Controversial Carbon Offsets

The New York Times ran a front page story (8/9/12) on the paradox of carbon offsets. Offsets, which are supposed to help lower carbon footprints, actually spurred the wrong reaction. Refrigerants have a very high carbon footprint. For every 1 ton of carbon, a refrigerant is 11,000 time stronger which means it can trap heat and negatively impact global warming far worse than carbon dioxide. Businesses realized they could profit by not simply phasing out refrigerants but producing more refrigerants to destroy as carbon offsets. This is the exact opposite purpose of offsets. Offsets were originally intended to help lower carbon footprints. If it is difficult for  customer to lower their own footprint--say giving up commuting and bike to work--they can decide to spend money and buy offsets to offset the carbon footprint of their commute. The money spent funds a project elsewhere--say a project at a farm to lower the methane emissions from cows. Nevertheless, greed took the best and businesses realized a way to profit. Rather than just phase out refrigerants, they can produce more refrigerants, destroy the refrigerants' "waste byproduct," claim that the destruction is an offset helping to lower carbon footprints, and get paid for it. The article, written by Elisabeth Rosenthal and Andrew Lehren, mentions that some companies earn $20 to $40 million a year just by destroying waste byproducts from coolants.

I love this article because it reveals the unenvironmental paradoxes and "green" efforts like carbon offset programs. Carbon markets are complicated and when ill-designed or "gamed" in some sort, they fall apart from their original intent to clean up the environment. As David Doniger of the NRDC said in the story, "It turned the economics of business on its head."

Greenhouse gases from Refrigerants

I learned today about refrigerants, so the purpose of this blog is to introduce you--perhaps non global warming geeks--to what is a refrigerant, how it is used, and why it negatively impacts the environment.

Refrigerants sound exactly how the terms sounds. They are coolants typically used to in ACs. They  are ozone-depleting substances if they are released to the environment. Depleting the ozone layer allows more heat to enter our atmosphere and warm the Earth. Their global warming potential, a factor that signifies their impact to global warming, is a range from hundreds to 11,000. This means if carbon dioxide is a factor of 1 in terms of its impact to global warming, refrigerants (commonly known as HFCs and PFCs or CFCs) are upwards of 11,000 times stronger or worse for global warming. Today, I had a talk with my boss and my non-engineer background came out. I made a blooper in talking about refrigerants. I thought the amount of greenhouses from refrigerants came from our refrigerators not our ACs. I thought ACs have a greenhouse gas footprint primarily due to energy use. Cooling mechanisms in soda machines to ACs use refrigerants. Your car AC does as well. They are not dangerous to you, only dangerous to global warming if released.

What are the common uses of refrigerants? In a car, refrigerants are in your car AC. Air has to blow against the refrigerant, gets cooled, and then gets circulated.  Sources through wikipedia suggest that by 1992, it was illegal to release refrigerants in to atmosphere. No taking a halon, which is like a fire extinguisher, and just releasing it. EPA also has a wealth of information: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/index.html 

Here's what a refrigerant looks like: picture

So why care? If you are doing greenhouse gas foot printing like me, why care? Well, it's nice not to walk up to a soda vending machine and not be ignorant that there could be a huge greenhouse gas source in there. Given that the most impactful refrigerants are now illegal, but the public talks carbon dioxide these days because it is so common. We forget about those less commonly heard greenhouse gases are far more powerful and right in our backdoor in our car AC.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule

This is not the kind of mat that you lie on for yoga relaxation. It takes skill to interpret and understand a 1,117 paged rule. I'm looking into the rule now for my job as an Environmental Analyst. It's different than studying and cramming for an exam. I really am motivated to look at something to understand it not to memorize it. On December 21, 2011, the EPA released the final version of a rule aimed to curb mercury emissions. Upon reading the name, it's obvious to a lay person that this rule makes sense. Why wouldn't the U.S. need a rule to enforce reductions in mercury emissions. People generally ingest mercury through fish. According to the EPA, the implementation of this rule will avoid 4,700 cases of heart attacks, 2800 cases of bronchitis, 130,000 cases of asthma, and 4000-11,000 cases of premature deaths. Mercury, itself, does not cause bronchitis or asthma. It's the particulate matter that is also emitted along with the mercury and air toxins that cause the respiratory diseases. I am not a doctor, so I could be wrong. Mercury, and other air toxins, at high levels in the bloodstream of pregnant women can be harmful to babies (source). The ads from Sierra Club say it all.

