Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Robert Moen Subscribe

On Obama Promotes Clean Energy and Clean Air in the State of the Union

Solar and wind generation are expensive and have average output of only 15-20% of their nameplate capacity.  Often they are backed-up by coal generation.  So in reality they are not even clean energy.  The only realistic 'clean energy' candidates are nuclear, geothermal and, yes, natural gas.

-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

January 28, 2011    View Comment    

On Displacing More Oil from Power Generation

Geoffrey-

Smart, interesting article and comments.  Thanks for your straight-ahead thinking.

-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

January 21, 2011    View Comment    

On A Wind Bubble?

Smart article.  The intermiitant nature of wind power makes too expensive and, without huge government support, it cannot compete with the abundance of newly found natural gas.

-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

November 6, 2010    View Comment    

On It’s The Real Thing: The Power of Koch

I'm against CO2 regulation because it is based on the highly biased IPCC findings.  We need a USA-sponsored Climate Truth Commission.  On the other hand, I'm 100% for replacing dirty coal generation with gas and nuclear.  This alone would do more to reduce CO2 than cap-and-trade.  And, for the record, my site is totally self-funded.

-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

September 16, 2010    View Comment    

On Another Copenhagen Outcome: Serious Questions About the Best Institutional Path Forward

Whether one thinks man causes global warming or not, can we all agree that the United States needs to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission and stop outsourcing our climate science to the United Nations? It defies common sense that we allow the UN to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
January 6, 2010    View Comment    

On COP15: Hopehagen–or Flopenhagen?

Marc-

Nice article.  I always enjoy your writing.

In my mind, however, Copenhagen failed because the science behind man-made global warming is biased, unproven and sloppy. Whether you think man causes global warming or not, can we agree that the United States needs to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission and stop outsourcing our climate science to the United Nations? It defies common sense that we allow the UN to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).

Much of the science in the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report appears solid.  However, I do not believe the conclusion 'CO2 drives global warming' is warranted.  BTW, two of the Climategate scientists were coordinating lead authors of the report and were among the only 10% or so, of the scientists who participated in the report, to write the conclusion.

I read the Fourth Assessment Report.  The terms "uncertain" or "uncertainty" appear over 1,300 times in 900 pages, and the report describes our level of scientific understanding of key aspects of climate as "low" or "very low." The chapter on the climate models refers to "significant uncertainties" in all the models, and states "models still show significant errors."

I would think you would agree with convening an American Climate Truth Commission if for no other reason but for the politics of climate change.  The ONLY way the 2/3s of Americans, that now disagree with CO2 regulation, might agree will be because an objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission finds that CO2 drives global warming.

One last comment.  Please state your source that Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind.  My research tells me that the Danes over-produce electricity by as much as 20%.  That extra 20% is mostly wind-generated electricity exported at wholesale and below cost prices.  In some years as little as 5% of wind-generated electricity Denmark actually goes into their own grid.  In 2005 9% of the electricity consumed was generated by nuclear power in other countries.  It is my understanding that Denmark has the highest electricity rates in Europe, they have not retired a single coal-powered generation plant and they are not close to meeting their Kyoto goals.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
December 21, 2009    View Comment    

On Climategate: Mountain or Molehill?

Anyone interested in how data is adjusted should take a look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/#urbanization

Please note that Reno, NV in 1997 & 1998 showed a dip in raw temp data and was adjusted upwards.  But why?  For those two years the temp station was moved out of the urban heat island (see page 31 at http://www.weather.gov/om/csd/pds/PCU6/IC6_2/tutorial1/PCU6-Unit2.pdf ).

Here's my question:  If the dip in temp was the result of moving away from the urban heat island, shouldn't the adjustments be downward, not upward?

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
December 18, 2009    View Comment    

On Those leaked emails, and the politicization of climate science

Smart article, Ms. Kiesling, thanks.  Since you support "greater transparency in both data availability and peer review" please join me to call for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.

It's clear to me the USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations.  The UN's IPCC cannot objectively serve as judge when at the same time it advocates CO2 regulation with the Kyoto Protocol.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
December 3, 2009    View Comment    

On Mulling Over ClimateGate

The purloined emails underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.  The emails strongly suggest that at least some of the science behind man-made global warming is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is at least in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it.

- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
December 1, 2009    View Comment    

On Do Leaked Emails Undermine the Scientific Consensus?

Senator-

The purloined emails underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.  The emails strongly suggest that at least some of the science behind man-made global warming is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is at least in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it.

BTW I totally support your push for nuclear power.

- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

December 1, 2009    View Comment    

On What the insurance industry thinks about climate change and sea level rise, and it’s not pretty

Scott-

It is not only because the IPCC is 'political' that I think their results are skewed.  It is also because the Kyoto Protocol is the IPCC's baby. By allowing them to also be judge and jury, isn't it like allowing a real estate developer to set zoning laws?  ...or allowing a sports team to hire its own referee?  ...or allowing a student to grade his/her own paper?

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

November 30, 2009    View Comment    

On What the insurance industry thinks about climate change and sea level rise, and it’s not pretty

Tyler-

When you use the term "climate deniers" you demonstrate your inability to bring critical thinking to the subject.  Your approach actually delays the CO2 caps you think are necessary.

Frankly, I don't see the majority of Americans supporting cap-and-trade or any CO2 regulation until we have our own 'Climate Truth Commission.'  ...and no longer rely upon the opinions of the United Nations.   Outsourcing our climate science to the UN makes no sense.  The UN is more concerned about politics and funding than science.  Plus, UN forecasts for the last 10 years do not fit what actually happened.  The United States needs our own objective, transparent 'climate truth commission' to think-through global warming.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

November 29, 2009    View Comment