NewEnergyNews: EMISSIONS AND ENERGY: A CHANGING EQUATION

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

Every day is Earth Day.

YESTERDAY

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHERE NEW ENERGY NEEDS TO BE
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-KUWAIT’S POSSIBLE SOLAR
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-WHAT INDIA WIND NEEDS
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • TTTA Thursday- HOW CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WORKS
  • TTTA Thursday-HOW WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
  • TTTA Thursday-POLITICS AND THE EPA
  • TTTA Thursday-THE ENORMOUS LED OPPORTUNITY
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE NEW INTELLIGENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, May 15: MINNESOTA’S SOLAR AMBITIONS IN CONTEXT; RHODE ISLAND’S FIGHT OVER OCEAN WIND; VC MONEY FOR SMART GRID STEADY

    THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW OIL MARKETS ARE MANIPULATED
  • QUICK NEWS, May 14: HUGE BUFFETT WIND BUY IN IOWA; THE VALUE OF ARIZONA’S SUN; MINNESOTA LOVES WIND
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TODAY’S STUDY: THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH STORAGE
  • QUICK NEWS, May 13: HOW BIG OIL USES REPUBLICANS; WIND SAVES MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS – STUDY; BRIGHTSOURCE EXEC TALKS SOLAR TOWER TECH & BIZ
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • Weekend Video: Senator Blasts Senator For Using Religion To Deny Climate Change
  • Weekend Video: The Remarkable Wind In Scotland
  • Weekend Video: The Sci Show Does Solar
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012) by Anne Butterfield (Boulder Daily Camera via NewEnergyNews)

    From the sparring at the first presidential debate, it's pretty sure that energy has become a divisive as well as a competitive issue. Both President Obama and Governor Romney want to be the triumphal producer of energy.

    However Romney likes to smear climate change concerns and clean energy investments, as if all of them go like Solyndra, where a half a billion in loan guarantees went down with the company, as he crowed that 50 percent of clean energy investments supported by the stimulus bill had gone belly up. This was dubbed the "lie of the night" by Michael Grunwald, author of a book about the stimulus bill, citing that maybe one percent of government backed clean energy ventures failed.

    Try getting that rate of safety in your investing. According to a new poll by Hart for the solar industry, voters seem to know that loan guarantees are a steadfast service of government and highly safe, as the Solyndra debacle was deemed unimportant by respondents. Ninety-two percent of registered voters found it important that solar be more widespread, with 70 percent believing that the federal government should be doing more to promote it with incentives (with 71 percent of swing voters feeling this way).

    And, sigh, with tens of thousands of wind power jobs on the chopping block already, Mitt Romney opposes the renewal of the Production Tax Credit. This, even as red states need it renewed, putting him in the dog house with GOP politicians such as Senator Chuck Grassely of Iowa whose state produces 20 percent of its power from wind, and Governor Brownback of Kansas who has made vigorous pleas for the extension of the credit, due to expire this at the end of this year.

    Didn't Romney get the memo? Republican governors are making hay with clean energy such as Haley Barbour and Chris Christie. To Mississippi, Barbour brought four solar sector firms to Mississippi along with two in biofuels plus a clean tech car venture with China. Christie made New Jersey a leading solar market in the nation, this year contending with California for first place.

    But Romney and other high priests of the GOP act as though the only real energy is the type that can be burned, and somehow, Obama has nibbled at this hemlock by constantly touting his success with fracking and his openness to the XL pipeline.

    A truly strange specter is that pipeline; it lets our heartland be used as a byway for tar sands products (which sink rather than float when spilled), so they can go straight to international markets. We get the downsides and none of the upsides -- even as the pipeline could increase gasoline prices in the Midwest, which would lose its existing access to tar sands products.

    One plausible upside of the pipeline being routed through the United States (where it might be built quickly, as would not happen in the alternative route through western Canada) is that it could strengthen the hand of President Obama in his suite of sanctions against Iran, including a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Our recent frack-mania allows our nation to resume oil production levels not seen for 15 years and thus strengthens our hand. Three weeks ago Iran admitted having problems selling oil due to U.S. and European sanctions; now the nation's currency is in free fall.

    One certainly hopes that tar sands will thrive mightily as a "psy-ops" against Iran and not as a chemical weapon against our climate, as Dr. James Hansen has sternly warned.

    Never bounded by his prior convictions about the climate, Romney crows that he would authorize the pipeline on day one and build it himself if need be (as if he in his wingtips could "John Wayne" his way around an oil field). It's all such a sham he-man rodeo.

    And no one mentioned the climate -- in spite of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures demanding the topic. Neither candidate pushed clean energy as the vote winner that poll after poll have shown it to be. Authors for DBL Investors in their study of green energy exclaim, "We all need to understand that green jobs are not the idle dreaming of a small group of partisan activists and insiders, but a source of livelihood for millions, literally in all parts of the country." The light shines in the darkness but the darkness of our politics has not understood it.