Some notes

• Rule applies to boilers that burn more than 10% of their fuel in fossil fuels over 3 years or 15% in one year after 2015
• Changes for oil units- I'm trying to understand the changes. A limited use category exempts any boilers with annual capacity factors less than 8%. How is the 8% calculated? Using the fuel heat input for just oil and using a 24 month average after
• Work practice standards such as tune-ups every 3 years or 4 years for neural network adjustments instead of emission testing
• Just test moisture content to ensure comply with HCL and HF for existing oil unit

On December 16, 2011, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Action also released a memo specifying how power plants could get a one-year extension to comply if they impact reliability. The memo mentions that the "policy does not address installation of controls and/or instances of noncompliance" that do not pertain to reliability (p 2, memo). I have questions:

1. On p4 of the memo, EPA mentions that companies will begin planning early if there are reliability issues and thinks companies will notify their "reliability entities" if there are issues. Then on Pg 5, EPA mentions specific steps such as notifying EPA's Enforcement office within a year of the rule's publication (likely late Feb to early Mar 2012) of the dates when companies plan to shut plants down or control. This signals the timing of potential reliability concerns. After writing all this, I realize that my question may not be a question but a thought. Do companies have to submit a separate request to the "reliability entities" or does EPA just assume companies will already do this so they don't give specific criteria. In part D on page 6 of the memo, EPA specifies that companies need to get validation from the "reliability entities" confirming that there is, in fact, a reliability concern, but there are no specifics on how companies should work with their reliability entities. At least, this is my interpretation.

On December 21, Obama also released a presidential memo in which he instructs EPA on 3 points: 1) EPA to make the one-year extension "broadly available to sources." The use of "broadly" suggests EPA to apply it the extension to a variety of issues other than reliability; 2) to work with NERC, FERC, RTOs, and reliability experts and alert companies early of extensions, creating more certainty per EO 13563; and 3) make information available to the public on the execution of MATS.

After reading this rule and blogging, I realize that I have come to no conclusion but merely blog as a way to write this rule into my memory. I'm not sure if any readers can take away anything interesting.

To learn more about this rule and the impacts of mercury, see: http://www.epa.gov/mats/index.html

California Valley Solar Ranch

My company was featured on a front-page story on NYTimes.com. Until you see a picture, it is hard to tell exactly what my company is working on. They are building solar panels on 100s of acres of what used to be a ranch. The solar farm is located between L.A. and San Francisco. Way cool. It will be interesting to see the project start up.

Environmental Journalism opportunities

I am a sucker for the wedding section of the NY Times. Since it's not a big news story, i noticed that the NY Times stopped updating the section. They used to have videos each week. I'm a sucker for romance and thought the videos were cute.

Irregardless of this, I read an article about a couple this week and noticed that the bride, Laura Keane, was a Henry Luce Fellow. I also read another article in the NY Times magazine about Jeremy Grantham, an environmentalist and Wall Street businessman. The article was entitled, "A Darker Shade of Green," written by Carlo Rotella. The article mentioned the Grantham PRize for Excellence in Environmental Journalism, which awards $75,000 to an environmental journalist.

This led me to research about the Luce Fellowship, named after Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine. These are all opportunities worth considering. I'll get back to this later. I have to work on a few other things.

RES vs RPS

Part of my job as an environmental analyst involves tracking environmental regulations. It involves a lot of reading, and at times, feels as if I don't understand what I read. With the internet and quick ability to google, there are tools online to help decipher regulations.

One of the topics I've had to follow is climate change regulations. Since Congress has dropped the topic of climate policy--well, they have not dropped but it certainly has fallen lower on the ladder after the 2011 fiscal budget--states such as California have had to move ahead with their own programs. Last week, California signed into law a billed called SB1x2 (Senate Bill 2x) which extends their state renewable portfolio standard (RPS). An RPS is a states requirement to have a portion of their state's electricity come from renewable sources by a certain year. California, under Gov. Schwarzenegger, already implemented a 20% RPS by 2010. The most recent CPUC report mentions they achieved about 17-18%. SB1x2 gives the state the ability to extend this RPS in years come to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020. On September 23, 2010, the California EPA also passed an RES (renewable energy standard) to achieve 33% by 2020. What is the difference between the RES vs RPS?

