Hmm... $800 billion to reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit... that sounds like a good deal... at least it does to the U.S. politicians:
A Better Way Than Cap and Trade
By Bjorn LomborgThursday, June 26, 2008; A19
The bitter arguments in the Senate this month over the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which would have required major emitters to pay for the right to discharge greenhouse gases, proved that climate change caused by humans has come to the fore of U.S. policy debates. This fact may comfort those who believe that future generations will judge us on the zeal with which we face the challenge. It may even assuage the fears of those who believe that warming will end life as we know it. But political rhetoric is unlikely to put us on a path toward solving the problem of climate change in the best possible way.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill, has called it "the world's most far-reaching program to fight global warming." It is indeed policy on a grand scale. It would slow American economic growth by trillions of dollars over the next half-century. But in terms of temperature, the result will be negligible if China and India don't also commit to reducing their emissions, and it will be only slightly more significant if they do. By itself, Lieberman-Warner would postpone the temperature increase projected for 2050 by about two years.
Politicians favor the cap-and-trade system because it is an indirect tax that disguises the true costs of reducing carbon emissions. It also gives lawmakers an opportunity to control the number and distribution of emissions allowances, and the flow of billions of dollars of subsidies and sweeteners.
Many people believe that everyone has a moral obligation to ask how we can best combat climate change. Attempts to curb carbon emissions along the lines of the bill now pending are a poor answer compared with other options.
Consider that today, solar panels are one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many "green" approaches do little more than make rich people feel they are helping the planet. We can't avoid climate change by forcing a few more inefficient solar panels onto rooftops.
The answer is to dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners.
This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.
These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.
The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Research for the project was done by a lead author of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the group that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore -- who noted that spending $800 billion over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Even accounting for the key environmental damage from warming, we would lose money, with avoided damage of just $685 billion for our $800 billion investment.
The economists didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels.
The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development, which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House.
Even if every nation spent 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development of low-carbon energy, this would be only about one-tenth as costly as the Kyoto Protocol and would save dramatically more than any of Kyoto's likely successors.
In the United States, this approach would open up new avenues for the nation's creative, innovative spirit and leave behind the political mess of Kyoto-type negotiations.
A low-carbon energy, high-income future is possible. Unfortunately, the political battles we just witnessed in Washington have done nothing to make it a reality.
The writer is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
I can see by the following article that our brethren in the UK are better at sifting the truth out of the drivel that spews from the mainstream media than we are here in the U.S.
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.
Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.
Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Tax protests paralyze Europe's "green" policies
Note: Europe is suffering under "green" taxes that are one fifth what the U.S. politicians are proposing for us after this next election.
Fuel protests herald grim times for European green policy
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM EDT
LONDON — After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe's ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.
While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along.
Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper launches a European tour Wednesday to persuade leaders that Canada's greenhouse-gas policies are acceptable, he may find the gaps between their views have narrowed, as formerly ecologically assertive leaders react to rising voter backlash against green policies.
In Britain, drivers Tuesday held a mass traffic stoppage over a new surtax, introduced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a way to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, that would have raised the average family's vehicle taxes by $80, with higher-polluting vehicles paying more and very efficient ones being exempt.
After Tuesday's protest and days of anger in the news media, members of Mr. Brown's Labour Party government began to call for a reversal. Parliamentary Secretary Rob Marris complained in a radio interview that “Millions of people will be affected. … I am in favour of prospective green taxes to change people's decisions when they buy a car, but to tax them heavily on a car when it was bought seven years ago doesn't seem a good way to go and it will discredit green taxes.”
Officials close to Chancellor of the Exchequer Allistair Darling hinted strongly last night that he is considering a complete reversal of the tax and a reconsideration of other tax-led emissions policies.
“The Chancellor is listening to what people are saying about vehicle excise duty, as he has done on a number of occasions recently about tax rises,” said John Hutton, Mr. Brown's business secretary. “We are trying to get the balance right between encouraging choices to go green but not hammering people.”
A survey this month by the British polling firm Opinium showed that more than 70 per cent of voters are not willing to pay any higher taxes in order to combat climate change. There are indications that such opinions are increasingly prevalent across Europe as fuel and food prices rise and consumer-credit crises become widespread, making politicians increasingly out of step with their constituents on climate policy.
Mr. Sarkozy, joined by Spanish ministers yesterday, called on the EU to rescind part of the value-added tax it places on fuel, after fuel-tax strikes caused much of France to grind to a halt last week and resulted in clashes with riot police yesterday. Italian, Greek and Portuguese fishermen have threatened to join the protests later this week.
