1 From: Ronal W.Larson [rongretlarson@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 5:42 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Apologies: I think this may be a duplicate. I may have sent this through your website - but am not sure that happened.

E PA comments - intended to have been given at your coal emissions hearing in Denver on 30 October

Listening Committee

My main point in this note is that the instructions for these hearings have omitted one important approach - that of carbon negativity. I have read the four question areas - and probably could squeeze my concern into one or more of those. But that does not seem the best way to justify adding a category to the many carbon neutral approaches you now have under study (wind, solar, DSM, etc) - all of which have been most of my life’s work. As near as I can tell, EPA is missing totally this additional carbon negativity approach applicable to all the electrical generating options under review (new, old, replacement, etc.)

An alternative descriptor of what I hope can appear in your final report on these hearings is the phrase “CDR” - Carbon Dioxide Removal. CDR is that portion of the larger policy area called “Geoengineering” which deals with actually removing carbon, not simply putting less in. - or hiding its effects through added aerosols In my opinion, taking out carbon is today more important than putting less in. The reason is that showing carbon negativity is practical is key to giving hope to the nation’s youth.

Most CDR approaches are energy consumers; two are not. The approach I do NOT favor is BECCS - Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration. It has had considerable Federal (DoE) funding - and is languishing. The approach I do favor and have worked on for longer that the name has been in use is “biochar”. The biochar area is NOT languishing, with an annual doubling time that might be as short as two years - more than 35% annual growth as measured by technical papers, new corporations, funds invested, etc. These accomplishments have occurred with essentially zero Federal funding (a few million per year at the USDA - using non-authorized/non-appropriated funds) - but with many dozens of excited federal soil scientists finding ways to get in a little research.

As a former national lab researcher (Branch Chief and first Principal Scientist at SERI from 1977 to 1982) and earlier a staffer for the US Congress, I understand how difficult it is to add new material in a review such as is now going on. I understand the circular file in which this plea could be placed. Nevertheless, I hope someone reading this understands the importance of adding this new category of action to which a utility can consider its possible mitigation action (biomass with pyrolysis). We are in danger of losing a decade in getting to what many European countries are already committed. Fortuna tely the IPCC’s AR5 document for policy makers did include CDR and biochar - apparently as a last minute decision. The EPA can do the same.

One problem with my biochar/CDR suggestion probably is that it addresses too many global problems. These hear ings are on carbon, but biochar also addresses issues of soil degradation, food insecurity, waste management, fertilizer runoff, reduced irrigation needs, rural economic development, jobs, all the energy end-uses (biofuels, thermal needs, etc) and many more besides electricity. So, I hope the EPA individual(s?) who will read this can agree that our excess carbon emergency demands that the EPA adds this biochar tool for utilities and states to consider. There is a huge information data base to backup the claims of this note at www.biochar-international.org

.
I signed up to speak in Denver on 30 October, but decided instead to submit these comments in writing - so as to have a better chance to organize them logically. I have worked in the renewables area since 1973 (then in the first class of Congressional Fellows) and am a Fellow and former board chair of ASES - American Solar Energy Society. I of course support eliminating not just coal but all fossil sources. Here I am asking for the next follow-up step after achieving carbon neutrality: achieving carbon negativity. It is not too early to start.

Ronal W. Larson, PhD2 Golden, Colorado 31 October, 20133 From: Peter Clitherow [pc22@zipcon.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:59 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: new CO2 rules comments

Folks, here are my suggestions for rules:

1 . taxes are the most efficient way to regulate things like CO2. however, in order to be politically acceptable, they should be revenue neutral for the average family.

2. the broad goal should be to level the playing field, in the same way that regulating mercury emissions from power plants, and CFC in air conditioners was done. those industries that have been getting a free ride should expect to pay taxes to compensate the public for harmful externalities.

