tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-153062822024-03-07T12:13:14.607-08:00WattHead - Energy News and CommentaryDelivering news, original analysis, and opinionated commentary on the critical transition to a clean and prosperous energy future.
<p>
[ Topics include: energy policy, climate change, global warming, renewable energy, alternative vehicles and fuels, energy efficiency, and more... ]</p>Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comBlogger1208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-68715558050271082092012-02-09T10:22:00.000-08:002012-02-09T11:11:35.230-08:00WattHead is on hiatus<a href="http://mlblogsrsbleacherblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tv.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 150px;" src="http://mlblogsrsbleacherblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tv.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Dear readers,<br /><br />WattHead is currently on hiatus. <br /><br />These days, you can find Jesse Jenkins' writing at several sites:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/index.shtml">The Breakthrough Institute</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://theenergycollective.com/posts/published/user/28874">TheEnergyCollective.com</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://energy.nationaljournal.com/contributors/jesse-jenkins.php">National Journal - Energy Forum</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/">Forbes.com - Energy Source blog</a></li></ul><br />You can also keep up with Jesse on Twitter <a href="twitter.com/jessejenkins">@JesseJenkins</a> and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/114635427060047548139/posts">Google+ here</a>.<br /><br />For now, peruse the archives below, home to over 1200 posts from seven+ years of energy news and commentary from the WattHead team. <br /><br />Stay tuned in Fall 2012 for a revamped and relaunched <em>WattHead - Energy News and Commentary</em>...Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-64959193810686458982011-08-23T15:50:00.000-07:002011-08-23T16:01:25.571-07:00An earthquake, in Virginia??<a href="http://www.acespace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/24quake_cnd-articleLarge-300x165.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 165px;" src="http://www.acespace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/24quake_cnd-articleLarge-300x165.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><em> This is a guest post by Rebecca Anderson, <a href="http://www.acespace.org">ACE Sierra's Educator and Team Scientist</a></em><div>
<br /></div><div>This is weird. Today at 1:51 pm Eastern time a 5.9 magnitude earthquake struck northwest of Richmond, VA. It was felt as far north as New York City.
<br />
<br />Being a native East-coaster myself, I can tell you that we don’t get earthquakes in that part of the country. This means people, buildings and bridges are pretty unprepared for an event like this. Thankfully, I haven’t heard any reports of fatalities or serious injuries yet and hopefully that continues.
<br />
<br />But this earthquake has got me thinking. Earthquakes have nothing to do with climate change. We know this. Some quakes can strike out of the blue, like this one, in such a random place that there’s no way you could have predicted it. But other places, like along the San Andreas fault in California, you know that living there goes along with the risk of earthquakes. Scientists put a lot of work into calculating those risks and buildings and bridges are built accordingly.
<br />
<br />In this way, earthquakes give us a good analogy for dealing with climate change. The risks are understood and the precautions to minimize the risks are also known. You never know on a given day, even in California, if an earthquake is going to strike or not. Likewise, you never know when a big storm, flood or wildfire will hit. But, much like living along the San Andreas fault, with climate change we know that the chances of these events happening – flooding of the Mississippi, drought in Texas, wildfires in the southwest, this summer’s heat wave – are going up. As the venerable <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/the-passing-of-a-climate-warrior/" target="_blank">Stephen Schneider</a> said, “We are loading the dice.”
<br />
<br />Here’s where we get to the difference. Earthquakes are caused by nothing less than seismic ruptures deep inside the Earth, set off by the forces of plate tectonics. There’s not a lot we can do about that. Climate change, on the other hand, we know we can do something about. The cause of this problem is us and that means the solution can be, is and will be u
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.acespace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/265867_10150265492398516_43287633515_7443639_5787862_o-300x225.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 225px;" src="http://www.acespace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/265867_10150265492398516_43287633515_7443639_5787862_o-300x225.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>One of the best parts of my job with ACE is that I know this. I see it every week at high schools in Sacramento, Reno and in between. Those were my kids who started the <a href="http://www.acespace.org/blog/2011/06/eco-warriors-reflect-on-earth-day-victories/">Eco Warriors Action Team at Reed High</a> in Sparks, NV. Inspired by ACE, they won $12,000 to green their school’s bathrooms. That was my girl, Laura Dang from West Campus High in Sacramento, showing off not just her <a href="http://www.acespace.org/dot" target="_blank">DOT (Do One Thing to help the environment)</a>, but her 15 DOTs in ACE’s DOT Detectives contest this summer.
<br />
<br />One of the coolest things I read about the earthquake is that people were getting tweets about it happening in DC just seconds before they actually felt the quake itself. That means with technology, we are faster even that those speedy P waves. Imagine what we’re capable of!
<br />
<br />We know it: Climate change is not an earthquake. It’s our mess, we made it and we gotta solve it. Thousands of young people across the country are heading back to school, rejoining their <a href="http://www.acespace.org/action-teams">ACE Action Teams</a> and <a href="http://www.acespace.org/act-now/action-teams/do-projects">getting to work</a>.
<br />
<br />Step 1: Solve climate change.
