etc. The average American drives ~12k miles/year. At ~17.1mpg. 12k miles/17.1mpg = ~700gls of gas/year, ~a tank/week. Gasoline weighs ~6 lbs/gl. So, we burn ~6 x 700 = ~ 4,200 lbs per year. Gasoline is mostly iso-octane - C8H18 (C=12, H=1, molecular weight = 114); heptane is C7H16 (molecular­. Weight = 100 ). So, 89 octane yields an average molecular weight of ~113. Burning one molecule of gasoline yields ~7.9 molecules of CO2 (O=16; ergo, molecular weight 7.9 x 44 = ~348). So, a average U.S. auto emits ~(348/113) x 4,200 = ~12,930 lbs or ~ 5.9 tons of CO2/year. We have ~240 million U.S. cars/trucks, that's an annual 240m x 5.9 = 1.42 billion tons CO2. So, the U.S. total yearly CO2 output is 1.42/0.21 = 6.74 billion tons, which is ~20% of the annual global total, or 6.74/0.20 = ~33.7 billion tons of CO2. Add a few billion for deforestation/desertification and cement production and VOILA ! We get ~36 billion tons. (consistent with detailed global carbon inventories)

CO2 lags temperature by 800 years? Check Antarctic ice core record by pulling 400k year Vostok Antarctic ice core graph into MS Word. Set graph page to landscape/legal. Stretch to full screen for max time resolution ~260 years at 1600 pixels. Check lags by aligning MS vertical ruler w/ CO2/temperature (temp) start/peak. For the 4 warming eras that match or exceed current temps, we see that: 305 - 340K BC. Start and peak temp rise lags start and peak of CO2 rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png , from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

230 - 245K BC. Temp rise start lags CO2 rise. Temp peak matches CO2 peak. 110 - 140K BC. Temp rise start lags CO2 rise. CO2 peak lags temp peak. now - 15K BC. Temp rise start lags CO2 rise. CO2 and temp not peaked yet. So, CO2 lags temp just once at seven critical junctures, thus falsifying 800 year lag myth.

Many More Climatological “Hockey Sticks: Since Michael Mann's original “hockey stick” paper, published in 1998, there have been more than 3 dozen studies that generally confirm Mann's initial findings, using proxy temperatures from tree rings, bore holes, glacier lengths, dendrites, stalactites, etc., as well as direct temperature probe records.

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS? a) The big 8 public oil companies have all conceded that man-made global warming is real (privately-owned SAUDI-American Oil Co., the world's largest company, has not); as has: b) the U.S. Dept. of Defense, particularly the U.S. Navy; c) the U.S. National Security Council; d) Rupert Murdoch, CEO and chief shareholder of Fox News; e) the 10 richest people on Earth, except the Koch brothers; f) various Republican presidents and presidential candidates, such as George Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman g) nearly all major insurance companies. h) 160 science organizations of national or international standing, except for one lone equivocator, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. i) roughly 97% of all actively publishing climate scientists and their 10,000+ peer-reviewed journal papers.

What Does Big Oil Say about Global Warming? Conoco-Phillips CEO 2008: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that global warming is unequivocal."... "Last year we became the only U.S. integrated energy company to call for a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions." http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroom/other_resources/pages/cdp_speech_text.aspx

BP:"Accepts findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/china/bpchina_english/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/press_share_0427_EN.pdf

SHELL:“CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change." http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/

EXXON:“The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. Emissions scenarios and results from climate models (see Figure 1) estimate that, without policy intervention, temperatures could increase 1 to 5 º C by 2100.” http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt_report.aspx

CHEVRON:“we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases(GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane— in the Earth's atmosphere." http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

What Says the U.S. Defense Department about Global Warming? U.S.Dept.of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, 2010, p.85 "...climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf

Dept. of Defense: p.xi, DoD TaskForce, "Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security", 2011 "...if all of the measures currently recommended to reduce emissions from human activity are implemented, the predicted temperature rise will vary from a minimum of 2degs.C to as much as 7degs.C by the end of the 21st century. A rise of more than 2degs.C is likely to have serious consequences for the human habitat." http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf

