Lost On The Shore

A Kink in the Electric Line

There's a lot of enthusiasm for wind energy these days, and rightly so.  It's an enormous untapped energy source and wind energy is basically pollution-free, once the turbines are built and installed.  There are a couple of problems, though that need to be addressed. 

The New York Times published an excellent article a few days ago describing how the limitations of our existing power grid are going to limit the amount of wind energy we are able to use. 

Maple Ridge Wind Farm, pictured above, was completed a few years ago at a cost of some $320 million.  Located in upstate New York, the facility consisting of almost 200 wind turbines can generate more than 300 megawatts of power at peak output.  Yet at times the owners have had to shut the facility down, even when the wind is blowing, because the transmission lines were inadequate to handle the power.

The greatest resources for wind power in the United States are located in the great plains, far from the populated areas that consume most electricity.  Our current electricity grid is completely inadequate to move even a relatively small amount of electricity from the plains to the east coast, much less the large amounts that are potentially available.  And every new transmission line that would add capacity faces tremendous local opposition and interminable hearings from every jurisdiction it crosses.

Here in Maryland, we need to import about twenty percent of our electricity from other states because our generating capacity is far short of our demand.  But the transmission lines that bring electricity to Maryland from out of state are running at capacity.  The extra price we pay for the congestion on these lines increases the cost of electricity for everyone in the state.  Our regional grid manager - PJM, has predicted that the DC/Baltimore area and the Eastern Shore face the possibility of rolling blackouts during periods of high demand as soon as 2011 unless new generating capacity comes on line or new transmission lines are completed.

Three new transmission lines are being planned to bring additional power to Maryland.  The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) proposed by PEPCO would run from the Western Shore past the nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs, under the Chesapeake Bay to Vienna and then north through Delaware to New Jersey.  The Trans-Allegheny (TRAIL) line proposed by Allegheny Power would bring electricity from the west across Pennsylvania and West Virginia to near Frederick Maryland.  Dominion Virginia Power is proposing a transmission line which would bring power from Ohio and West Virginia to the fast growing areas of Northern Virginia and the Washington, DC area.  All of these face significant local opposition and are unlikely to be completed in the next several years.

In Maryland, of course, the Maryland Energy Administration says the solution is energy conservation and, at their urging, the legislature passed the EMPOWER Maryland Act which requires electricity providers to reduce per capita consumption by fifteen percent by 2015.  But that's too late to have a significant impact upon the projected shortfall three years from now.  Besides, I haven't seen any action yet except for some subsidized CFL bulbs and some efforts to reduce peak demand by some of the smaller providers like SMECO. 

No one wants a big transmission line near them.  But if we're serious about exploiting wind energy - and solar energy and other renewable resources, we need to have a modern, reliable electricity grid which will bring the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed.  In Maryland, the state needs to stop wavering and provide strong political support to the construction of these lines for the benefit of all its citizens, otherwise we could be in for some hot summers and cold winters - both outdoors and indoors.

Beer

Some 100 college presidents, including six from Maryland have again raised the question of what is the proper age to allow legal consumption of alcohol.  Predictably, their proposal to revisit the issue has raised a storm of protest from those who don't want to even debate the issue - their mind is made up. 

Now many people won't drink alcohol at all for one reason or another, and I respect that, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me.  Most of us believe that a glass of beer or wine, or something stronger makes a pleasant accompaniment to a meal, a relaxing pause at the end of the day or a happy supplement to a party or get-together.

Prior to 1988, each state set it's own minimum age for consuming or purchasing alcoholic beverages.  In 1988, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act which withheld Federal revenue from states that did not set 21 as the minimum age for purchasing or publicly drinking alcoholic beverages.  It's worth noting that almost every other country (except for those that ban alcohol completely) has a lower minimum drinking age - usually 18 although in many countries the age is much lower.