<br />
<br />Step 2: Stop plate tectonics.</div>Alisha Fowlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09432912411859224386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-27558323894061794232011-08-17T18:10:00.000-07:002011-08-17T18:14:57.575-07:00National Journal: Surviving the Coming Clean Tech Crash<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/08/how-can-washington-green-ameri.php#2047104"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 225px; height: 225px;" src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/NJ-image.jpeg" border="0" alt="" /></a><em><a href="http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/08/how-can-washington-green-ameri.php#2047104">Over at the National Journal's Energy forum</a>, my Breakthrough Institute colleague Alex Trembath and I have <a href="http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/08/how-can-washington-green-ameri.php#2047104">a new submission</a> to their ongoing discussion asking "How Can Washington Green America's Economy?" Here's the full text...</em>
<br />
<br />Before discussing the best way to green the economy, it’s important to note that the U.S. economy has been greening steadily over the past three years. Buoyed by the policies established and extended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the largest federal investment in clean tech in American history, the clean energy industry has experienced precipitous growth, as documented by Mark Muro and colleagues at the Brookings Metro program in their recent <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0713_clean_economy.aspx">"Sizing the Clean Economy" report</a>.
<br />
<br />Unfortunately, the path of progress may be coming to an end. Our research shows that over 70% of the federal policies and funding support for clean energy that has catalyzed the recent growth of the industry is expected to lapse in the next three years, or has already expired. And make no mistake—clean energy is an industry dependent on government subsidy: tax credits, depreciation and other subsidies compose one third or more of the total after-tax value of most solar, wind or other renewable energy projects, for example. So while ARRA provided a “down payment” on a green economy, as these public investments fade away, we are now more likely to witness a clean tech crash than a clean tech revolution.
<br />
<br />As the current programs supporting clean energy, like the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Section 1603 Treasury Grants, approach their expiration, there are a number of steps the federal government can and must take to avert an impending industry crash.
<br /><span class="fullpost">
<br />The first would be to get serious about the long-term energy innovation challenge. Until clean energy becomes cheap and cost competitive without subsidy, the pace of clean energy growth will remain constrained and the markets will face continual risk of industry busts if subsidy and policy support changes. We must treat energy innovation with the same priority we afford other national innovation quests, such as the Apollo or Manhattan Projects or the quest to cure cancer. We must invest far more -- eventually on the order of $15 billion annually -- and far more wisely -- restructuring America's energy innovation system and supporting effective new policy models such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), and new public-private regional innovation consortia.
<br />
<br />Second, Congress can establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). CEDA would act as a public investment bank whose mission is to help leverage private-sector investment to bring emerging, innovative clean technologies to commercial maturity. CEDA would bridge the commercialization “Valley of Death” and provide a viable and predictable development path for technologies from the laboratory to grid-scale deployment. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the agency would cost just $1.1 billion over the next four years. While leveraging billions more in private sector investment, the public bank would return profits from investments and financial products to the fund, making CEDA self-sustaining over time.
<br />
<br />Another needed policy change is to reform the current clean energy deployment subsidy regime for maturing energy technologies, which today is comprised of a hodgepodge of tax credits like the PTC and the Investment Tax Credit, depreciation benefits and grants that primarily incentivize firms to deploy more of the same, current-generation technology. Instead, we need a smarter new deployment mechanism that is disciplined and designed to drive technology innovation to decrease the unsubsidized cost of clean energy so that it can be competitive without perpetual subsidy. Such a policy could augment a national renewable or clean energy standard (RES/CES) with a set of technology tiers based on technology maturity, which would provide the incentive for utilities to adopt and deploy clean energy technologies across a range of maturities, and demand continual cost reductions from technology firms over time. One way to augment this smart deployment policy would be with a small price on carbon, wires fee on electricity, or oil import fee, which instead of returning a dividend to consumers would generate dedicated revenues for a federal energy R&D fund to help support the continual innovation needed to get clean tech costs down to parity with fossil competitors.