While the European fuel tax is not specifically tagged as green, environmental groups have praised high fuel taxation as an important part of Europe's emissions-reduction strategy, and warned that tax cuts on fuel will discourage industries and consumers from pursuing low-emission equipment and methods.
But it appears that the EU is already moderating its green stand on fuel in response to consumer pressure. While EU leaders had pledged last year to have 10 per cent of all road transportation fuelled with biofuel sources by 2020, a report from the European Commission yesterday backed away from that pledge, adding a new clause stating that “the target has never been to reach 10-per-cent biofuels at any price. It is 10-per-cent biofuels under strict conditions.”
Such reversals led the chief United Nations climate-change official to criticize Europe for losing its leading position on emission controls.
“The whole world gave a standing ovation when Europe announced last year its willingness to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent, and perhaps by 30 per cent if others [such as Canada] join in,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Agence France-Press news agency.
“But now this position is under a lot of pressure, especially from European Union industries. … I am not seeing this push yet.”
Mr. Brown had joined other European leaders two years ago in placing targeted taxes on large vehicles, fuel, plastic bags and air travel with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in accordance with the Kyoto agreement. Experts had said that even with these policies, that target would be difficult to meet.
But European voters have begun to rebel against these measures. For example, a British tax incentive adopted last year to encourage people to build carbon-neutral homes, which would typically allow buyers to waive $20,000 in sales tax if the house is made to low-emissions standards, had been adopted by only three home buyers as of January. Builders said they had spurned the exemption because carbon-neutral practices could add 10 per cent to the cost of a house.
See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home
Fuel protests herald grim times for European green policy
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM EDT
LONDON — After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe's ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.
While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along.
Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper launches a European tour Wednesday to persuade leaders that Canada's greenhouse-gas policies are acceptable, he may find the gaps between their views have narrowed, as formerly ecologically assertive leaders react to rising voter backlash against green policies.
In Britain, drivers Tuesday held a mass traffic stoppage over a new surtax, introduced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a way to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, that would have raised the average family's vehicle taxes by $80, with higher-polluting vehicles paying more and very efficient ones being exempt.
After Tuesday's protest and days of anger in the news media, members of Mr. Brown's Labour Party government began to call for a reversal. Parliamentary Secretary Rob Marris complained in a radio interview that “Millions of people will be affected. … I am in favour of prospective green taxes to change people's decisions when they buy a car, but to tax them heavily on a car when it was bought seven years ago doesn't seem a good way to go and it will discredit green taxes.”
Officials close to Chancellor of the Exchequer Allistair Darling hinted strongly last night that he is considering a complete reversal of the tax and a reconsideration of other tax-led emissions policies.
“The Chancellor is listening to what people are saying about vehicle excise duty, as he has done on a number of occasions recently about tax rises,” said John Hutton, Mr. Brown's business secretary. “We are trying to get the balance right between encouraging choices to go green but not hammering people.”
A survey this month by the British polling firm Opinium showed that more than 70 per cent of voters are not willing to pay any higher taxes in order to combat climate change. There are indications that such opinions are increasingly prevalent across Europe as fuel and food prices rise and consumer-credit crises become widespread, making politicians increasingly out of step with their constituents on climate policy.
Mr. Sarkozy, joined by Spanish ministers yesterday, called on the EU to rescind part of the value-added tax it places on fuel, after fuel-tax strikes caused much of France to grind to a halt last week and resulted in clashes with riot police yesterday. Italian, Greek and Portuguese fishermen have threatened to join the protests later this week.
While the European fuel tax is not specifically tagged as green, environmental groups have praised high fuel taxation as an important part of Europe's emissions-reduction strategy, and warned that tax cuts on fuel will discourage industries and consumers from pursuing low-emission equipment and methods.
But it appears that the EU is already moderating its green stand on fuel in response to consumer pressure. While EU leaders had pledged last year to have 10 per cent of all road transportation fuelled with biofuel sources by 2020, a report from the European Commission yesterday backed away from that pledge, adding a new clause stating that “the target has never been to reach 10-per-cent biofuels at any price. It is 10-per-cent biofuels under strict conditions.”
Such reversals led the chief United Nations climate-change official to criticize Europe for losing its leading position on emission controls.
“The whole world gave a standing ovation when Europe announced last year its willingness to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent, and perhaps by 30 per cent if others [such as Canada] join in,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Agence France-Press news agency.
“But now this position is under a lot of pressure, especially from European Union industries. … I am not seeing this push yet.”