3. it should be recognized that the cost of not doing anything is likely to vastly exceed the costs of a moderate tax. the Stern report has all the details for economist wonks.

the supreme court has said the EPA can regular pollutants such as CO2. let’s get with the plan!

thanks, —p4 From: Schulz, David Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:28 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website



### As an EPA employee of 41 years, I would like to offer my comments as an individual citizen concerned about the

s ignificant public health and welfare impacts of climate change caused by emissions of GHG’s. As the agency solicits comments for consideration in drafting a proposed rule for existing power plants and refineries, I offer the following suggestions:

1) Adoption of declining carbon caps, based on monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions. Caps should be established for each company for sources within each State based on reductions from 2012 (or combined 2011/ 2012 average) baseline emissions. 2) It is recommended that CO2 caps reduce total emissions from these sectors by at least 10% by 2020, 25% by 2030 and 40% by 2040, with annual (or two year average) incremental reductions between each step. 3) To help facilitate such reductions and to assure a reliable electric supply, it is recommended for the power industry sector that renewable energy standards (applying across each company within each State) be proposed as well. 4) It is recommended that renewable energy standards (% of power from wind, solar, geothermal or other renewable energy technologies approved by EPA) of at least 15% by 2020, 25% by 2025, 35% by 2030 and 50% by 2040 be proposed, along with annual incremental increases between each step. 5) It is recommended that standards also be proposed for increasing energy efficiency requirements for the generation and transmission of electricity and for the production, processing and transportation within the refining sector.

Thank you for consideration of comments, David Schulz5 From: Richard Peterson [sfreptile@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:50 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution

Hello,

I am a patent attorney and review many new ideas. The use of floating sheets of flexible solar cells on the aqueduct from northern California to southern California could power the pumps and prevent evaporation of the water during transit. Apparently 10% of California's power goes to pumping water. This is a two for one idea. The new flexible film and printing technologies make this possible. Richard E. Peterson, San Francisco CA.6 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of George Dickinson P.O. 172 Moundville, Mo64771 [boilermaker1962@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 14:34
S ubmitted values are:

Name: George Dickinson P.O. 172 Moundville, Mo64771 Email: boilermaker1962@yahoo.com
Comments: Build more Precipators,possible Hepa Filters

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards7 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tom Kabat [tomkabat@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:12 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 13:12
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Tom Kabat Email: tomkabat@aol.com
Comments: In order to avoid runaway climate problems we clearly need to leave a lot of fossil energy in the ground where its carbon has been safely sequestered for millions of years before we began launching it into our atmosphere. We must start limiting the allowed emissions from existing high CO2/kWh sources like existing coal power plants. To allow maximum management flexibility, we should consider limits on the total tons from each of the existing utilities referenced to a prior date such as limiting 2015 emissions per utility to no more than 100% of 1990 emission amounts (gross tons of CO2e/ utility) and then start the reductions in that 100% number by about 2 percentage points per year. This will encourage cycling high co2/kwh plants off for more of the year. Adding more efficiency and renewables and substituting more renewable energy into the mix either as powerplants or as renewable energy (fuel or thermal) inputs to boilers once powered by 100% coal. Among other things we need to demonstrate what China can follow. Thank you for considering these modest ideas since each hour's-worth of coal burning CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and only comes out to disrupt the ocean food chain. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards8 From: Diane Dixon [diane@dixonnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 12:51 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Climate change

We are all concerned about climate change and being better stewards f the environment.
P lease help switch subsidies and tax breaks from big oil and gas into solar power for individual homes and cars and development of solar energy storage for the home. Promote electric car solar charging station networks. Make solar energy as readily available and accessible as gas and everyone will have panels on their roof. We are all just waiting for it to cost less for the initial investment in panels and waiting for a network of charging for cars. Demand is huge and waiting.