<br />
<br />The fate of many ARRA policies remains uncertain, and the unpredictable political machinations of the “supercongress” and ongoing deficit debate in Washington bring yet more volatility to the clean tech policy debate. Nobody expects a second down payment on the green economy on the scale of the last several years. But as current subsidy support runs out, Washington must support the industry by investing more and differently in clean energy innovation to maintain America’s position in the global clean tech race and avoid an ongoing cycle of clean tech boom-and-bust in the future.</span>
<br />Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-899281041776383452011-08-04T12:23:00.000-07:002011-08-04T12:25:08.380-07:00Say No to 'No Nukes' Revival<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/NoNukes-thumb-279x279.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 279px; height: 279px;" src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/NoNukes-thumb-279x279.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />My colleague Sara Mansur & I have an op ed in today's <span style="font-style:italic;">San Francisco Chronicle</span>, issuing a <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/08/san_francisco_chronicle_featur.shtml">stern rebuttal</a> to the revival of the "No Nukes" concerts this Sunday at Shoreline in Mountain View, CA. <br /><br />The world has changed since the original five-night concert series in 1979. An anti-nuclear position may have made good sense then, but is no longer tenable today.<br /><br />Graham Nash and the MUSE cadre of septuagenerian rockers appear woefully ignorant of the real intergenerational threat faced in the 21st century -- climate change -- and the implications that a 'No Nukes' world would have for public health and the environment.<br /><br />You can find the print edition in today's Chronicle and an <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/08/san_francisco_chronicle_featur.shtml">extended edition online here</a>.Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-58141972719443246972011-06-30T16:23:00.000-07:002011-06-30T16:28:43.187-07:00UNIDO: Does energy efficiency lead to increased energy consumption?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.makingitmagazine.net/?p=3460"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 157px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1vKLL_N8vRZvGuvJXZw_XDevzdHiw8U8p8efRXvWWi9zPUWSeJbn5joa5Z5k5FcrCEBSsLt0-xpj9Nf6HTc96rcgG8K3oKpMW9bvUkrBl5GXj9-SVg-iH5ED1uYDcOR9Pt0Et/s200/MakingItCover.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5624158762620773970" /></a>In the pages of United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)'s <em>Making It</em> quarterly magazine, I and my colleague and Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow Harry Saunders <a href="http://www.makingitmagazine.net/?p=3460">published an article explaining the impact and implications of the energy demand "rebound effect"</a> spurred on by energy efficiency. <br /><br />The article builds upon the Breakthrough Institute's "<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/new_report_how_efficiency_can.shtml">Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena</a>," a comprehensive literature review pointing to the expert consensus and evidence that below-cost energy efficiency measures drive a rebound in energy consumption that can erode much of expected energy savings. <br /><br />Read the full article: "<a href="http://www.makingitmagazine.net/?p=3460">Hot topic: Does energy efficiency lead to increased energy consumption?,"</a> <em>Making It</em> June, 2011<br /><br />In the article, we argue:<blockquote>Truly cost-effective energy efficiency measures lower the effective price of the services derived from fuel consumption - heating, cooling, transportation, industrial processes, etc. - leading consumers and industry alike to demand more of these services. There are other indirect and economy-wide effects as well, as consumers re-spend money saved through efficiency on other energy-consuming goods and services, industrial sectors adjust to changes in the relative prices of final and intermediate goods, and greater energy productivity causes the economy as a whole to grow. Collectively, these economic mechanisms drive a rebound in demand for energy services that can erode much - and in some cases all - of the expected reductions in total energy use, along with much-hoped-for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />Furthermore, rebound effects are often most pronounced in the productive sectors of the economy, including industry and agriculture, as well as throughout the world's emerging economies. <br /><br />...<br /><br />Conventional climate mitigation strategies count on energy efficiency to do a great deal of work. For example, the IEA in a global climate stabilization scenario published by the agency in December 2009, estimates that efficiency measures could account for roughly half of the emissions reductions needed. Yet, from a climate or global resource conservation perspective, rebound effects mean that for every two steps forward taken through greater efficiency, rebounds take us one (or more) steps backwards. This is particularly true throughout the developing world, and in the productive sectors of the global economy.<br /><br />A clear understanding of rebound effects therefore demands a fundamental re-assessment of energy efficiency’s role in global climate mitigation efforts.<br /><br />A continued failure to accurately and rigorously account for rebound effects risks an over-reliance on the ability of efficiency to deliver lasting reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Without a greater emphasis on the other key climate mitigation lever at our disposal – the de-carbonization of global energy supplies through the deployment and improvement of low-carbon energy sources – the global community will fall dangerously short of climate mitigation goals.<br /><br />At the same time, however, we can re-affirm the role of energy efficiency efforts in expanding human welfare and fueling global economic development. Unlocking the full potential of efficiency may very well mean the difference between a richer, more efficient world, and a poorer, less efficient world. The former is clearly the desirable case – even if the world uses more or less the same amount of energy in either scenario.<br /><br />The pursuit of any and all cost-effective efficiency opportunities should thus continue as a key component of an efficient course for global development, even as we reconsider the degree to which these measures can contribute to climate mitigation efforts.</blockquote>You can also find <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/faq_rebound_effects_and_the_en.shtml">an introductory FAQ on the rebound effect here</a>.Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-36442592680029307382011-06-24T08:09:00.000-07:002011-06-24T08:14:46.037-07:005 Reasons I Love the Solar Panel Industry<div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Its funny how a simple thing like a computer virus can make take a step back appreciate your business. This morning a virus shut down my computer and let me have some time to just think about the business I have. (Anyone else notice how useless you are without a computer these days?)</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>And in thinking about my business I was able to break down what I love about this industry and why.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>1. The People </div><div>The people in the solar power industry are different. They get it. Sure there are some jerks and scam artists, but for the most part they people in this business are here because they are passionate about renewable energy and want their work to make a difference. And this translates to how they relate to others and conduct themselves. And the customers that are interested in solar panels usually share the enthusiasm and become infected by it.</div><div><br /></div><div><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXsehzo4DnQZFMx6d5XBmeDWsPNB-2V5wuTnHqBD6YhK5DC0JS1uh2udcqwAYWRP3PIE4ZZaG5umhRa-KNF-K8GLSx_uxASUhbC7_8j_sbH5GUu5yBboAYBAQQdPzaz2t5G_NR/s320/jpg%253Bbase643c1c708603c03a5f.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 265px; height: 190px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5621804481855766578" /></div><div><br /></div><div>2. The Purpose</div><div>In my previous business I owned a concrete and excavation company. And my purpose was to make as much money as possible. I wanted to do good work, and provide a living for my employees, but at the end of the day there was very little satisfaction. With solar, I know that even a little system is going to provide clean energy instead of using fossil fuels, and that is very satisfying. Knowing that I can make a good living and help people and the planet? Slam dunk. </div><div><br /></div><div>3. The Science</div><div>I’ll admit it, I’m no genius. How solar power actually works is still a bit of a mystery to me. I know the basics of photons and electrons and yada yada. But how this wonderful science came to be and how we actually turn sunshine into power still amazes me. Making something powerful and wonderful out of something you can’t really see sounds like the stuff of children’s books, and the child in me loves it for that reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. The Technology</div><div>I love it that this business changes, if even a little, everyday. All over the world, at any given moment, someone is having a ‘Eureka’ moment in a lab somewhere that will improve how solar power works for us. Whether its more efficient solar panels, racking systems, inverter technology or even financing, millions of people worldwide are working their butts off to make this technology more viable and more affordable.</div><div><br /></div><div>5. The Future</div><div>I’ve never had a business where I could look into the future and say “In 10 years, this industry will be lightyears ahead of where we are now”. Whether its rules requiring solar panels on all buildings (eg in Japan), costs being cut in half, or just widespread acceptance of solar as an alternative to dirty fuels, the future is bright. There will be bumps and misses and setbacks, but the future belongs to solar.</div><div><br /></div><div>Kriss Bergethon is an entrepreneur and solar writer from Colorado, visit his site at <a href="http://www.spheralsolar.com/">Solar Panels</a> for more information.</div><div><br /></div>Kriss Bergethonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16794042380056566678noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-6618793512851101192011-06-20T10:12:00.000-07:002011-06-20T10:20:21.648-07:00Webinar - Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Can we live without it?<big><span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://theenergycollective.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-webinar?utm_source=smt_jenkins&utm_medium=multi&utm_campaign=webinar062911&reference=smt_jenkins">Live Webcast June 29, 3 PM ET / 12 PM PT</a><br /></span></big><br />Following the earthquake and tsunamis that tragically impacted Japan in March, the unfolding crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has captured public attention for months. Energy experts are now questioning the long term impact of the Fukushima disaster on nuclear policy, international power generation, and the global carbon picture:<br /><br /><li>How has the Fukushima crisis impacted public opinion and policy debates about nuclear energy?<br /></li><li>What do countries like Japan and Germany stand to gain or lose by giving up nuclear power generation?<br /></li><li>What is the carbon cost of giving up nuclear plants?<br /></li><li>How will countries that move away from nuclear make up that power elsewhere?<br /></li><li>Has the demise of the nuclear industry been exaggerated? While some countries are taking aggressive steps away from nuclear, some accounts suggest that overall, the number of nuclear plants continues to grow.</li><br /><a href="http://theenergycollective.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-webinar?utm_source=smt_jenkins&utm_medium=multi&utm_campaign=webinar062911&reference=smt_jenkins">Join The Energy Collective's latest webcast</a> as we seek answers to these questions and discuss nuclear power's role in our energy future. <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-webinar?utm_source=smt_jenkins&utm_medium=multi&utm_campaign=webinar062911&reference=smt_jenkins">Register here</a> today.<br /><div><br /></div><div>You'll hear from:</div><span class="fullpost"><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><p style="font-size: 12px; "><img src="http://podcasts.socialmediatoday.com/email/images/mattwald.jpg" alt="" align="left" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 10pt; margin-bottom: 2pt; margin-left: 0pt; width: 66px; height: 72px; " /><strong>Matthew Wald</strong> is a Reporter for the Washington Bureau at The New York Times, covering environmental and energy issues, as well as transportation, aviation and highway safety. Having joined The Times in October 1976 as a news clerk in the newspaper’s Washington bureau, Wald held positions at the New York metropolitan desk, the State Capitol in Hartford, and as a national correspondent, covering a variety of areas including housing and nuclear power, before joining the Washington bureau in September 1996. Wald has covered the Fukushima crisis extensively in the New York Times.