Mr. Brown had joined other European leaders two years ago in placing targeted taxes on large vehicles, fuel, plastic bags and air travel with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in accordance with the Kyoto agreement. Experts had said that even with these policies, that target would be difficult to meet.
But European voters have begun to rebel against these measures. For example, a British tax incentive adopted last year to encourage people to build carbon-neutral homes, which would typically allow buyers to waive $20,000 in sales tax if the house is made to low-emissions standards, had been adopted by only three home buyers as of January. Builders said they had spurned the exemption because carbon-neutral practices could add 10 per cent to the cost of a house.
See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home
Friday, May 30, 2008
Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
I see by this New York Times article that our politicians and press are starting to catch a glimpse of the realities of the state of “Carbon Capture and Storage” technology. Now if we could just educate them on the realities of Carbon Dioxide we’d be about there. In the meantime I see that the Times continues to chose inflammatory words like “spew” when they talk about carbon dioxide.
May 30, 2008
The Energy Challenge
Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.
“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.
Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.
But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.
The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power.
The carbon dioxide would have been compressed and pumped underground into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would have tested whether any was escaping to the atmosphere.
About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps.
But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support.
The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to “limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost.”
Trying to recover, the Energy Department is trying to cut a deal with a utility that is already planning a new power plant. The government would offer subsidies to add a segment to the plant dedicated to capturing and injecting carbon dioxide, as long as the utility bore much of the risk of cost overruns.
It is unclear whether any utility will agree to such a deal. The power companies, in fact, have been busy pulling back from coal-burning power plants of all types, amid rising costs and political pressure. Utility executives say they do not know of a plant that would qualify for an Energy Department grant as the project is now structured.
Most worrisome to experts on global warming, the utilities have recently been canceling their commitments to a type of plant long seen as a helpful intermediate step toward cleaner coal.
In plants of this type, coal would be gasified and pollutants like mercury, sulfur and soot removed before burning. The plants would be highly efficient, and would therefore emit less carbon dioxide for a given volume of electricity produced, but they would not inject the carbon dioxide into the ground.
But the situation is not hopeless. One new gasification proposal survives in the United States, by Duke Energy for a plant in Edwardsport, Ind.
In Wisconsin, engineers are testing a method that may allow them to bolt machinery for capturing carbon dioxide onto the back of old-style power plants; Sweden, Australia and Denmark are planning similar tests. And German engineers are exploring another approach, one that involves burning coal in pure oxygen, which would produce a clean stream of exhaust gases that could be injected into the ground.
But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed.
The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020.
“A year ago, that was an aggressive target,” said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. “A year has gone by, and now it’s a very aggressive target.”
May 30, 2008
The Energy Challenge
Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON — For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.
“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.
Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.
But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.
The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power.
The carbon dioxide would have been compressed and pumped underground into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would have tested whether any was escaping to the atmosphere.
About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps.
But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support.
The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to “limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost.”
Trying to recover, the Energy Department is trying to cut a deal with a utility that is already planning a new power plant. The government would offer subsidies to add a segment to the plant dedicated to capturing and injecting carbon dioxide, as long as the utility bore much of the risk of cost overruns.
It is unclear whether any utility will agree to such a deal. The power companies, in fact, have been busy pulling back from coal-burning power plants of all types, amid rising costs and political pressure. Utility executives say they do not know of a plant that would qualify for an Energy Department grant as the project is now structured.
Most worrisome to experts on global warming, the utilities have recently been canceling their commitments to a type of plant long seen as a helpful intermediate step toward cleaner coal.
In plants of this type, coal would be gasified and pollutants like mercury, sulfur and soot removed before burning. The plants would be highly efficient, and would therefore emit less carbon dioxide for a given volume of electricity produced, but they would not inject the carbon dioxide into the ground.
But the situation is not hopeless. One new gasification proposal survives in the United States, by Duke Energy for a plant in Edwardsport, Ind.
In Wisconsin, engineers are testing a method that may allow them to bolt machinery for capturing carbon dioxide onto the back of old-style power plants; Sweden, Australia and Denmark are planning similar tests. And German engineers are exploring another approach, one that involves burning coal in pure oxygen, which would produce a clean stream of exhaust gases that could be injected into the ground.
But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed.
The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020.
“A year ago, that was an aggressive target,” said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. “A year has gone by, and now it’s a very aggressive target.”