Many thanks Diane9 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Leo Macdonald [leomacdonald@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:35 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 20:35
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Leo Macdonald Email: leomacdonald@gmail.com
Comments: A reasonably proper way to assess carbon dioxide allowances per person is to look at what a person is responsible for just by being alive. We all breathe out CO2 through our process of metabolism. So certainly the amount we exhale should be allowed tax f ree over our lifetime. Then we all have to travel to our place of school or work (from age 6 to age 70), so if you allow 20-30 miles of travel each way using a moderately efficient car (30mpg), that is another reasonable amount to allow tax free. If a person chooses to have a 100 mile commute or uses a very inefficient truck (3500 diesel), then that excess should be taxed. Certainly I believe that diesel vehicles should not be exempt from emissions, when there are active clubs called "dirty diesel" which encourage their members to modify the engines and exhausts of their diesel pickups to "blow more big clouds of black smoke (rich in particulates, CO and CO2) just for fun" and have stickers that say "saving the world from environmentallists" on them. So this waste should be taxed! Another thing that is basically not necessary what with conference calls and email and telephone is to travel via jet airliner. Burning jet fuel at the rate required to move a person from the USA to a foreign country is excessive and should be taxed. People will still fly, it will just cost a bit more They another thing that we should be allowed to do is have electricity and some modern conveniences. Certainly everyone wants to be allowed heat for the winter time. These energy allotments should be tax free. Except for the case of excessive use, such as 10000 sq ft house with the thermostat set to 85F all winter, having 10 televisions, three refridgerators, and other more numerous appliances. So a typical kwh consumption rate per person per day should be tax free, but amounts in excess of that should be taxed. Other types of carbon emissions should be taxed as well. Powerplants should be taxed on pollution (including CO2, Hg, S all from coal), (radioactive waste from nuclear plants), (CO2 from gas turbine plants), etc. Plants exempt from carbon/pollution tax should include solar, wind, and hydro (and other truly clean sources like tidal). Pretend clean sources like "clean coal", "Biofuels", etc are actually emitting various pollutions along their lifecycle (cradle to grave analysis and so should be taxed). Honestly this pollution tax is no different from the EPA's current pay to pollute policy for most industrial plants. If I have a factory emitting a chemical that is regul ated, I have to pay a fee. So moving CO2 onto that list is just reasonable and normal for the taxation of pollution. Also, it doesn't actually stop pollution, it just makes the government richer, while the polluters are "complying with regulations". Additionally you may be asking, just how much tax? Well a 5% tax on all Pollution should be a reasonable amount. no one is going to go broke if gas costs $3.675 instead of $3.50. No one is going to stop flying if it costs $2100 instead of $2000 to go from NYC to London. No one is going to stop buying electricity for their McMansion if it costs $105 instead of $100 per month. So i believe that a 5% tax on all excessive CO2 production is reasonable and within the scope of the government. If you try to pass a tax for breathing, though, you will have a VERY hard fight and probably a revolution of normal people wanting the "right to be alive". Sincerely, Leo Macdonald Scientist10 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards11 From: Nora Privitera [noraprivitera@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:43 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Listening Session on clean air

Though unable to attend the listening session tomorrow in San Francisco I submitting some

s uggestions for your consideration.

1. Require all power plants to upgrade their facilities with the cleanest technology to date, and make this a periodic continuing requirement. Example: after a notorious fire in Richmond CA Chevron opted to do a cheaper , dirtier repair rather than a cleaner fix. This type of thing should not be allowed.

2. Require auto manufacturers to have an increasing % of their new stock be alternative fuel vehicles and provide iincentives for auto companies to exceed those requirements.

3. Ban fracking or require companies that engage in fracking to completely offset their emissions through credits and various other means such as subsidizing zero emission research & development and/or existing zero emission technologies.

Thank you for your consideration of these ideas. I also want to urge you to resist the inevitable political pressure that you will receive from industry and Congress to water down your effort s to reduce our carbon emissions. This is a much too important issue to cave in to Political pressure.

Sent from my iPhone12 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jon Beall [jonbeall1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:20 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:20
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jon Beall Email: jonbeall1@gmail.com Comments: Why not a carbon tax that is rebated to taxpayers making it revenue neutral. Wouldn't this add some of the externalized costs of burning fossil fuel that are not currently included in the price? If so, the price of alternative, cleaner sources of power would become more attractive for investors, and the powerful, free market forces would reduce our carbon footprint. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards13 From: Mike [takingaim1000@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 5:23 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: How to Reduce Carbon Pollution



### Dear EPA Representatives,

I ’m writing in response to the article that appeared in today’s Chronicle in which the EPA solicits public comments on how to curb pollution at existing power plants. I believe the best solution would be to replace such power plants altogether with 100% clean power on state-owned property. An excellent example of this is the solar project at San Francisco’s Sunset Reservoir, which utilizes City-owned property to generate 100% clean energy.

Using this model, the State should cover the entire Central Valley portion of the California Aqueduct with solar panels to generate state-owned energy, on state-owned property. Given the length of the Aqueduct and scope of such a project on existing rights-of-way, the power generated by this approach would reduce or even eliminate the need for any carbon-producing plants.