</p><p style="font-size: 12px; "><img src="http://podcasts.socialmediatoday.com/email/images/EdwardKee_web.jpg" alt="" align="left" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 10pt; margin-bottom: 2pt; margin-left: 0pt; width: 66px; height: 70px; " /><strong>Edward Kee</strong> is a VP at NERA Economic Consulting and a specialist in the electricity industry with experience in nuclear power, electricity markets, restructuring, regulation, private power, and related issues. For more than 20 years, he has provided testimony as an expert witness on a range of electricity industry issues in state and federal courts, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and before other legal and regulatory bodies in the US and around the world. Mr. Kee also provides strategic advice to companies and governments on issues related to the nuclear and electricity industries. Mr. Kee holds an MBA from Harvard University and a BS in Systems Engineering from the US Naval Academy.</p><p style="font-size: 12px; "><img src="http://www.theenergycollective.com/ClientFiles/125195fd-251c-4f56-8daa-60474b5ffc43/JenkinsHeadshot_9_09.JPG" alt="" align="left" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 10pt; margin-bottom: 2pt; margin-left: 0pt; width: 66px; height: 78px; " /><strong>Jesse Jenkins</strong> is Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org%2F/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; ">Breakthrough Institute</a>, and is one of the country's leading energy and climate policy analysts and advocates. He is the co-author with Devon Swezey of the "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" report on global clean energy competitiveness strategies, and is currently working on an update to the report. Jesse has written for publications including the San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, Yale Environment 360, Grist.org, and HuffingtonPost.com, and his published works on energy policy have been cited by many more. He is founder and chief editor of <a href="http://watthead.blogspot.com%2F/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; ">WattHead - Energy News and Commentary</a> and a featured writer at the Energy Collective.</p><p style="font-size: 12px; "><img src="http://theenergycollective.com/ClientFiles/125195fd-251c-4f56-8daa-60474b5ffc43/gunther.jpg" alt="" align="left" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 10pt; margin-bottom: 2pt; margin-left: 0pt; width: 64px; height: 76px; " /><strong>Marc Gunther</strong> is a veteran journalist, speaker, writer and consultant whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc is a contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, a senior writer at<a href="http://greenbiz.com/" style="text-decoration: none; ">Greenbiz.com</a>, and a lead blogger at <a href="http://www.theenergycollective.com/" style="text-decoration: none; ">The Energy Collective</a>. He's also a husband and father, a lover of the outdoors and a marathon runner. Marc is the author or co-author of <a href="http://www.marcgunther.com/books.php" style="text-decoration: none; ">four books</a>, including Faith and Fortune: How Compassionate Capitalism is Transforming American Business. He's a graduate of Yale who lives in Bethesda, MD.</p></span></div></span>Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-63046924087160695252011-06-14T12:06:00.000-07:002011-06-14T12:08:06.518-07:00ACE students offer White House fresh ideas to spur energy efficiencyShreya Indukuri and Daniela Lapidous, <a href="http://www.acespace.org/about-ace/youth">ACE Youth Advisory Board members</a> and juniors at the Harker School in San Jose, CA, paid a visit to the White House yesterday, but they didn't just go for a tour. Through working with ACE, this energy-smart duo is scaling up their efforts to spur efficient energy use in America’s high schools – and sharing their ideas with America’s leaders.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj106CxQlJASnJ6VLp88rPrIIPZW05HlQA_AnhOYW9vgLEB0kW-UMVspq37GvuO73L5JITJMGZ8eohx-1SlG9fy34l5_fnFMX854OrQ3Tpt3NmtQnFENTYWxt_uHgtLkqDJUG4g/s1600/Picture+1.png"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 147px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj106CxQlJASnJ6VLp88rPrIIPZW05HlQA_AnhOYW9vgLEB0kW-UMVspq37GvuO73L5JITJMGZ8eohx-1SlG9fy34l5_fnFMX854OrQ3Tpt3NmtQnFENTYWxt_uHgtLkqDJUG4g/s320/Picture+1.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5618154134775063218" border="0" /></a>Yesterday, in front of an invite-only audience of CEOs, White House advisors, and utility industry leaders, Shreya and Daniela <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/06/13/building-21st-century-grid">shared the story</a> of how they reduced their school’s energy use by 13 percent and founded their own non-profit, SmartPowerEd.<br /><br />They shared a stage with U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu; Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack; Director of the Office of Science and Technology, John Holdren; and Chairperson of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley.<br /><br />In their talk, they let our leaders know that young people care about the future and energy use, and that they are ready to get involved with solutions. They closed with two questions for Secretary Chu and others: how are you going to harness the potential of young people? How are you going to prioritize energy education and inspire young people to act?<br /><br /><strong>You can <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/06/13/building-21st-century-grid">see a video of their talk with White House officials here</a>.</strong> More to come from ACE's Emily Adler, who accompanied Shreya and Daniela to the event. What a day!Alisha Fowlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09432912411859224386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-40869911716928594772011-05-26T11:27:00.001-07:002011-05-26T11:29:59.796-07:00How Much Gas Do You Use? Track Gas Use With This New Widget.As the Memorial Day Weekend approaches, many of us are planning road trips — according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), over 30 million Americans will get in their personal vehicles for a weekend get-away, with many driving hundreds of miles.<br /><br />Although gas prices have dropped slightly during the past few weeks, they are still a dollar per gallon higher than they were one year ago at this time. These prices have made many of us think hard about the efficiency of our vehicles — how much is it costing us to drive?<br /><br />We have developed a tool to help you determine the costs of driving your car or truck, including how much carbon dioxide (CO2) your vehicle produces. Carbon dioxide is a key greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming. Using the tool below, select your state, your car’s gas mileage, and how many miles you drive in a typical year (default values are set to national averages).<br /><br />This widget — which you are welcome to embed on your webpage — also displays the CO2 emissions that result from a particular amount of driving. Gas price data are automatically updated daily from the AAA.