Proponents of keeping the minimum age at 21 point to the significant decrease in drunk driving arrests for those 18-21 since the Act passed.  It should be noted, however, that drunk driving arrests have decreased in every age bracket during that period as a result of changing social attitudes toward drinking and driving and increased enforcement.  It should also be pointed out that there has been an increase in 'binge drinking' among youngsters 18-21 during the same period and hospitalization of the same group for alcohol poisoning has risen during the period.

My personal opinion is that everyone should be allowed to purchase and consume beer and/or wine at age 18 and distilled spirits at age 21.

First of all, the Act doesn't really prevent youngsters from drinking.  I live only a few miles from Ocean City, Maryland and, despite heavy attempts at enforcement by the Ocean City Police, plenty of publicity about the dangers of drinking and checking of luggage and rooms by hotel proprietors, there is plenty of drinking by the high school graduates that come every June.  In fact, I have never met a young person between say, 16 and 21, who didn't think he or she could get alcohol when and if it was wanted. 

Second, and most important, banning all alcohol for the 18 - 21 age group in public means that they are denied the valuable lessons of learning how to drink responsibly.  When I was in college in Washington, DC, the drinking age was 18 for beer or wine and 21 for distilled spirits.  We frequented a number of bars near the university and learned quickly that there were rules about drinking in public - rules that were enforced quickly and ruthlessly by others who were older, wiser and usually much stronger.  We came to understand that, to be able to enjoy ourselves in the bar or restaurant we had to abide by the social mores that governed public use of alcohol.

Teenagers today who drink don't have the benefit of that social structure.  They have to drink privately, out of the public eye and in the company only of others of the same age.  It's no wonder they binge drink and behave as they do.  A drinking age of 21 infantalizes students - many of them are away from home for the first time or working full time for the first time - when they should be making the transition to adults.

It's worth noting, also that at 18, individuals can marry, adopt children, vote, serve in the military and purchase firearms from licensed dealers.  The path to adulthood is difficult.  We spend years teaching our children the things they will need to know to live as independent adults and responsible members of society.  Alcohol is a part of the culture in almost all of America and it is widely available, regardless of age.  We should teach our children, as they are on the verge of adulthood, to use it well and responsibly.  It will be better in the long run.

[The image is of an 1879 poster for beer.  The photo of myself that accompanies this blog was taken in Turkey as I sipped a mug of Efes beer - certainly an excellent beer.  It's worth noting that Turkey - a country which is 99% muslim has an excellent beer, some decent wine and a wonderful distilled spirit called Raki which I can't find anywhere on the Eastern Shore!]     

Some Good Things Happening In Maryland

I just got back from some travel and ran across these items in the news. 

Energy  Governor O'Malley has recognized that the solution to Maryland's energy problems lie not just in conservation but also in the construction of new generating facilities in the state.  With brownouts or rolling blackouts projected for portions of the state (including the Eastern Shore) as soon as 2011, trying to persuade homeowners and businesses to reduce consumption simply isn't going to cut the mustard.  We need both new generating capacity and improved transmission facility.  The sooner the state begins to take an active role in supporting both, the better off we will be.

Pollution  Attorney General Doug Gansler has announced plans to sue the Defense Department to force them to clean up groundwater and soil contamination at Fort Meade.  The Defense Department has been trying to dodge responsibility for this for quite a while.  The fort has been on EPA's superfund list for quite a while but the Army has been dragging its feet in the cleanup effort.  It's worth noting that they don't seem to have any shortage of funds when it comes to building a big new golf course at the fort.  Now let's see if we have the gumption to take legal action against some of our neighboring states - Pennsylvania in particular - to force them to stop sending their filth down the rivers into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Transportation  The O'Malley Administration has announced plans to fast track the procurement of additional railroad cars to supplement the MARC fleet. The 13 double-deck cars will be purchased from the Virginia Railway Express and will be refurbished before being placed into service.  When they are placed into service in November, they will increase the MARC fleet by more than ten percent.  Together with the new locomotives expected in February, these will reduce delays and allow for expansion of MARC service, giving many Marylanders a meaningfull choice of how to commute in these times of high gas prices. 