Does the difference have to deal with who has authority to regulate the rule? The PUC (public utility commission) overseas the achievement and the progress of the RPS. CA EPA (California Air Resources Board) has the authority to implement the RES (see CARB's RES website). It was a directive under Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-14-08 to establish a 33% renewable energy target by 2020. Now that it's a new Democratic administration under Governor Brown, is this Executive Order moot?

According to the PUC's June 2009 report, the RPS is a legislative action, meaning it is a different agency under the CA government that oversees the RPS. It's the CA Congress vs. ARB (CA EPA) that implements the RES. A summary explains that the RES is independent from the RPS. The "RES also applies to a broader range of regulated entities than the RPS such as the Publically Owned Utilities." In reading this summary, I would like to highlight the differences:

• Applicability- "Senate Bill 2X applies to all electricity retailers in the state – investor-owned utilities (IOUs), municipal utilities, and independent sellers. The current 20% standard applies only to investor-owned utilities and independent sellers." (Simitian website). It makes sense that the PUC would oversee the RPS if only IOUs are regulated. THis begs the question, what is the difference amount POUs, IOUs, and municipal utilities? I know IOUs are the big regulated utilities like SDGE, PG&E, and SCE. POUs are like LADWP. "The PUC would handle oversight of the state's investor-owned utilities, with the air board retaining the authority (under the state's climate change law) to loosely oversee and, if need be, punish public utilities" (E&E)
  
• Coverage-The RES and RPS also differ in terms of coverage. The RPS looks at the state and how much of the state shoudl come from renewables, but it also dicates the IOUs to set targes to achieve the renewable objective. The RES regulates all utilities.
  
• Treatment of in-state vs out-of-state electricity- "RES Allows Unlimited Unbundled/Tradable RECs. The RES allows an unlimited use of “unbundled” or “tradable” RECs (TRECs) for compliance purposes. In contrast, the CPUC has limited the use of TRECs under the RPS, at least temporarily. TRECs allow the environmental benefits associated with renewable electricity to be sold or traded separately from the underlying electricity." (Summary). The PUC limited the use of TRECs, I assume, because they wanted to ensure that a certain % of in-state generation came from renewables. I don't remember the exact % but a large portion of CA's energy comes from out-of-state cheap coal. So the RES increased the flexiblity to use TRECs to comply and unbundled RECs, which means that you can use credits to comply. A credit can equal to 1KW of renewable energy that could ahve been produced outside CA. You are using out-of-state renewable power to comply with a state requirement.
  
• Means to comply- "Senate Bill 2X does not require utilities to reach the goal at any cost. The PUC must approve renewable energy contracts, and utilities may be granted exemptions if the price of energy, or the difficulty of moving it into the state’s grid, make the cost excessive" (Simitian website)
• Statute vs Regulation- "Unlike the RPS, which is a codified statute, the RES remains a CARB regulation. A new Governor could order CARB to revise the RES, similar to Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S-21-09, which prompted the RES in the first instance." (Latham and Watkins summary)
• Targets- "Under the new law, all load-serving entities need to satisfy a 20% by December 31, 2013, renewable procurement target, a 25% target by year-end 2016, and a 33% target by December 31, 2020." (platts)

Year	Renewable Electricity Standard3	SB 1x2
2012 through 2014	20 percent	20% by 12/31/2013
2015 through 2017	24 percent	25% by 12/31/2016
2018 through 2019	28 percent	n/a
2020 and annuallythereafter	33 percent	33% by 12/31/2020

Helpful websites:
RPS update
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA25R
LTPP http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/ltpp_history.htm