<br /><br /><iframe height='830' scrolling='no' src='http://climatecentral.org/wgts/gas/gas.php' width='600'></iframe>David Kroodsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160894484562610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-22641917892010787822011-05-05T17:48:00.000-07:002011-05-07T12:04:09.908-07:00Weighing in on the Gas Tax Debate<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/gas-tax-pander.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 178px;" src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/gas-tax-pander.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">By Jesse Jenkins and Sara Mansur</span><br /><br />Kevin Drum's recent <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/04/raw-data-everyone-loves-oil#disqus_thread">post</a> on the low price elasticity of demand for oil has reignited an <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/08/talking_energy_innovation_at_t.shtml">old debate</a> over <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/what-a-gas-tax-can-do.html">gas taxes</a> and <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/what-a-gas-tax-cant-do.html">energy innovation</a>.<br /><br />Drum draws our attention to some "eye popping" figures for price elasticity of demand for oil from the IMF. According to Drum, these elasticities mean that, in the short term, a 50 percent increase in price leads to a 1.2 percent decrease in consumption. In the long term, it leads to a 4.7 percent decrease.<br /><br />Conservative blogger Jim Manzi rightly <a href="http://theamericanscene.com/2011/04/25/a-gas-tax-words-vs-numbers">points out </a>that, with elasticities as low as these, a gas tax at any politically realistic level is not going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.<br /><br /><blockquote>Specifically, to the extent that we continue to progress in making non-fossil-fuels technology cheaper and more effective for an ever wider array of applications, we can accelerate the ongoing de-carbonization of our economy. The idea of economists to use artificial scarcity pricing to do this is aggressively marketed in blogs, magazines and TV shows, but is extremely unlikely to work, because the current price elasticity of oil is so low. The work of engineers and physical scientists, however, is likely to be determinative.</blockquote>In response, several bloggers have <a href="http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/04/27/of-carbon-taxes-and-price-elasticities/">argued</a> that these elasticities are underestimated, pointing to the unreliability of estimates of long-run price elasticity of oil demand in general and to other literature with higher estimates than the IMF study. While the IMF estimates are low, <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/what-a-gas-tax-cant-do-ctd-1.html">revised estimates</a> certainly aren't so high as to penalize consumption, particularly in the absence of viable, and cheap alternatives to <a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/04/the-price-elasticity-of-demand-for-oil.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marginalrevolution%2Ffeed+%28Marginal+Revolution%29">fossil-fuel based technologies</a>.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span></span><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />This brings us to a second, crucial reason that a gas tax won't solve our dependence on foreign oil. As Matt Hourihan of the <a href="http://www.itif.org/publications/inducing-innovation-what-carbon-price-can-and-can%E2%80%99t-do">Information Technology and Innovation Foundation</a> <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/what-a-gas-tax-cant-do-ctd.html">argues</a> on Andrew Sullivan's blog, price hikes alone won't do much to spur clean energy innovation, mostly because of the risks inherent with nascent, early-stage technologies, risks that private companies aren't willing to bear on their own.<br /><br /><blockquote>The problem is that just as price changes have to be severe to manifest any impacts on gas consumption, price changes on their own also tend not to do much to inspire the development of radical new tech solutions, unless prices are through the roof. This is mainly due to the high levels of risk and uncertainty that come with new tech: private firms would generally rather seek out low-risk, low-cost alternatives (i.e. more efficient internal processes or capital goods) than to invest time and effort into developing high-risk, initially-high cost alternatives (i.e. hydrogen fuel cells). It takes a real, permanent shock to get any real effects, and suffice to say the American political system is unlikely to ever pass a gas tax high enough to drive these kinds of changes.</blockquote>Hourihan points to the European example, where, despite significantly higher gas prices than in the US, the population is still dependent on fossil fuels, and high gas prices haven't led to the widespread uptake of electric cars.<br /><br />But this doesn't mean that a gas tax doesn't have a place in a smart model for a clean energy infrastructure. As Ryan Avent <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/08/talking_energy_innovation_at_t.shtml">noted</a> last summer, a $5 per barrel oil tax could raise about $40 billion annually. That's the equivalent of about 12 cents per gallon of gasoline -- certainly not enough to seriously alter consumer behavior, but $40 billion in revenues is enough to fund the development and construction of an improved clean energy infrastructure.<br /><br />As the Breakthrough Institute has previously argued, a low and politically sustainable carbon tax or gas tax or other fee on today's energy consumption, coupled with direct federal investments in innovation, will go a long way towards developing the clean energy infrastructure of the future. In fact, the revenues raised by a carbon or gas tax could be used to fund the <a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case%20Studies%20in%20American%20Innovation.pdf">public-private partnerships</a> that have so successfully spurred private sector innovation in the past.<br /><br />The mental model for this effort shouldn't be the high gas taxes of Europe - designed as they are to penalize consumption (and relatively ineffective at doing so). Rather the right precedent is the relatively low gas taxes of the United States, which raise revenues dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund.<br /><br />The reasons for developing a cleaner, safer, more secure energy system are well known. What we need is a user fee charged for the enjoyment of today's affordable and efficient energy infrastructure, used to generate revenues set aside and specifically tasked with building the affordable, efficient, and improved energy infrastructure of tomorrow.