Jurisprudence  Governor O'Malley has appointed Judge Mary Ellen Barbera to the Maryland Court of Appeals.  She is an excellent choice.  Judge Barbera didn't have the luxury of being able to go directly from college to law school.  Instead, she attended the University of Maryland School of Law at night while teaching in Baltimore public schools.  Undoubtedly she learned a lot both while teaching and at law school.  Her real-world experiences and background in addition to her sharp legal mind will give her excellent perspective as she takes on her new responsibilities.  We wish her well.

What Can We Do?

In the last post we looked at the issue of global warming and discussed the factors that contribute to the phenomenonand potential effects.  Today we'll look at some actions that we can take on an everyday basis to help combat global warming.  I want to focus on actions the average person can take.  There are lots of recommendations to replace your air-conditioning and heating unit, re-insulate your entire house, get rid of your car, etc. that are effective but not within reach of many.

Looking at the above graph, we can see that the largest shares of carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of coal and petroleum.  Natural gas contributes a smaller but growing share and other factors, particularly cement production, contribute a small but significant amount.  So our search for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

A significant portion of greenhouse gases are emitted during the generation of electricity - primarily from coal, but a significant and growing amount come from natural gas-fueled generating facilities.  So reducing electricity use will not only save us money but will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Here are some things you can do to reduce your electricity consumption:

• Install CFL bulbs wherever possible.  They're considerably more expensive initially, but they do save electricity and they last considerably longer than incandescent bulbs.  Many electricity suppliers in Maryland offer discounts to their customers on the purchase of CFL bulbs, so check with your electricity supplier.  After all, you're paying for the discount in your electricity bill so you should take advantage of it.  If you can't afford to change all of your lightbulbs to CFL immediately, start with those you use the most.
• Turn off the lights when you leave the room.  This is a no-brainer.  Some think that turning lights back on again uses more electricity than is saved by turning them off.  This isn't true - even for fluorescents.  While they do use a surge of electricity to fire up, the surge lasts for only half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second and is equivalent to the energy used in just a few seconds of use.  So turn them off.
• Try to reduce use of your heater and air conditioner.  Turn your thermostat down a bit in the winter and up a bit in the summer.  Consider closing off parts of the house that aren't used.  Be sure your furnace filter is changed or cleaned regularly.  Caulk and weatherstip your doors and windows.
• When you need to replace an appliance, replace it with an Energy Star rated appliance.  The increased efficiency will offset the increased cost and you will use less electricity. 
• If your hot water heater is nearing the end of its useful life, consider replacing it with a solar hot water heater.  This can be quite cost effective.  There are state and Federal tax credits available.  Look here for a good calculator. 
• Switch off computers, speakers, TVs, battery chargers, etc. when they're not in use.  Keep in mind that, even while switched off, some of these draw power.  Consider investing a few bucks in a power strip that allows you to switch off several at a time or a remote-control power strip that makes it even easier.

A lot of greenhouse gases are generated by transportation.  Here are some options you can consider to cut down on both greenhouse gases and costs.

• Combine several short trips if possible.
• Use mass transit, carpool or, if possible, telecommute.
• When it's time to replace your current vehicle, consider one which is more fuel-efficient. On the other hand, don't rush out now to trade in your gas-guzzling SUV or truck for a very high mileage car. You'll lose money on the trade-in and you'll pay more for the car. Unless you need a new car now, wait until there are more high-mileage cars available and until the current glut of SUVs and light trucks on the market is reduced.
• If most of your trips are 40 miles or less, consider waiting a few years until plug-in electric cars are available. Both GM and Toyota expect to introduce models soon.
• Keep your engine tuned, your wheels aligned and your tires inflated properly.
• Try to order things to be delivered by mail (such as Netflix) rather than driving to the movie rental shop to get one. One more piece of mail won't make a big difference to the postal service.