Nuclear in the US

The Japan earthquake has brought into question the safety and support for nuclear power. Before I make a hasty judgment call, I want to recall the background: what is really going on in Japan? The papers flash the pictures of local folks getting scanned, as if in an airport terminal, for radioactive material that could be on their hair or body. E&E (Environmental and Energy news) reports that U.S. nuclear plants that have applied to the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) for an extension in their license to operate another 20 years are now being questioned. Certain policymakers such as the NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) press the NRC to consider the impact of earthquakes or seismic activity before they extend Entergy's license to operate the 1,028 MW Unit 2 and 998 mW Unit 3 of nuclear facility, Indian Point. This a great map of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. I'm not sure if my assumption is right but it seems like the midwest does not have that many given the lack of transmission lines to carry the power to where it's needed. According to a July 2010 report and EIA from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, the amount of grid-tied photovoltaic interconnections is less than 1,400 MW. You start to realize the value of nuclear when 1 nuclear plant has enough electric supply than all of the solar capacity combined in the U.S. As I learn more about this situation, I hope we, Americans, learn about improving saftey but not conjure an artificial fear of all things nuclear. Nuclear is a part of our energy future.

Manchin's Dead Aim

Governor Manchin of West Virginia aired a commercial for his campaign to run for the Senate. It's called "Dead Aim": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

In the ad, he shoots a hardcopy of a proposed cap and trade bill with a rifle. Ok, so cap and trade is bad for West Virginia, but what does such an action reflect on us as a nation? Does literally shooting a bill connote any sign of progress? No, it gives the impression of killing a bill, killing change. If the U.S. is ever going to have a climate change policy, it won't happen any time soon if states just kill the bill. West Virginia, and states alike, ought to promote a bill that could work for their states, not just shoot down any bill.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know the entire story. West VA is a coal state, much like Indiana, Ohio, Wyoming, and Colorado. They may or may not support the idea that climate change is real. They may or may not see climate change policy as necessary. It may just be another tax in a recession environment. Nevertheless, what kind of campaign ad is this? I'm disgraced that these kinds of ads actually appeal to voters, but I'm biased as a NJ resident. I suppose the animal rights activists get the same feeling by seeing politicians appeal to other voters who are hunters.

Let me clarify that I don't intend to suggest that West VA change it's beliefs. If they are against climate change policy, so be it. The U.S. has 50 states, all entitied to their own beliefs. I don't believe shooting a climate change bill and airing this on public television is the right direction. If we replace climate change policy with any other policy against West Virigina, do they all deserve to be shot and killed? I would have preferred him to say, "we will fight to make this bill right for our state," or show an image of the Senate debating the issue. Senator Manchin (D) shooting a rifle at a cap and trade bill reminds me of the lack of progress in the U.S. on climate change policy.

First Federal GHG regulations- Light Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and CAFE Standards- established by the EPA and DOT Natl Highway and Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Today, the EPA and DOT (Dept of Transportation) passed the first federal greenhouse gas regulations. You may ask, why is this significant. Ray Lahood, head of the DOT, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson set up standards for motor vehicles, including an average fuel economy of 35mpg by 2016. My 2010 Carolla LE averages 34. Will it still last by 2016?

The layperson may think, oh, it's only cars that are impacted, but this is not true. Greenwire explained this well: "When vehicle standards take effect, greenhouse gases will officially become 'subject to regulation' under the Clean Air Act, which will trigger Clean Air Act permitting requirements for industrial sources like power plants, refineries and other large facilities." The standards fall under Title II of the CAA regulating tailpipe emissions. The new vehicle standards should save 1.8B, not million, but billion barrels of oil (equivalent to 50M cars off the road) and reduce 1B GHGs.

So what do these rule entail?

• Vehicles (both cars and trucks) must meet a 250gram CO2/mile in 2016 models- manufacturers will have to meet these limits. Will the costs of cars be any different from today as a result of having to meet these standards? EPA says the average cost will increase by less than $1000
• EPA will try to have a credit trading program for fleet averaging.
• Advanced Technology credits- incentivizes commercialization of advanced GHG/fuel economy technologies such as EVs, hybrids, etc.

THe Rule is in effect 60 days after publishing. The emission control requirements take effect Jan 2, 2011 and do not immediately trigger PSD program requirements for stationary sources.

So what's going on in the climate change arena? Here's an update.
EPA is moving ahead with regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in the time that Congress moves on a potential climate change bill. On XX date, Senator Kerry (D-MA) mentioned that Congress expects to have a revised Senate bill this year given that he and Senator Harry Reid prefer this.