    Author's note: Want to support my work? Please "fan" me at Huffpost Denver, here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-butterfield). Thanks.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Lies, damned lies and politicians (October 8, 2012)
  • Colorado's Elegant Solution to Fracking (April 23, 2012)
  • Shale Gas: From Geologic Bubble to Economic Bubble (March 15, 2012)
  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Monday, November 12, 2007

    EMISSIONS AND ENERGY: A CHANGING EQUATION

    Important terms now:
    (1) Externality: A term economists use. Emissions cause harm to the atmosphere and to health but the industries who make the fuels that generate emissions don’t pay those costs, those “externalities.” Legislation instituting a “carbon tax” or a “cap-and-trade” system would make emitters pay.
    (2) Closet carbon: Many transportation fuels are made from “greener” products than petroleum but require enormous emissions for production. Policy-makers want to include the cost of such “closet carbon” in the price of the fuel.
    (3) Carbon negative: A theory. If a plant-based fuel source consumes CO2 while growing and its emissions are captured as it is burned, it would be “carbon negative.”

    Important carbon price points:
    (1) Lawmakers are expected to price emissions at $10/ton of carbon dioxide equivalent or more.
    (2) New nuclear energy plants would become price competitive at about that rate. (The 1st application for a new nuclear plant in 30 years was filed by NRG in anticipation of the change.)
    (3) At $50/ton of CO2-equiv, coal goes from 5.7cents/k-Wh to 10cents/k-Wh. (1 kilowatt-hour (kW-h) of electricity is the amount of electricity to burn 10 100-watt bulbs for an hour.)
    (4) Wind energy reaches price parity with coal at about $25/ton CO2-equiv.
    (5) Solar energy gets closer to price parity with coal at about $30/ton CO2-equiv.


    The Carbon Calculus
    Matthew L. Wald, November 7, 2007 (NY Times)

    WHO
    D.C. decision makers, New Energy providers

    Much of what happens in energy will soon be determined by the price of CO2 (click to enlarge)

    WHAT
    There is an emerging consensus that the harm done by fossil fuel emissions must be priced. Be it by a “carbon tax” or a “cap-and-trade system” the impact would likely open the marketplace to New Energy as no other single change could.

    WHEN
    - Although many individuals of conscience and businesses with vision are already going carbon neutral, getting into voluntary or foreign emissions-trading markets and investing in New Energy, the big changes are expected to come with legislation that is already in the D.C. pipeline but may not find its way to passage and presidential approval until after the 2008 presidential election.
    - A Senate subcommittee approved a cap-and-trade measure November 1 and it may pass the Senate this year but there is doubt it will get through the House and it is not thought likely this President would sign it.

    WHERE
    The carbon cost impositions, tax or trade, would be national and would have national impacts. They would especially change the kinds and values of energies in the marketplace.

    WHY
    - If the carbon content of fuel (emissions per unit of energy) were considered, the costs of the various fuels would change.
    - Petroleum-based fuels become more expensive when externalities are included in the cost.
    - There are several types of ethanol and other kinds of biofuels. Corn ethanol has very high “closet carbon” costs. Sugar ethanol has less. Cellulosic ethanol has much lower such costs.
    - Biofuels made from algae have very low “closet carbon” costs and, in fact, may be carbon negative in that they can be grown on captured CO2 emissions from coal- or gas-burning power plants.
    - Syngas made from biomass in emissions capture plants might be carbon negative. If enough of the emissions can be captured and if they can be stored safely.
    - The cost of emissions will eventually affect the use of all materials. Builders will design to consume less costly energy and position buildings to capture solar and wind energies.
    Products and containers will be made from energy-consuming materials. Wine bottles have already become plastic bags and cardboard cartons.

    Biofuels made from algae produce so much more per acre and may be carbon negative, considering they also consume coal plant emissions

    QUOTES
    - Revis James, economist, Electric Power Research Institute: “We’re definitely going to be paying a bill here for wanting to reduce these emissions.”
    - Jennifer S. Holmgren, director of renewable energy and chemicals, UOP: “As carbon dioxide fees are imposed, these thing become more and more cost-competitive…Algae, because of its ability to capture carbon, has a bigger potential than anything else for being carbon neutral.”
    - Michael H. Deane, operations manager, Turner Construction: “You can set a building into a hillside, so you can take advantage of the existing mass of the hillside…The ambient temperature of the dirt is 55 degrees, winter and summer, which can help with heating and cooling, he said. And sites are now evaluated for solar orientation and prevailing winds, both of which can heavily affect energy use…”

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home