U.S. National Security Council: "The National Intelligence Council (NIC) has completed a new classified assessment that explores how climate change could threaten U.S. security in the next 20 years by causing political instability, mass movements of refugees, terrorism, or conflicts over water and other resources..." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626090302.htm

What Some U.S. Politicians Have Said About Climate Change and Global Warming “Ronald Reagan 1989: "Because changes in the earth's natural systems can have tremendous economic and social effects, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is becoming a CRITICAL concern." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35346

Newt Gingrich 2007: "if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system... Frankly, it's something I'd strongly support." http://tinyurl.com/b4nfdva George Bush 2007 State of Union Speech: "...these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the SERIOUS CHALLENGE of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE." http://tinyurl.com/a4b5lxo

FoxNews CEO Rupert Murdoch,2007:

“CLIMATE CHANGE POSES CLEAR CATASTROPHIC THREATS... we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy...” http://tinyurl.com/2epldmb

Sarah Palin, vice presidential debate, 2008: "Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that IT'S REAL. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/world/americas/03iht-03debate-transcript.16660013.html?pagewanted=8&_r=0

Mitt Romney 2011: "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that" http://tinyurl.com/acpdhjb

Chris Christie 2011: “..when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts." http://tinyurl.com/mmwapky

INSURANCE COMPANIES RECOGNIZE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE “Allstate recognizes that our business and our ability to continue to protect our customers may be profoundly affected by climate change. We are engaged in an ongoing evaluation of global climate change and natural catastrophes as it relates to Allstate's future risk exposure and America's ability to prepare for and manage these risks moving forward. We examine the prevailing scientific thought about how climate change might be expected to impact the frequency and severity of future hurricanes." http://www.allstate.com/environment/climate-change.aspx

Traveler's Insurance: "For underwriting purposes, the definition of “coastal” has expanded to include counties farther inland than previously considered. This change has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of our currently insured property locations that are defined as coastal. Selecting, pricing and designing coverage for a coastal property risk involves a number of factors: As a result of these underwriting actions, our customers often assume a greater share of risk than before, providing an incentive for them to become more actively engaged in loss mitigation activities." https://www.travelers.com/about-us/docs/StPaulTravelers_INCR_Response_Sept2006.pdf

Berkshire Hathaway, (GEICO's umbrella), CEO $45 billionaire WARREN BUFFETT: "Natural disasters seem to be increasing from the warming of the oceans". "Insurance rates are going up and we, the insurance underwriters, are concerned with the phenomena." http://www.thepanelist.net/neuberts-trades-finance-10059/304-berkshire-hathaway-on-global-warming

Earth's 10 richest people (except the Koch brothers) believe in man-made global warming. #1 Carlos Slim Helu ($74B, Mexican telecoms) http://tinyurl.com/6umvcmj #2 Bill Gates ($62B, Microsoft): “Projections of future warming range from not too bad to catastrophic. Most scientists believe there’s at least a significant risk of serious warming unless we reduce CO2 emissions. In an editorial, The Economist argues that the risk is big enough to justify action. I agree, especially because even moderate warming could cause mass starvation and have other very negative effects on the world’s poorest 2 billion people. http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Energy/Recommended-Reading-on-Climate-Change

#3,4 (tied at $50 billion apiece, double what they had 5 years ago) Charles and David Koch: Wikipedia says the Kochs have contributed more than $50 million to global warming denial. http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-koch/ , http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch/

#5 Bernard Arnault ($41B, LVMH, Louis Vuitton) http://tinyurl.com/72ruta5 #6 Larry Ellison bought Lanai, making it self-sustaining.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-larry-ellison-energy-hire-20130517,0,7419379.story

#7 Warren Buffett ($39B, Geico + BNSF railroad) http://tinyurl.com/7vwg4wk http://www.cnbc.com/id/35644956/page/2/

#8 Amancio Ortega($31B, Zara apparel) http://tinyurl.com/852a8yc #9 Eike Batista ($29 billion, Brazilian mining/oil) http://tinyurl.com/7zwwmdz #10 Christy Walton ($26B,Walmart,Solar1) http://www.forbes.com/profile/christy-walton/ , http://tinyurl.com/7l2ux4c