At least 10 industry groups, 12 members of Congress, eight business associations, and three States (collectively, Petitioners) have filed petitions against EPA regarding the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases (EPA signed on December 7, 2009). In order for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, they need to classify them as endangering public health. The House, under Representatives Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Skelton (D-MO), issued a joint venture between the Agriculture and Armed Services subcommittees to petition the endangerment. Likewise, the Senate, under Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), have scheduled to vote on the petition by mid-March on the Senate floor.

The antoginism for the endangerment and the speculation of the core scientific data on which the endangerment is based have not slowed the EPA from acting.

Scientific American article

Scientific American has an article in the Nov 2009 issue entitled, "A path to sustainable energy by 2030." My question: is a sustainable energy future realistic? I hear so much ho-hum, and I'm tired of talking without action, debating of whether the science--or global warming for that matter--is real. My belief is that Americans, but not just Americans, are wasteful consumers. I flipped on the TV show, Extreme Homemakover, and though I admire the work that the show does for families in need, I happened to flip to the part when they installed a flat screen TV in a renovated home. It could have been 32in. It just reminded me that when Americans think of a better life, we think of having bigger cars and fancy things. Better lifestyles consume more energy. NPR reported that a dazzling flat screen tv can lead to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere up to a half-ton of carbon. A 50 in plasma tv can consume up to 500 KW which takes 0.5 ton of carbon from a coal-fired powerplant.

Check out the stats from NPR:
"Still, your friendly neighborhood coal-burning power plant would emit a half-ton of carbon dioxide every year to keep this one TV on for five hours a day — and that's in energy-saving mode. For comparison, the 32-inch LCD in its brightest setting pulled about 115 watts. That's the equivalent of about two incandescent light bulbs or nine or 10 compact fluorescent lights."
I'm not trying to tell anyone to stop buying flat screens. My main concern is if everyone in American wants to advance him/herself and have a better salary, a better life, how can our future be sustainable if a better life demands more of the resources that are already limited. Americans don't make smart choices. We retrofit a house for a needy family with glitzy televisions that then increases their electric bills. We have to make smarter, sustainable choices. Does everyone really need an energy-guzzling TV to enjoy shows or movies?

If it has come across that I am pointing the finger to everyone else, I apologize, for I am a culprit of the crimes I have identified. My dreams include eventually having a moderately-sized home, traveling (god, airline emissions will bust my carbon footprint), and taking long hot showers which consumes energy and water.

So, are we on a path to achieve sustainable energy by 2030 as the article says? The author's plan calls for 3.8M large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and more renewables including geothermal, tidal, and rooftop PV installations. How much energy does the U.S. currently consume and will consume?

The avg U.S. home in 2007 consumed 936 Kwh or a ~1MWh to simplify. In 2008 according to EIA, 46% of the energy consumed in the U.S. (based on 2008 generation by source data) came from coal, 22% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro, and the remaining 6% came from a combination of other renewables (including solar, wind, municipal solid wastes, etc.). Barely 1% of our 2008 electric generation came from petroleum liquids (distillate fuel oil, etc.) most likely due to high oil prices.

Is Al Gore's goal of having 100% carbon free electricity in 10 yrs realistic--and itself sustainable--if since 1995, coal generation has provided 50% of America's electricity. We want the carbon-free electricity that currently provides ~1/4 of our electricity to become 100%?

The article presents the following arguments:

• renewables cost centers/KWh (production cost + transmission) is about the same as that of coal fired generation. Total overal construction costs for WWS system is ~$5trillion/yr for 20 yrs ($100T total) worldwide (excluding transmission).

I think the drawback of this story is that it mentions the challenge of the intermittency of wind and solar but does not delve into it nor present a chart. Saying the cost of renewable is on par with coal when the U.S. lacks the smart grid and transmission to move generation from where the wind blows to where it is needed is a deficit to this story. I think this story would have been strengthened if it didn't bury these issues but graphically and more clearly addressed them. Instead, it spends a page on saying that the lack of materials, such as lithium for electric car batteris and concrete and steel for wind turbines, could hinder the development of renewables. Yes, and the fact that if you build and generate, our grid is not sufficient, in its current state, to move the power.

