Déjà vu?

Posted on February 4, 2010 by Tara Holmes

It appears the Obama Administration is starting to eerily resemble the Bush Administration, at least when it comes to energy policy. In last week’s State of the Union address, President Obama touched on—albeit briefly—clean energy standards and climate change. Sadly, those “standards” reflected the days of recent past: investing in “clean coal” technology, nuclear power and biofuels. As for significant wind and solar power investment? Hmmm…

To make matters more dire, the Obama EPA has signed off on the Renewable Fuel Standard established under the Bush administration. The Renewable Fuel Standard supports energy-intensive corn production for ethanol, which is high in GHG as well as inefficient to produce. The EPA is also apparently in support of Carbon Capture and Storage technology which is said to reduce the amount of CO₂ leaked into the atmosphere from coal-fired power plants. What about the damaging coal extraction process that leaves mountaintops bare, rivers polluted and coal ash? And nuclear energy? Never mind the issue of waste, the sheer number of new nuclear power plants that would have to be constructed to account for our ever-growing demand for energy is daunting in itself.

So where does this leave us? Hopefully Obama will understand that investing in truly clean sources of renewable energy, like wind and solar, is not only good for the environment, but good for our struggling economy. Instead of investing in “clean coal” technology, let’s instead subsidize clean energy center training and education programs so coal miners can gain marketable skills in a safer, cleaner industry. Instead of a short term approach, let’s mix that with a long term agenda so we can, in time, ween off of the fossil fuel based economy we’ve grown so accustomed to and onto a green, renewable one. If the U.S. wants to “lead” in the global clean energy race, at this point, there really is no time left to waste.

Regional carbon market developments

Posted on January 25, 2010 by JPierce

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states haved capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the [electric] power sector 10% by 2018.
States sell nearly all emission allowances through auctions and invest proceeds in consumer benefits: energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies. RGGI will spur innovation in the clean energy economy and create green jobs in each state.

Continue reading →

Another Alaskan Oil Spill

Posted on December 16, 2009 by JPierce

A huge Alaskan oil spill, is one of the worst on record, according to Alaskan environmental officials (Greenwire). Yet it seems to have received fairly little coverage outside of some wire stories and local press.

The leak occurred on a North Slope pipeline operated by BP, which has had other problems in recent years including the 2006 spill in Prudhoe Bay. Whatever happened to “Beyond Petroleum?”

More than 4 out of 5 economists agree…

Posted on November 9, 2009 by JPierce

…the United States should act to curb emissions.

“Many observers look at economists as skeptics of the need for (climate) mitigation,” says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. But “most accept the unquestionable consensus from the natural scientist that the planet is warming and humans are to blame.” —Dan Vergano, USA Today

Continue reading →

CNG mail trucks and buses

Posted on November 4, 2009 by JPierce

The cover story of the current issue of MIT’s Technology Review, “Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map,” discusses the recent, (un)fortunate discovery of extremely large natural gas deposits in U.S.

The issue also includes a “briefing” on the various intersections of transportation and energy, and that explains this post’s title: CNG mail trucks and buses, the two major inroads of methane into transit.

A Polarized Battle

Posted on October 27, 2009 by Tara Holmes

There is a battle raging in Alaska: State government vs. the polar bear. Or, to put it more bluntly: resource development vs. environmental conservation. While this battle is nothing new to Alaska, especially given the impending threats of climate change on regional wilderness, which includes the polar bear’s natural habitat. A recent comment by Governor Sean Parnell made it clear that Alaska puts politics first and polar bears last.

In fact, Parnell charged that the federalFish and Wildlife Service acted illegally when it listed the polar bear as threatened based on future population and climate predictions. He also vowed to keep fighting the 2008 listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Referring to a recent recommendation by federal managers which advised designating upwards of 200,000 square miles of land and sea-ice as critical habitat for the species, “Currently, some are attempting to improperly use the Endangered Species Act to shut down resource development, and I’m not going to let this happen on my watch,” Mr. Parnell said.

All this debate comes soon after a “green light” was given to Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea, off of Alaska’s Arctic coast. The October 19th decision by the Minerals Management Service clears one of the final technical hurdles for the company to drill two wells on two offshore lease areas. Exploratory drilling will commence between July and October 2010, when the sea-ice melts.

As a major domestic source of oil in the United States, Alaska remains in a tug of war between political power struggles, growing oil demand, and environmentalism. Sadly, the polar bear sits in the crossfire. Reliant on arctic ice to migrate upwards of 3,000 miles a year, the polar bear’s basic survival does indeed directly depend on the climate more than many of us realize. In addition, many native villagers rely on these sensitive climate shifts for hunting and settlement. Developers however see money to be made when ice melts, allowing cargo ships to sail further and faster, and oil and gas exploration to be done with increased ease. If a truce can’t be called in a timely fashion, and if federal climate legislation continues to stall in Congress, the polar bear, and all it represents, will face extinction. Is this worth the price of oil?

Let’s Bury It?