Covering the California Aqueduct with solar panels would be a public works project on the scale of a Hoover Dam or Hetch Hetchy Water project and would create tens of thousands of jobs for years to come while largely eliminating the evaporation problem that currently exists with our highly inefficient water conveyance system. All power generated would be hard-wired to critical infrastructure throughout California, eliminating the potential for rolling blackouts and cyber-terrorism. The ROI would be clean, state-owned power, a substantial gain in water, jobs and security, while reducing carbon-producing power plants.

I urge you to consider this idea. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Mike Martinovich

415-647-604014 From: Judith Levinson [jelevinson@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:30 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: listening session comments for 11.05.13



### Hello EPA,

Th ank you for allowing comments and offering suggestions to cut carbon pollution.

When the EPA ruled to mandate catalytic converters on gas polluting cars, that produced a reduction of CO2. Now if you would do that for all coal fired power plants and other major oil and gas producers, as well as, those tied to pollution production, that would cut CO2 emissions even more.

If you were to go a step further by utilizing and converting our city's and county's plastic trash into gas, we would further reduce the size and scope of dumps, and create a new market for gas, lowering costs to consumer's. Also, this process could be placed on a trawler or oil rig out in our ocean's gire's, leading the way forward by reducing plastic trash in our ocean's.

Here is one company involved in that process:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/a-new-way-t o-turn-plastic-into-fuel/

Thank you, Judith Levinson San Francisco, CA15 From: Lke505 [lke505@juno.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 12:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Coal

I often hear trains Carrying coal rattling through the night when I visit my son in
C harlottesville, Virginia. Even if are shipping it abroad, we polluting the planet? Why are we continuing to mine coal? Linda Erkelens

Sent from my iPhone16 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of susan chamberlain [suschamberlain@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:40 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 09:39
S ubmitted values are:

Name: susan chamberlain Email: suschamberlain@gmail.com Comments: please defund all coal fired power plants and incentivize replacing them with alternative energy plants - wind and solar. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards17 From: Kevin Clahan [clahan@lettisci.com] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:14 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Nuclear power should be increased



### To reduce carbon emissions we need to utilize new nuclear small modular reactor technology and build more nuclear

p lants nationwide. -K. Clahan18 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gregory Howard Gebhart [greghgebhart@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:38 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 22:37
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Gregory Howard Gebhart Email: greghgebhart@yahoo.com
Comments: Sept 23, 2010 Scientific American describes converting coal-fired power plant CO2 into gasoline using electricity and a metal catalyst: In the 1990s a graduate student named Lin Chao at Princeton University decided to bubble carbon dioxide into an electrochemical cell. Using cathodes made from the element palladium and a catalyst known as pyridinium—a garden variety organic chemical that is a by-product of oil refining—he discovered that applying an electric current would assemble methanol from the CO2. He published his findings in 1994—and no one cared.

But by 2003, Chao's successor in the Princeton lab of chemist Andrew Bocarsly was deeply interested in finding a solution to the growing problem of the CO2 pollution causing global climate change. Graduate student Emily Barton picked up where he left off and, using an electrochemical cell that employs a semiconducting material used in photovoltaic solar cells for one of its electrodes, succeeded in tapping sunlight to transform CO2 into the basic fuel.

"The dominant thinking 10 years ago was that we should bury the CO2. But if you could efficiently convert it into something that we wouldn't have to spend all that money and energy to put into the ground, sort of recycle it, that would be better," Bocarsly says. "We take CO2, water, sunlight and an appropriate catalyst and generate an alcoholic fuel."

He adds: "We didn't have some brilliant insight here. We had some luck." Luck that venture capitalists are now trying to turn into cash flow via a start-up known as Liquid Light.

Turning CO2 into fuels is exactly what photosynthetic organisms have been doing for billions of years, although their fuels tend to be foods, like sugars. Now humans are trying to store the energy in sunlight by making a liquid fuel from CO2 and hydrogen—a prospect that could recycle CO2 emissions and slow down the rapid buildup of such greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "You take electricity and combine CO2 with hydrogen to make gasoline," explained Arun Majumdar, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–e) that is pursuing such technology, at a conference in March. "This is like killing four birds with one stone"—namely, energy security, climate change, the federal deficit and, potentially, unemployment.