I support renewables and a sustainable future. I commend Mark Jacobson (a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford) and Mark Delucchi (research scientist at Institute of Transportation studies at Univ of California, Davis) for recommending a plan. It is better than all of us who harp but do not have a plan. But I think the article needs to present all the potential hinderances to renewable development, not giving the impressing that renewable energy costs could easily be on par with the costs of coal generation. I think the article addresses the political and material obstacles, but not the financial obstacles fully. What is the total cost worldwide including tranmission? The cost to move the power from where the wind blows and the sun shines should be incorporated in the cost to generate renewables. Until that has happened, renewable costs are not going to be economic.

Green Washington

I returned from Washington D.C. on 9/15/09 after a 2-day meeting for work. There were signs of environmental concerns everywhere I went. A GW student walking on campus with a white, fitted T-shirt with the panda WWF (world wildlife fund) logo. I passed garbage dumps on which it was written that GW recycles. The Eldon Suites, where I stayed, had an energy efficient toilet that asked you to press separate buttons depending on if you did number 1 or 2. If it's just number 1, the bowl dispensed less water. Unless you dumped your towel on the floor, the hotel assumed you preferred to reuse your towel. As I gulped a bit of water before the day started, I gazed up to notice CFL bulbs in all the ceiling sockets. In all the subways, there were separate recycling bins for paper, cans, and regular trash. It's always a hopeful sign seeing as certain cities don't even have recycling bins. My Washington Post listed that it was made mostly from recycled paper, or was it 35%? My memory is not so great. IBM and Chevron ads flash so creatively on the TV reminding to conserve, help the environment, and prepare for a revitalized future of energy. If you walk through Newark airport, IBM ads span entire walls, some with stats such as how many billion gallons of water are wasted, a suitable ad placed next to the bathroom, a large consumer of water. Is this a sign of a general trend that cities and people are growing conscious of the environment? Conserving and protecting environment has always been on the Washington agenda, but I feel there are more signs that stand out reminding me that it is happening. Conservation and greening is happening around us. Everyone should jump on this boat. One city is different from the other. I return to NYC where progress happened when Penn Station finally separated paper waste from regular trash. I think cans are still being thrown with regular trash. I am hopeful that one city at a time will jump on the green boat and stress the need of conservation.

Coal Ash

In December of 2008, TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) a power utility company in the Tennassee area, had a coal ash spill that flooded 300 acres in Kingston, Tenn with coal ash sludge. Houses were even submerged. It wasn't a spill. It was a catastrophic failure. In response, the EPA surveyed all coal ash impoundments (or containers) in the U.S. and on June 29, 2009 released a list of 44 impoundments identified as "high hazard potential," meaning that if they were to fail (break, malfuction,misoperation, etc.) they could result in the loss of human life. Other designations are low hazard potential, which means malfunction would likely result in no loss of human life and just damage to the owner's property, or significant hazard potential, which means failure or malfunction would not result in loss of human life but could cause economic loss or disrupt human lifelines.

According to a letter from Senator Pat Roberts (Kansas- a coal state), 13.7 million tons of coal ash per year is beneficially reused. I need to find out out of how much coal ash is produced. Twenty states signed a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on June 26, 2009 noting that regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste would result in "regulatory overkill." My take on the regulatory overkill is that ash, which EPA used to characterize as nonhazardous because states had the facilities to properly contain the waste, would now be regulated. There is not enough landfill space, according to Senator Pat Roberts' letter to the EPA, to contain all the ash if all of it were considered hazardous. If classified as hazardous, ash can no longer be recycled, and EPA needs to find storage space for the ash which had been previously recycled.

The environmental conflict in this case is that EPA wants to ensure the protection of all its ash landfills so that no TVA spill is repeated. In the process of doing so, it could dismember the coal ash recycling program which would not be environmentally friendly.

Generational Divide on Climate Change

I hope to develop a story on a trend I've been hearing. There is a generational divide in people's beliefs on climate change. I heard Jeff (add last name), head of Environment at GE, mentoin how he generally finds people under the age of 25 as accepting of climate change. In other words, they doubt climate change less than older generations. He mentioned that employees 40 and up is the age group in which you find a lot of doubt and resistence to idea of change our behavior to counter climate change. The questioners. The recalcitrant individuals who'd rather spend time asking why and whether the data is really true and whether we're just exaggerating as opposed to taking action.