<br /><br />Whether imposed on oil or gasoline or electricity or on all carbon fuels, such a user fee would amount to pennies on the gallon for consumers. But it would ensure that we dedicate the tens of billions needed nationally to develop and deploy the clean, reliable, and affordable energy sources of tomorrow.<br /><br />In sum, carbon pricing or gas taxes alone won't lead to breakthrough energy innovations. What will lead us there are directed government investments in energy innovation, in which a smart user fee on energy consumption or carbon emissions can play an important, but fundamentally different (and less central role) as envisioned by conventional cap and trade, carbon tax, and gas tax proponents.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-76211904799929000212011-04-27T10:34:00.000-07:002011-05-07T12:07:26.821-07:00Unified Diversity - lessons from PowerShift '11<span style="font-style: italic;">By Daniela Lapidous, high school junior at the Harker School in San Jose, CA, and member of the<a href="http://acespace.org/about-ace/youth"> ACE Youth Advisory Board</a></span><br /><br />Phew… it’s been a week since one of the most amazing weekends of my life.<br /><br />You see, from April 15-18, fellow ACE Youth Advisory Board member Shreya Indukuri and I got the chance to attend <a href="http://www.powershift2011.org/">PowerShift</a> in Washington, D.C. and it was INCREDIBLE!<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5640860051_da9951f998_z.jpg" alt="" height="204" width="306" /><br /></div><br />Basically, it was a gathering of about 10,000 inspiring young people rallying for clean energy action - you can read more about our trip on the <a href="http://www.acespace.org/blog/2011/04/from-the-ace-assembly-to-the-white-house/">blog post</a> Washington D.C.'s awesome regional educator, Daisy, wrote up.<br /><br />Besides the details of who we met and what we said, I guess one thing I still marvel at when I look back at the experience is the <strong>unified diversity </strong>we saw there. (Attack of the oxymorons!)<br /><br />The thousands of college students there came from all walks of life – from all parts of the country – from all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. We don’t listen to the same music, we don’t all say “hella”, and we probably don’t even have the same definitions of what being completely “green” looks like – but we were all <em>there</em>, being united by the issue of <em>clean energy</em>! Who expected that?<br /><br />The fact is, everyone <em>should </em>have expected that, because <strong>the issue of climate change and clean energy </strong><em><strong>deserve </strong></em><strong>to unify us all.</strong><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><strong>Shreya and I met people who are being affected by these issues </strong><em><strong>now</strong></em><strong>.</strong> We met Cassie, a 17 year-old activist from Southern California who got asthma because of pollution-emitting factories in her city. We met countless people who live next to toxic waste, who have seen extreme weather, and who are seeing pollution destroy their communities. We heard stories of people in Appalachia who are suffering enormously because of mountaintop removal (for the sake of coal mining!).<br /><br />Climate change and dirty energy are not issues that will "someday" affect our "grandchildren" - they are right here, right now. It's only a matter of time before they show up on all of our doorsteps and <em>force</em> us to work together, whether we like it or not.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"> <img class="size-medium wp-image-4155" title="Daniela-Shreya" src="http://www.acespace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Daniela-Shreya-273x250.jpg" alt="" height="250" width="273" /><br /></div><br />There was also the diversity of people we met outside of PowerShift. We met Aneesh Chopra, the Chief Technology Officer of the US, and Arun Majumdar, the director of ARPA-E (an innovative energy research department of the government).<br /><br />Let’s face the facts: Shreya and I are still high school juniors. We are from California, and we do not wear business clothes on a regular basis. We have APs next week and prom in two weeks. We are very different from the high-level executives we were lucky enough to meet.<br /><br />But hearing about a low-cost, very effective solution to energy efficiency – the smart meters that we are installing at high schools – was positive for everyone! Mr. Chopra and Mr. Majumdar were both impressed that <strong>we saved 13% off our school’s energy bill in one year</strong> and they want all of the schools in the country to get involved.<br /><br /><strong>No matter how different you are, passion and simple solutions can inspire and connect people </strong>– “environmentalists” and “non-environmentalists” alike. When you share your story, people are inspired to craft their own.<br /><br />So, go – it’s not hard to find a diverse group of people, or a diverse group of problems, or a diverse world out there… but it’s your job to find the one way to communicate climate change in a way that will <strong>unify</strong> your audience.<br /><br />You, the reader, and I are probably pretty different, too. But we're also pretty alike, because Shreya and I are average students who just sat in an ACE assembly two years ago and were inspired to act. Last weekend, we couldn’t <em>believe</em> we were standing in front of the White House as part of this chain of events. The fact is – this could be <em>you</em>. <strong>This WILL be you, </strong>because - since you're reading this - we're connected by at least a spark of inspiration to act on climate change.<br /><br />Now get offline and... go unify some diversity or something!</span>Alisha Fowlerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09432912411859224386noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-21478447923666829192011-04-25T19:46:00.000-07:002011-05-07T12:06:23.623-07:00Interactive Map: All the World's Nuclear Reactors<a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/interactive-map-all-the-worlds-nuclear-reactors/"><img width=168 height=20 style="float:left; margin:10px" src="http://www.climatecentral.org/-/img/logo-climate-central.png"></a><em>Cross posted from <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/interactive-map-all-the-worlds-nuclear-reactors/" target="_hplink">Climate Central</a>.