"When these new technologies get commercialized, those jobs always end up in the U.S.," argues chemical engineer Alan Weimer of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who is working on such solar-fuel generators. Adds chemist Michael Berman of the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, which is funding research into the possibilities of solar fuels, including Bocarsly's work: "The country, and the Air Force, need secure and sustainable sources of energy.... Since the sun provides enough energy for our needs, our goal is to make a fuel using CO2 and sunlight—and maybe water—as feedstocks to produce the chemical fuel that can store the sun's energy in a form that we can use where and when we need." Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards1920 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of sara moore-hines [sarimamh@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:56 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 17:55
S ubmitted values are:

Name: sara moore-hines Email: sarimamh@aol.com
Comments: Develop new strategies to increase #s of green energy plants... including beginning to re-tool current power plants...Wind, solar, hydro and other clean sources of energy MUST be recommended and demanded. Increasing funds must be made available to home owners to make solar panels affordable as well as subsidies to home owners (and businesses) who chose wind/solar companies for residential energy. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards21 From: Ellen Mass [emass73@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:49 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: US-EPA land and tree conservation



### Carbon pollutant issues need to include natural resources carbon capturing in wetlands and forests. US-EPA

s hould be willing to assess large tracks of carbon capturing land near cities so as to make the case with both man-made pollutants and nature's work at ameliorating this. We have worked for 5 years to preserve a sizable 7 acres floodplain forest in Cambridge and Belmont to no avail, and with no support from US-EPA. This is appalling as much pollution can be trapped in this way of preserving ecosystems which do the job.

Sincerely yours, Ellen Mass Friends of Alewife Reservation 617 415 1884 Office22 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jeff Goby [jgoby@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:58 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 11/03/2013 - 11:57
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Jeff Goby Email: jgoby@hotmail.com
Comments: Thank you for organizing the listening tour to gather suggestions for reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. I am writing instead of attending one of the events since I will be working at that time. In fact, I believe most people, except students and the retired, will be working during the events. Thus, one suggestion is to have the events at times when most working people are also able to attend, such as on weekends or evenings. Having the events almost exclusively during working hours easily gives the impression that the EPA either does not want to hear from many people about this issue or that it does not care what working people think. Another suggestion is to implement a revenue- neutral carbon tax as a more encompassing policy tool to reduce carbon emissions from coal power plants and other carbon sources (natural gas and petroleum incineration). Revenue obtained from taxing carbon sources (coal power plants, natural gas power plants, petroleum refineries) could be redistributed as credits or incentives to groups or individuals reducing carbon emissions (anyone generating renewable power or sequestering carbon). Taxing the few large carbon sources will be easier administratively than taxing millions of disperse sources, redistribution of revenues would appease those in government who wish to minimize taxation and further government spending of the revenues gained, and rewarding those who are helping reduce carbon pollution through renewable power generation or carbon sequestration will send an unmistakable financial signal to financial markets at a large scale. Thank you for reading my comment, and I look forward to hearing what you think about them. Best regards, Jeff Goby Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards23 From: Kathryn Callaway [kathyc@llaway.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 8:29 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: How to reduce carbon pollution

Dear EPA:

T he only REAL way to reduce carbon pollution is to LEAVE FOSSIL FUELS IN THE GROUND. We will never be able to sustain a healthy environment unless we truly put our efforts toward renewable energy.

Most sincerely, Kathy Callaway Member of Mainstreet Moms Woodacre, CA24 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Lisa M. Perrotta [LisaMariaPerrotta@Gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 10:44 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 10:43
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Lisa M. Perrotta Email: LisaMariaPerrotta@Gmail.com
Comments: More stringent wetland protection could be conceived under the Clean Air Act? for wetlands that act as carbon dioxide sinks could be included in emissions reduction program. More wetlands are being lost now that are not Army Corps jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act due to most recent Supreme Court cases. Wetlands can play a role for cleaner air as well as cleaner water, and hopefully can find additional protection niche under the Clean Air Act. under the Clean Air Act.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards25 From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Russ Rudy [rudy@flinthills.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 7:42 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 11/02/2013 - 07:41
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Russ Rudy Email: rudy@flinthills.com
Comments: I would suggest that you study the article in the November, 2009 issue of Scientific American Magazine entitled "A PLAN TO POWER 100 PERCENT OF THE PLANET WITH RENEWABLES".