Friday, May 16, 2008
The U.S. strives to become like Haiti
Our future looks darker every day as our presidential candidates promise us a future in which we will reduce our Green House Gas (GHG - primarily CO2) emissions by 80% by the year 2050. Ouch! Let's put that into perspective, shall we? The U.S. currently emits around 6 billion tons of CO2. An 80% reduction would take us down to around 1 billion tons. Let's see - when were we last at 1 billion tons of CO2 emissions as a country? In 1910 - the end of the horse and buggy era. BUT - in 1910 we only had 92 million people. In 2050 we're projected to have 420 million people. That means, whereas we emit 19.5MT of CO2 per capita today, in 2050 we'd only have an allowance of 2.5MT per capita. We last saw that level of CO2 emission in the year 1875! Currently, the nations that have emissions that low are Haiti, Somalia, and Botswana. Now there's a goal for U.S. Even France and Switzerland, the developed countries with the lowest per capita CO2 emissions, are presently at 6.5MT - and that's because they generate their electricity with nuclear power plants and have very small, compact countries. For comparison, one Toyota Prius, driven the national average of 10,000 miles per year, would emit 1.8MT of CO2 - nearly all of a person's annual allowance! Further, the EPA estimates that to reach this level of per capita emissions, our economy would have to shrink by 6% per year, which would put us out of business by 2030. That is some worthwhile goal. Think about it.
For further enlightenment, see the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGyLIrH1-4.
For further enlightenment, see the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seGyLIrH1-4.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Technically...
Following is my submission for the next company newsletter to go out this next month. I titled the piece “Technically…” since that seems to be how I always preface a technical correction to a common misconception.
Recently there has been an increase in interest among some of the cooperative’s membership in installing alternative energy generation systems on their homes. The greatest level of interest has been in photovoltaic (solar) panel and windmill generators. In discussing this topic with these interested members, it’s clear that the sudden interest in alternative energy stems from a recent spike in media coverage of global warming fears and misinformation on how to mitigate the effects of the alleged global warming.
Since the fear mongers base their justification in an alleged “consensus” among “scientists”, it’s important to note that a consensus among scientists on any theory is neither true nor, even if it were, scientific. Science isn’t based on consensus. Science is defined, and constantly re-defined, by applying “the scientific method,” which means: observation, formulation of a hypothesis, skeptical analysis, documentation, and repeat. Any discussion that brands honest skepticism as heresy and requires blind acceptance is, by definition, not scientific. While science is never based on consensus, politics is. And since the group that is leading the cheer of man-made global warming is the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control – a governmental panel, made up of politicians, and not scientists – it is not surprising that they would naturally seek a “consensus” rather than follow the scientific method.
The reality is that non-government-affiliated scientists disagree whether the Earth is due for a slight warming period or for a slight cooling – weather forecasting, especially in the long-term, is notoriously imprecise. The only two things that can be stated categorically with regard to the weather are that it’s variable and unpredictable. But whether we warm or cool over the next 100 years, it’s not going to matter to mankind, since either average temperature change is projected to be so small (+/-1°F) that it will not affect our environment in any significant way. Nevertheless, in reaction to the panic induced by the UN, our government is proposing legislation that will significantly affect our economy and the ability of each of the cooperative’s members to make a living. But since that topic has already been covered in our General Manger’s column, I’ll focus this discussion on the reality of installing alternative energy generating sources on the cooperative's distribution system.
First, some members have expressed the perception that it’s frequently windy in the cooperative's service territory. And while that may be true to some extent, the amount of wind found in our area is insufficient to generate electricity. A quick reference of the wind resource maps created by the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) informs us that there is no location in Southern Utah or Northern Arizona with sufficient wind speed and force to generate electricity. Further, where there is reported to be sufficient wind, such as around Milford, Utah, the availability is at best 20-25% (contrasted with coal or natural gas-fired generation with an availability of 95%.)
Lastly, one natural resource that we have in abundance in the cooperative's area is sunshine, and sunshine can be converted into electricity, but not in great quantities and not cheaply. For example, the average residential customer on the cooperative's system uses 1420 kWh per month. To approach that level of energy consumption, a member would need to install 9,000 watts of solar panels, which would generate about 1225 kWh per month, during the sunny days. Those solar panels would occupy 910 square feet on the roof and yard of the home to which they were attached and would cost at least $90,000 to purchase. If the member received $2000 tax rebates from both the Federal and the State Governments, then they would only need to finance $86,000 to pay for the solar panels. If the member could procure a 30-year loan at a 5% interest rate, the monthly payment on the solar panels would be $462, which would be to offset $46 per month from their power bills (leaving a balance of $36/month), for a net loss of $416 per month for 30 years. Certainly not a financially sound investment.
