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.