There are other things you can do.

• Avoid products with lots of packaging.  Reducing your trash by ten percent can save 1200 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
• buy refillable items where possible.  Refilling a spray bottle is preferable to throwing it away and buying a new one.
• Reduce the amount of junk mail you receive.  About half of all junk mail is discarded without being opened.  There are some good tools here to stop junk mail.
• Pay bills online where possible.  Save a stamp, a trip to the mailbox and some unnecessary paper.
• Buy and use reusable shopping bags in lieu of plastic or paper.

Note that I haven't recommended solar electric panels - the cost is too high for most people and the return on investment is not very good, even with the tax credits that are offered.  I also haven't recommended things like buying 'carbon offsets' where you pay someone to supposedly take carbon out of the air.  It's very trendy, but not very effective if you use it just to continue a wasteful lifestyle.  Many of the supposed 'offsets' aren't really offsets anyway.

Probably the most effective thing you can do is to urge your legislators to deal with the problem instead of ignoring it.  If you've been reading this blog for a while you know that I support nuclear energy.  It's not that I think it's a wonderful technology - there are unresolved problems with waste disposal and there are some dangers.  It's the only realistic technology, though, for replacing our large, coal-fired generating plants.  We haven't solved the waste disposal problem for coal, either - just dumping the waste in the atmosphere turns out to be very dangerous.  And many more people have been killed in providing electricity from coal than from nuclear energy. 

Renewable energy is great and I support it.  We need to address the cost and variablity issues, however, if we are to rely on it for a substantial portion of our energy needs. 

So let's all do what we can, and demand that our legislators address the problem instead of ducking it.  The issue is not going to go away and the solutions won't get easier.

[Note: I apologize for the delay in posting.  Things have been very busy.  I hope to get back on schedul e next week.]

 

Hot Enough For You?

The Baltimore Sun carries this article today on the predicted effects of climate change on Maryland.  The article describes a report by a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive report on the potential effects of climate change on Maryland.  The report was prepared for the state by a committee of 19 scientists from five Maryland campuses, the U.S. Geological Survey and two environmental groups.  Among the findings:

• An increase in the average temperature in Maryland by about 3 degrees fahrenheit by midcentury is probably unavoidable.
• Many hardwood species in Maryland are likely to 'fade away' while pine trees more common in the south become more common here.
• A significant area will be inundated by the combination of rising sea levels and continuing land subsidence. Significant areas of wetland would be lost.
• Cool water species in the Chesapeake Bay such as soft-shelled clams, sturgeon and eelgrass will disappear, while warm water species, such as croaker, will become more prevalent.

Coincidentally, another article on climate change was published in the Washington Post today.  The article addresses the tendency of many to blame every hurricane, drought, heat wave, flood, frost or large cloud on global warming.  This, of course, just confuses the issue because weather is naturally variable.  If you attribute strong hurricanes to global warming then, when a year comes along without any strong hurricanes, people will logically say that global warming doesn't exist!

So let's look at some facts.  This graph [prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] shows the difference between the global average surface temperature from 1880 to 2006 and the average temperature during the period.

 

Note that the data displayed here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at reporting stations in and around cities. The average surface temperature has increased by about one degree fahrenheit since 1970 and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is now increasing by about 3.2 degrees fahrenheit each century.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 - approximately a 36% increase according to NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory. They also publish this nice graph.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at a rate of about 1.9 ppm per year.  According to the IPCC's 2007 report, all of this increase is due to human activity. 

Methane is more abundant in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years according to the IPCC report and are now 148% above pre-industrial levels.

Nitrous oxide levels have increased approximately 18% in the past 200 years and continue to increase.  Increases in nitrous oxide are primarily due to agricultural activity and the use of artificial fertilizers.