Posted on September 23, 2009 by Tara Holmes

In New Haven, West Virginia, the Mountaineer Power Plant is about to embark on the world’s first attempt to capture and bury CO₂ from a coal-fired power plant (NYTimes). As early as this week, fluid CO₂ will be pumped into sandstone 7,800 feet underground and then into dolomite 400 feet below that; the liquid carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 feet high and hundreds of yards in length. The plan is to inject 100,000 tons annually for two to five years with the possibility of capturing 90% if Congress finds the technology economically feasible.

Initially sparked by political pressure to limit the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere, these plants are now faced with skeptics, scientists and environmentalists alike, who are concerned about the safety and long-term impact this new process could have. Specifically, CO₂ that’s injected into the Earth can filter into the ground water increasing the levels of carbonic acid. Other skeptics are concerned about the long-term pressure that could build as a result, leading to increased earthquakes. The EPA has discounted the risk. Either way, the bigger picture amounts to our continued dependence on fossil fuels for global energy. Until Congress understands the benefit of renewable energy both as a power source and economic stimulant, we will instead be faced with daunting and frightening “solutions” to climate change—like the one taking place in New Haven, WV—which are anything but.

CAFE oh, yay?

Posted on September 16, 2009 by JPierce

Yesterday afternoon the Obama administration released a proposal for new CAFE standards of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, up from the current 27.5 MPG. Soon the average automobile may finally get significantly better mileage than the Model T. Still, under these regulations, cars sold on the American market in 2016 will consume use more gas than Chinese cars from 2005! It is worth noting though, that since Ford’s time vehicle safety has improved, and most drivers have ridiculous amounts of horsepower to spare.

The 250 grams per mile of carbon dioxide limit the proposal puts forth is not a restriction at all. This comes to 19.42 pounds per gallon for 35.5 MPG vehicles, the same quantity of emissions as the EPA currently reports for a gallon of gasoline. In other words, at its current value it is redundant, and simply another way of saying 35.5 MPG. However, this needn’t be the case if gasoline formulations were to change.

Lastly, here’s some coverage of events leading up to the announcement, and some interesting graphs of DOT and EIA fleet fuel economy; this is real-world MPG, and is therefore affected by driving practices, weather, etc.

Rebounding Oil Demand and Push for Tar Sands

Posted on September 15, 2009 by LGlick

Alberta Tar Sands

It is conventional knowledge that oil is a non renewable resource made over 100 million years ago through the decomposition of small animal and plant life. These deposits are not spread evenly over the globe and in a number of key locations supplies have peaked and are on a permanent fatal decline. Take our second largest exporter Mexico, the Cantrell field peaked in 2004 and is showing a 17 percent decline. The United states also peaked in 1972 and now produces just 35% of what it did during peak production and this trend can be seen in 40 other countries globally. While there have been a number of large oil field finds over the last couple of weeks in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, these fields are not the cheap easy to access oil fields but located deep in the ocean and under incredible pressure.

The future of oil is scarcity, and the high price of oil today even during the most severe economic recession since the great depression has kept prices hovering around $70 dollars a barrel. Major oil companies have now found it profitable to extract poor quality and high carbon oil in the form of tar sands. One of the largest fields under development is in Alberta, Canada which expects to unearth an area the size of Florida. The dirty little secret behind tar sands is that it is a highly toxic process that abuses water supplies, destroys forests, contaminates the water tables of local communities, and is more carbon intensive than conventional oil.

In the latest report by the Cambridge Energy Resource Association (CERA), it is expected that by 2010 oil demand will rise again with the recovering economy. While there has been quite a bit of contraversy about when Peak Oil should hit the global economy, it has become apparent that since 1960 we consume about 3 barrels of oil for every 1 we find. Many of the optimistic views on oil supply from industry is based on potential arctic supplies, now close to becoming a reality with the arctic passage open for the first time. It is critical that we find ways to drastically ramp down our consumption of oil and explore alternatives to this high energy commodity, not only because of climate change, air pollution, and environmental degredation, but to protect our economies from future potential price spikes due to the inevitable scarcity of oil and other non renewable resources.

Global Climate Chicken

Posted on August 27, 2009 by JPierce

Congress will have a lot on its plate when it returns to session in approximately two weeks: health care, war/torture, food safety and of course climate change. Indeed, it’s beginning to look like, once again, the hopes of significant international effort to redress global warming are—arguably with good reason—landing square on the shoulders of Uncle Sam. As reported in many places yesterday, the Indian government has all but asked to be shamed into participating, and for developed nations to “call it’s bluff.” In a similar vein, and also making the rounds on Wednesday, was a statement from the Swedish minister of environment suggesting that: If the U.S. leads, China will follow. Alas, the fate of Waxman-Markley is still unclear, but at least this time Congress seems to be working towards the goal before international negotiations begin rather than against it. Perhaps you’d like to give your elected officials an encouraging nudge?

Re: Title

Warm Home Cool Planet

Sustainability begins at home

Category Archives: Fossil Fuels