The Stanford University scientists who authored the article recognized, as a part of their study, that it would be necessary to "buy out" the sunk investment of large capitalists in the obsolete technologies of extractive fuels if we are ever to succeed in achieving worldwide adoption of clean energy technologies.

The change is necessary, I wish you the courage and wisdom it takes to make the change. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards26 From: Jerry Harrison [jerryfromalameda@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:13 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Tax

I would like to register my support for a carbon tax to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I

w ill not recite the many convincing reasons why a carbon tax will be the most effective means of reducing emissions; I know you are already aware of them. Please find a way to overcome the political opposition of the polluters to a carbon tax. Thank you. Jerome Harrison 1211 Mound Street Alameda CA 94501 510/521-2358

Sent from my iPad27 From: Edward Greisch [edgreisch@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:53 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: carbon pollution rule for existing power plants2

What the coal companies know that most people don’t:

As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and wave power can replace coal, and they know it. If you quit being afraid of nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy. ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die when [not if] civilization collapses or when Homo “Sapiens” goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and live. Which do you choose? Nuclear is the safe path and we have factory built nuclear power plants now. A nuclear power plant can be installed in weeks. See: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

We have already done the research. Wind "works" 20% of the time. Solar works 15% of the time. For intermittents to work, we must have energy storage for a week or room temperature superconductors. We have neither. The battery for the US, if it were possible, would cost $half a Quadrillion.

"Using" wind and solar is really using fossil fuels because wind and solar are so intermittent that you wind up using fossil fuels 60 to 85% of the time.

Batteries are not included with renewables. It is not possible to make enough energy storage to make renewables work. Wind and solar are too intermittent. In most places, wind covers 20% of the time and solar covers 15% of the time, sometimes overlapping.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3312118/Worlds-bigges t -battery-switched-on-in-Alaska.html "The rechargable battery, which at 2,000 square metres is bigger than a football pitch and weighs 1,300 tonnes, was manufactured by power components specialist ABB to provide electricity to Fairbanks, Alaska's second-largest city, in the event of a blackout. Stored in a warehouse near the city, where temperatures plunge to -51 degrees Centigrade in winter, the battery will provide 40 megawatts of power - enough for around 12,000 people - for up to seven minutes."

Fairbanks, Alaska paid $35 Million for a battery to backup the local power supply. http://www.newsminer.com/gvea-s-fairbanks-battery-ban k-keeps-lights-on/article_a24d94cd-b48a-5f0d-9124-9b10552282e3.html

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy- and-climate/germanys-energiewende-shows-why-we-need-nuclear/

and

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/16/new-critique-ae mo-100pc-renew/

Again: Batteries are not included with renewables bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/13/energy-storage-dt/#mor e-5281

bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/03/lacklustre-colorado-so lar/ Be sure to read the linked papers.

Wind: There are rare places where wind works locally, but to power, for example, all of Europe, all of Europe and all of Asia has to be linked into one very expensive grid. You need the nameplate power times 4 spread over 12 time zones to get reliable power. The line losses are huge unless you have a superconducting grid, and superconductors now available require liquid nitrogen cooling.

CSP Concentrated Solar Power www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/martin_andasol_p ictures_storage.pdf MOLTEN SALTS (60% NaNO3 + 40% KNO3) How much do you need to power the whole planet for a week? Is there that much available? Where are we going to put it? How much does it cost?

The correct answer is nuclear because nothing else works.

A few more URLs: physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-bat tery/

ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/RE.html "Renewable Energy – Cannot Sustain an Energy-Intensive Society."

bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electric ity-for-australia-response-to-lang/

bravenewclimate.com/2013/05/02/100pc-renew-study-need s-makeover/

Subscribe to BraveNewClimate [BNC]

What BNC said: You can't build a big enough battery because you run out of battery material. My estimates for a battery for the US Alone run from $400 Trillion to $600 Trillion. IF you don't run out of materials and IF the price doesn't go up because you are running out of materials.28