Week of 6/25/09

The House passed the first energy and climate bill end of day on Friday, June 25, 2009. In the same week that the U.S. experienced the unfortunate deaths of Michael Jackson and Farah Faucet (sp?), the House made a historic move on climate change legislation. You will hear my thoughts shortly on the bill and why I support a cap-and-trade bill over a carbon tax.

CO2 endangerment

Articles have been in the news (one in the WSJ today 4/16/09) on the potential carbon and greenhouse gas endangerment finding that EPA will soon finalize. The primary significance for energy companies, and other sectors, is that once EPA characterizes carbon and GHGs as endangering public health, this provides the reasoning for climate change legislation. This paves the way for Obama's and Congress' proposals to move further. This firms the chance and potentially accelerates the schedule of climate change legislation. Without the endangerment finding, there was no scientific backing to support the need for regulation. We exhale carbon dioxide as we breath. Carbon has been around us forever. Why now would carbon suddenly be dangerous. It's through the intermediate effect of climate change that scientists now deem carbon as endangering public health.

Well, we are all waiting for EPA to pen their final signatures, the John Hancock, to the finding. Endangerment done, climate change legislation here we come.

This article in the New York Times again hits on the paradox that a country dependent on coal cannot quickly become green. "21 coal-fired power plants that emit more than 75 million tons of carbon dioxide annually and generate 80 percent of Missouri’s electricity," writes Felicity Barringer (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/09coal.html?_r=1&ref=earth). Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa also depend on coal generation for power. Coal cannot be out of the picture as environmental groups like the Sierra Club or NRDC paint our future of energy to be. My point is not to suggest that our future won't be full of wind, solar, renewables, etc. I am for alternative energy as long as government funding is available. We cannot be anti-coal or anti-fossil fuel without realistically understanding the scope and volume of alternative fuels available. Even the capacity available is not enough. What about the extra transmission needed to funnel that power where it is needed. Do not be anti-coal until you propose a realistic alternative within a reasonable budget that a capital-constrained economy is willing to fund.

National Geographic Statistics

National Geographic has some awesome stats that help me as I try to learn more about the energy and environment industry. I find that it may be easier to store them on a blog and access when I need. Also their March 2009 issue hit the energy scarcity issue at its core: the solution is to start saving energy...starting at home. Debate over a national cap-and-trade program or tax could span endless hours to no avail. Moreover, when enacted, will the initial results be effective or meet the targets? Regardless of who is to blame for the pollution--the power plants, businesses, producers or consumers--Americans cannot deny that they are energy hogs. Point the fingers back at China and India as well but if we stop being a child feeling as if it's unfair that China and India aren't playing the same game of "Save Energy," grow up and realize that we can't continue wasting energy. Is climate change real or anthropogenic? Does the U.S. efforts to curb greenhouse gas emission have any real impact if China and India don't? The fact of the matter is that all you skeptics out there can continue expending your energy like Wall Street hordes its bonuses while the rest apply our time to rethinking our lifestyles. Energy--especially clean energy-- is scarce. Oil has to come from overseas. Coal is plentiful but dirty and hard to clean without viable emission controls. Renewables are the emerging markets but can they keep up with the rate that each person in the U.S. wants to power an IPOD, a new laptop, a car, or keep our heat on the winter, and run our ACs in when it's hot? One way to immediately start dealing with this issue--energy crisis, global warming,etc. (call it the name you want)--is to think wisely about the energy we use and whether we really need to use it. Turn the TV off when you aren't watching it, the light off when you aren't using it, unplug those cell phone chargers when you are not charging anything. Mitigating this issue does not mean converting yourself into a treehugger, giving up your thirst for big cars or TVs etc; rather, it's about thinking wisely about your energy budget. Don't spend the money you don't need to spend. Don't use the energy you don't need to use.