But, in accordance with State Law, the cooperative offers a Net Metering tariff for any member that still chooses to generate a portion of their electrical needs with an approved alternative energy source. And while the staff of your cooperative has done their best to make this tariff revenue neutral for the rest of the membership, State Law does mandate a certain level of subsidization in this rate. If you have any question on the tariff or interconnection requirements, please don’t hesitate to contact us in the engineering department.
Since the fear mongers base their justification in an alleged “consensus” among “scientists”, it’s important to note that a consensus among scientists on any theory is neither true nor, even if it were, scientific. Science isn’t based on consensus. Science is defined, and constantly re-defined, by applying “the scientific method,” which means: observation, formulation of a hypothesis, skeptical analysis, documentation, and repeat. Any discussion that brands honest skepticism as heresy and requires blind acceptance is, by definition, not scientific. While science is never based on consensus, politics is. And since the group that is leading the cheer of man-made global warming is the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control – a governmental panel, made up of politicians, and not scientists – it is not surprising that they would naturally seek a “consensus” rather than follow the scientific method.
The reality is that non-government-affiliated scientists disagree whether the Earth is due for a slight warming period or for a slight cooling – weather forecasting, especially in the long-term, is notoriously imprecise. The only two things that can be stated categorically with regard to the weather are that it’s variable and unpredictable. But whether we warm or cool over the next 100 years, it’s not going to matter to mankind, since either average temperature change is projected to be so small (+/-1°F) that it will not affect our environment in any significant way. Nevertheless, in reaction to the panic induced by the UN, our government is proposing legislation that will significantly affect our economy and the ability of each of the cooperative’s members to make a living. But since that topic has already been covered in our General Manger’s column, I’ll focus this discussion on the reality of installing alternative energy generating sources on the cooperative's distribution system.
First, some members have expressed the perception that it’s frequently windy in the cooperative's service territory. And while that may be true to some extent, the amount of wind found in our area is insufficient to generate electricity. A quick reference of the wind resource maps created by the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) informs us that there is no location in Southern Utah or Northern Arizona with sufficient wind speed and force to generate electricity. Further, where there is reported to be sufficient wind, such as around Milford, Utah, the availability is at best 20-25% (contrasted with coal or natural gas-fired generation with an availability of 95%.)
Lastly, one natural resource that we have in abundance in the cooperative's area is sunshine, and sunshine can be converted into electricity, but not in great quantities and not cheaply. For example, the average residential customer on the cooperative's system uses 1420 kWh per month. To approach that level of energy consumption, a member would need to install 9,000 watts of solar panels, which would generate about 1225 kWh per month, during the sunny days. Those solar panels would occupy 910 square feet on the roof and yard of the home to which they were attached and would cost at least $90,000 to purchase. If the member received $2000 tax rebates from both the Federal and the State Governments, then they would only need to finance $86,000 to pay for the solar panels. If the member could procure a 30-year loan at a 5% interest rate, the monthly payment on the solar panels would be $462, which would be to offset $46 per month from their power bills (leaving a balance of $36/month), for a net loss of $416 per month for 30 years. Certainly not a financially sound investment.
But, in accordance with State Law, the cooperative offers a Net Metering tariff for any member that still chooses to generate a portion of their electrical needs with an approved alternative energy source. And while the staff of your cooperative has done their best to make this tariff revenue neutral for the rest of the membership, State Law does mandate a certain level of subsidization in this rate. If you have any question on the tariff or interconnection requirements, please don’t hesitate to contact us in the engineering department.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's getting dark and stupid in here
The founder of "Utah Moms for Clean Air" who wrote the May 3 article in the Salt Lake Tribune claiming that there is "no such thing as clean coal" rattled off a lot of scary sounding statistics, all of which are exaggerated, erroneous, or misleading. BUT, on top of all that, I know from personal experience that without coal-fired electricity we’ll go dark as a country and especially in Utah. Having spent ten years working on rural electrification in developing countries around the world I can confirm that having the clean coal power that we have in Utah is infinitely preferable to the premature deaths associated with a lack of vaccines (due to no refrigeration), respiratory diseases (due to cook fires in the home), house fires (due to open flames on candles and kerosene lamps), lack of security (due to lack of street lighting), lack of literacy (due lack of adequate lighting at night in the home), lack of information (due to lack of radio or TV news), food insecurity (due to lack of power for irrigation and grain milling), unrestrained population growth (due to lack of entertainment – TV and movies), deforestation (as populations centers forage for firewood as a primary source of energy), and lack of industry and other employment opportunities (due to a lack of power machinery.) Believe it or not, all of the preceding points are documented justifications for funding affordable and sustainable rural electrification in developing nations. And here in the US we’re trying to go backwards. It makes me really sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
