Climate Reality

An insight into the apparent difference in how “scientific misconduct” at Harvard University is handled, and how it has been handled at Penn State and the University of Virginia in the matter of climatologist Michael Mann is now available.

Harvard professor of psychology Marc Hauser was found “solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct” involving the “data acquisition, data analysis, data retention, and the reporting of research methodologies and results” according to the August 20, 2010 statement by Harvard dean Michael D. Smith. This finding was issued based on a faculty investigating committee study. The report noted that it began with an “inquiry phase” in response to “allegations of scientific misconduct.” It seems that there were allegations of “monkey business” in his research on monkey cognition. Three papers by Hauser, presumably peer reviewed, will need to be corrected or retracted according to Dean Smith. The academic fate of the professor is yet to be decided.

In contrast, the two reviews of the behavior of climatologist M. Mann at Penn State seemed primarily focused on his data housekeeping habits and openness to sharing his data and analysis methodology. He was found to have acted within the “accepted practices within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.” The issues of data acquisition and analysis validity were not pursued; the number of awards and publications Mann received was cited as evidence of the validity of his work.

At the University of Virginia an “inquiry phase”, such as noted in the Harvard protocol, was initiated by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli into the possible misuse of public funds by Mann in his pursuit of employment by the University and his use of such funds in his research activities there. Virginia state law gives wide discretion to the AG in the initiation of investigations into suspected misuse of state funds. This request was met with claims of impingement on sacred academic freedom, and chilling the environment for academic research in general by the university and its various supporters. Rather than welcome the chance to dispel the suspicion of scientific misconduct and protect its academic reputation, the university enlisted a high powered D.C. legal team to fight the AG request in court.

While this legal process plays out, the court of public opinion must wonder why the openness and direct dealing with such allegations exhibited by Harvard is not the model for the University of Virginia. Harvard is shown to be a scientifically open and self policing university; UVa is hiding behind its self-righteous claims of academic freedom and legal barricades. Whose research will the public more likely trust?

Here in Charlottesville, Virginia are John Casteen, David Slutzky, Dave Norris, and then–governor Tim Kaine really (The HOOK 8.12.10) “smart”? This cabal seems pleased with itself and its imposition of smart electrical meters upon the local electric energy consumer by Dominion Virginia Power.

Is Maryland even smarter? Maybe it is just that the regulatory folks in Maryland are doing a better job of looking out for their electric utility customers. Maryland’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) has just rejected the proposal of Baltimore Gas and Electric to install 1.2 million smart meters in Baltimore. One reason cited was that “the proposal would not in and of itself enhance the electric transmission grid or the company’s distribution backbone.” The make work aspects of the multimillion dollar proposal did not hold sway. This follows similar rejections in California, Florida, and Connecticut.

Is the smart meter automatically smart for the consumer? It is smart of the utilities to delay the construction of new power plants, for awhile. Is the consumer guaranteed to recoup his taxpayer and rate subsidies to the power companies to roll out these plans? You can be sure that the utilities are arguing their cases for higher rates at the public utility commissions.
Resetting your life style to the needs of a smart meter, rather than the converse is a choice. For some it may be a passion to catch the low electric pricing of the day/night. It may be worth it to stay at home from work, stay up at night, or buy a dedicated computer to do it all. This assumes that time-of-use-pricing would actually result in lower electric bills for the compliant user, and offset the annoyance and additional cost factors.

The “smart grid” is, as yet, a fictitious concept with no uniform definition nor actual design. It is the wishful thinking project that the nation’s electric grid can be reinvented, replaced, and updated to accommodate the vagaries of intermittent, renewable energy sources. The hodgepodge of local and regional energy companies, different local power sources, differing transmission distances, and diverse environmental concerns add up to a real-world challenge to any engineering plan.

Smart meters are not going to put a meaningful dent in that process. The Maryland PUC agrees. The customers here will just be “smarting.”

Mr. Rhone Resch in his letter (WSJ August 5, 2010) as President of the Solar Energy Industries Association ( SEIA) is working hard to put a smiley, sunny face on solar power. However, his enthusiastic claims for “clean, safe energy sources like solar” do not hold sway when exposed to a bit of truth-revealing sunlight.
He refers to “today’s toxic energy sources” without defining what that toxin might be, and infers that solar is non-toxic by comparison. Sunshine maybe non-toxic, but the manufacturing processes to produce photovoltaic cells and panels also produce or employ highly toxic chemicals such as lead, silicon tetrachloride, and cadmium telluride. Large amounts of water and coal-fired energy are used in the manufacturing process. This may or may not be of concern to SEIA, as the toxic and polluting aspects of solar panel manufacture take place in China, now the world’s low cost leader in solar panel manufacture. The disposal of these panels at the end of their useful life is another concern because of their toxic components.
Once deployed, solar mirrors and solar photovoltaic panels need regular, perhaps daily, washings to remove dust from their surfaces in order to maintain their already low efficient operation. Sunny, desert locations are the prime locations for such panels, and water shortages are inherent to these dusty environments.
Mr. Resch makes reference to “massive subsides for coal, nuclear power, and oil” versus the “modest” policies for renewable energy, again without documentation. The 2008 report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) listed the subsidized dollar cost per megawatthour produced for various energy sources: solar $24.34, nuclear $1.59, and coal $0.44. Solar gives the least bang for the subsidized buck.
Another study by EIA in their Annual Energy Outlook of 2010 calculated the average cost in levelized dollars/megawatthour produced by various power plant types, beginning in 2016. Coal fired plants are the cheapest at a baseline of 100; solar thermal costs 256; solar photovoltaic costs 396.
The misstating of the energy debate would seem to be by Mr. Resch, and not by the WSJ authors he quotes.

The recent award of $800,000 of taxpayer money by our new Republican administration to James Madison University and its Virginia Center for Wind Energy is a troubling disappointment to this conservative scientist (engineer-physician). Might not this money have been better spent on teachers’ salaries, laboratory equipment, or student stipends?

The commercial manufacturing market for wind turbines is now dominated by the Chinese, world-wide. The push for greater efficiency has resulted in turbine structures 400 feet tall. Large scale turbine projects here in the U.S. result in importing the equipment from China and exporting our tax dollars.
The driving force for these turbine projects seems to be not so much the wind as the very generous tax incentives and write offs available to the promoters of the project. Five-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation, Federal Production Tax Credits, and Investment Tax Credits make wind farms attractive to power companies and unrelated financial firms focused on the lucrative tax write-offs to offset other taxable income. This giveaway of tax largess comes from higher fees charged the ordinary electric customer. The Virginia legislature in April 2007 approved a bill favoring Dominion Virginia Power which included incentives for wind power in terms of rate guarantees.

Wind power is inherently unreliable, intermittent, and destructive of the environment and bio-systems. Infrastructure demands (land area, concrete, and steel) are high in comparison to the net energy derived, and as compared to conventional power plants. The intermittent nature of wind power causes the necessary backup, conventional power plants to operate in a more polluting mode. During summer heat spells, sufficient turbine winds are typically low to absent.

The $800,000 training program at JMU is specified as focusing on small wind turbine safety. Hint, watch out for the blades, and do not look down from heights. Site assessment and installation must be needed as the news release indicates that the current JMU turbine needs to be relocated.

Successful lobbying by the VWEC is being paid for by the public. Engineering talent is being diverted from other potential projects. The answer to Virginia’s energy needs is not blowing in the wind.