These gases contribute to the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and lower atmosphere through a process called the 'greenhouse effect', which was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824.  Without the greehouse effect, the earth would be a cold and barren planet unable to support life. But there can be too much of a good thing.  The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the average surface temperature to begin rising.  Water vapor is also a major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

There are a variety of feedback mechanisms which have either a positive or negative effect on the increase in global temperature.  Increased evaporation due to higher temperatures increase water vapor in the air which increases the greenhouse effect.  On the other hand, clouds reflect solar energy back into space thus reducing the heating of the earth.  It's uncertain how much the increase in water vapor will effect cloud formation.  Reduced amounts of ice and snow increase absorption of solar energy by the earth's surface contributing to the increase in temperature.

One of the most pernicious effects of global warming is the increase in the mean sea level.  Water, like most substances, expands slightly as it becomes warmer.  In Maryland, and particularly on the Eastern Shore, this effect is increased by the slow subsidence of the land over a period of thousands of years.  Here is a graph of sea level changes at Baltimore.  It is prepared by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSML) at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.

While there are significant year-to-year variations, the trend is unmistakable.  Much of Maryland, and particularly the Eastern Shore, is at a very low elevation and is very susceptible to inundation during periods of high tides and during storms.  The photo above shows storm surge flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in Bowleys Quarters, MD in September of 2003.  With continued increases in sea level we can expect many more episodes like that.  Many of the islands that existed in the Chesapeake Bay at the time of the explorations by Captain John Smith are now gone, victims of rising sea levels.  We can expect more of the same. 

For barrier islands like Assateague and Ocean City, the prognosis is also grim.  The combination of rising sea levels and stronger storms made possible by increased ocean temperatures will make it increasingly difficult to maintain these islands in their current locations.  This photo of barrier islands in North Carolina breached by Hurricane Isabel is a good example of what to expect.

(photo by the US Geological Survey)

So what can we do?  I'll talk about that in my next post. 

Having taken a look at fundraising by the congressional candidates in Maryland's first district, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at how the two major party presidential candidates are faring in their fundraising in Maryland.  As before, all data is from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website and reflect contributions through June 30, 2008.

As you might expect given Maryland's political leaning, Barack Obama is raising a lot more in Maryland than John McCain.  Obama has reported total contributions from Maryland residents of $8,088,188 - almost five times the $1,643,247 that McCain has raised. 

Again, not surprisingly, the largest share of the contributions come from Montgomery County.  Obama has raised $3,906,539 from zip codes beginning with 208, while McCain has received $799,869 from the same area. 

In Prince George's County (zip codes 207xx), Obama's lead is overwhelming.  He's raised $1,041,030 compared to just $69,075 for McCain - more than fifteen times as much.  In eastern Montgomery County (zip codes 209xx), Obama also has a very strong lead - $905,051 to McCain's $58,171.

Here on the Shore, things are a bit closer, as they usually are.  Looking at zip codes 216xx, 218xx and 219xx, Obama has raised $184,530 to McCain's $122,892, with most of the money coming from the relatively wealthier mid-Shore area.  Here's a rundown of the Shore contributions:

Eastern Shore Presidential Campaign Contributions through 6/30/08

	Obama	McCain
Mid-Shore 216xx	$146,789	$89,485
Lower-Shore 218xx	$27,881	$26,223
Upper-Shore 219xx	$9,860	$7,184
Shore Total	$184,530	$122,892

 Obama has a slight lead in the Upper Shore and the Lower Shore in terms of contributions, with a more substantial lead in the Mid-Shore areas that include Easton and St. Michaels.  It will be interesting to see how the fundraising lead translates into votes.  I'm hopeful that the current enthusiasm for Obama, particularly among young people, will translate into increased turnout on the Democratic side and a boost for Frank Kratovil.

[The photo is one of the earliest known photos of the White House - sometime in the 1860s - and is in the Library of Congress collection.]