- 1 part per billion (ppb), a standard metric for measuring chemicals in the body, is like dropping a half-teaspoon of red dye into an Olympic swimming pool ("Pollution Within")
- A CFL uses so much less energy than an incandescent bulb, over its lifetime a single one can save electricity equivalent to the quarter-ton pile of coal in the foreground. - (April 2009 "Solutions for a Better World: A lighter footprint")
-For new plants coming online- 5-7 cents/KWh vs $0.22/kwh for solar
- average U.S. household emits 150lbs CO2/day from commonplace tasks
-a kwh of electricity in the U.S. produces 1.5lbs of Co2
- every 100 cf of nat gas emits 12 lbs of Co2
-China is building the equivalent of 2 midsize coal-fired powerplants a week
-a product's true cost includes the environmental impacdts from harvesting the raw materials used to make it, GHG s emitted in creating it, manufacturing process, packaging, transporting,
- a typical aluminum can can contain 40% recycled aluminum

Grease Riders by Greg Melville

Every time I hear the author's name, I think of Herman Melville and "Moby Dick." Well, this book was about an adventure, not so much a sea voyage. Two old college buddies, Greg and Iggy, embark on a road trip from Vermont to California in a car powered on vegetable oil. Much like the historical explorers who were the first to circumvent the globe by airplane or boat, Iggy and Greg want to be the first trans-national travelers by grease car, veggie-powered car, whatever you like to call it. The book is quite amusing. What I enjoyed is how Greg keeps his experience very human. His adventure hits at a critical energy and environmental issue: America needs to get off its fossil-fuel laden a** and take on the challenge of greater renewables. Have more veggie-powered cars and windmills and so forth. Underneath this political message are the facetious chatter between Greg and Iggy. At one point Greg describes how Iggy belches so loud in the car while he tries to carry on a phone conversation. Iggy makes Greg promise not to hide any car problems from him as Iggy is the mechanic guru. Greg sometimes avoided telling iggy about problems in the car because he knew Iggy would spend hours poring over the problem, thus delaying the trip. The reader also learns that Greg's wife, whom he leaves back in Vermont to care for his 2 kids while he takes this journey, hates Wal-Mart and catches that he charges some purchases from Wal-Mart when she reviews the credit card payments. These side aspects to the story which do not directly relate to the political message of the book remind the reader that this experience--driving out West, leaving your family for a long drive with god-knows what problems will arise--is very human and possibly lunatic. I admire Greg for his trip and his book. Along the way, he does use his road trip to touch on key issues. While he visits Minneapolis, he sees wind farms and draws in many awesome stats on how much energy a typical household uses and how many windfarms it would take to power a house for year. Then in South Carolina (or was it Tennassee), he tries to visit Al Gore's mansion to see just how big of an energy hogger it really is. He didn't make it in but describes how he gets in touch with Gore's press officer to find out what steps Gore is taking to reduce energy consumption in his house. I found some of Greg's frustrations resonant with other peoples' and countries'. He realized that he still wanted a big house and great electronics but he realizes--as all Americans should--that our demands going forward need to be tempered with an understanding of the environment--that just wanting things that suck more energy is not sustainable.

Climate Change Legislation

It's hard to keep tabs on Congress' moves regarding climate change legislation. Here's a recap of last week and if anyone has tips on getting updates, let me know. I've been following E&E news (Energy and Environment). Obama spoke in front of the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs, last week in Washington voicing his continued support for cap-and-trade and 100% auction of allowances. Several articles in the Wall Streen Journal last week--particularly two editorials come to mind-- that spoke bitterly against cap-and-trade calling the program nothing but a tax in disguise. Congress is reviewing proposed bills now and anticipates debating on climate change legislation beginning in the spring. Waxman aims to have a bill through the house by Memorial Day. Reid in the Senate is looking into a combined energy and climate change bill and hopes to have a bill on the Senate floor by the summer or year end. Congress in general has claimed they will pass a cliamte change bill this year before the UN conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in Dec 2009. I have heard environmentla lawyers claim that the U.S. cannot go to the next UN meeting making the same mistake of not signing a Kyoto Protocol. In the next meeting, they will discuss the successor protocol to Kyoto, which expires in 2012. Will the U.S. or China, the 2 largest GHG emitters, finally sign or take a larger step beyond passive commitment? Furthermore, Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, who had added an amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill and is very aggressive about acting rapidly on climate change policy, has published 6 principles which were basically vague hints of her preference of a bill: "to create short and long-term emission targets," "to reduce emissions to scientifically recommended levels." An E&E article reported that she said she could have a bill ready tomorrow if she wanted, but she's considering letting the House propose one first. USCAP, a group of electric companies, environmental groups, and other companies, published the "Blueprint" which lays out for Congress what they feel are suitable design and emission reduction targets for the country.

More to come...keep watching out for any Congressional developments.