</em> <br /> <br /> To better understand the state of the nuclear power industry, <a href="http://climatecentral.org" target="_hplink">Climate Central</a> has built the following interactive map of nuclear facilities as reported by the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/" target="_blank">World Nuclear Association</a>. This map shows every nuclear reactor that has ever been connected to the electric grid, as well as a number of plants (though not all) that are planned. The table beneath the map — which will fill in once you press “play” — shows how many power plants have been built during each decade. <br /> <br /> <center> <iframe scrolling="yes" src="http://climatecentral.org/wgts/nukes/np.htm" height="900" width="450"></iframe></center> <br /> <br /><span class="fullpost"><br /> <strong>How To Use This Map:</strong> <br /> <br /> Toggle the different categories of power plants (operating, shut down, etc.) on and off by using the check boxes at the bottom right. Multiple reactors are typically co-located, so you might not see them unless you deselect other categories. To learn more about a reactor, click on it to see its vital statistics, as well as a link to the World Nuclear Association, where you can find more facts about each. <br /> <br /> Click “Play” to watch how the global nuclear power industry has changed over time, with reactor startups and retired reactor shutdowns. <em>Note that while the timeline is playing, you cannot check or uncheck the boxes. </em> <br /> <br /> This data was last updated prior to the nuclear crisis at Japan's <a href="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html" target="_blank">Fukushima Daiichi</a> power plant. Since then a number of power plants have been shut down in Japan, and a few in Germany are also temporarily closed. <br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>Why did most countries stop building power plants in the 1990s and 2000s?</strong> <br /><br /> The table beneath the map tells a dramatic story: 391 reactors were built between 1970 and 1990, but only 92 were built between 1990 and 2010. In the United States, where 104 reactors currently provide electricity, only five reactors have been built since 1990. Why? <br /> <br /> Many point to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 (see <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/chernobyl-began-25-years-ago-and-still-hasnt-ended/" target="_blank">Mike Lemonick's story</a> on the fact that this event is still unfolding), and the <a href="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull215/21502795459.pdf" target="_blank">Three Mile Island Accident in 1979</a> as reasons that the public turned against nuclear power. Yet, in the United States, the nuclear industry was already slowing down before Three Mile Island. <br /> <br /> In the U.S., many orders for new nuclear power plants were cancelled in the late '70s and '80s largely because the costs of building plants were more expensive than coal or natural gas-fired power plants. One important reason that costs escalated was growing public opposition to building new plants, and unresolved safety and cost questions about radioactive waste disposal and plant decommissioning. These concerns increased legal costs and dramatically extended the time required to build a nuclear plant. Thus, construction <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/" target="_blank">costs escalated</a>. Another important reason is that the massive size of nuclear reactors and lack of standardization in technology required each power plant to be <a href="http://www.duke.edu/~cy42/US-CN-FR.pdf" target="_blank">more or less custom-built</a>. <br /> <br /> Europe’s drive to build nuclear power plants was largely spearheaded after the oil embargos of the 1970s, with France playing a major role — today France generates about sixty percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. New orders, though, fell off in the late 1980s for similar reasons as in the United States: high costs and public opposition. The Chernobyl accident, which resulted in radioactive fallout across Europe, further deepened public opposition. <br /> <br /> Today, China and India are the only countries pursuing nuclear power on a significant scale: India has plans for another <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps">18 power plants, and China has 110 in the pipeline</a>. It remains to be seen whether the costs of building nuclear reactors in these countries will be less than they were in the U.S., or whether the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima facility will scuttle plans for many of these plants. Some experts have been advocating for <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/small-modular-reactors-smaller-and-cheaper">small modular reactors</a> as a less costly way of generating nuclear power, but those have remained on the drawing board. <br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>How much carbon dioxide pollution have nuclear power plants avoided?</strong> <br /> <br /> If the few hundred nuclear reactors on the map had not been built, other power plants would likely have been constructed, the majority of which would have been powered by fossil fuels. How much carbon dioxide (CO2) would these plants have emitted? <br /> <br /> We can’t know for sure, but by using data from the map and making a few basic assumptions, we can get a rough estimate. The data includes the lifetime and generating capacity of every nuclear power plant that has ever been built. <br /> <br /> Today, nuclear power plants worldwide operate on average <a href="http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.factors3y.htm?faccve=EAF&facname=Energy%20Availability%20Factor&group=Country" target="_blank">about 80 percent of the time</a>. In earlier years, they were shut down for longer periods, with closer to a <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html" target="_blank">55 percent in service rate</a>. Given these operating percentages, let’s assume for estimation purposes that nuclear power plants throughout their entire history have operated on average at 70 percent of their capacity. In that case, the nuclear power industry globally has produced about 60 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity. <br /> <br /> If these power plants had not been built, let’s assume the electricity would have been generated instead from a mix of coal, natural gas, and hydropower in the proportions that these are used today (<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html" target="_blank">roughly 2:1:1</a>). Given how much CO2 these sources emit on average per kilowatt hour (<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1" target="_blank">natural gas: 907 grams of CO2; coal: 590 grams; hydropower: 0 grams</a>), we can estimate that each kilowatt-hour of nuclear power avoided about 600 grams of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. <br /><blockquote> That means that the nuclear industry has avoided emissions of about 40 billion tons of CO2. That is one third more CO2 than humans <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf" target="_blank">put into the atmosphere every year from burning fossil fuels</a>. It is also about one-twelfth of the cumulative CO2 people have added to the <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046270.shtml" target="_blank">atmosphere during the past 160 years</a> from burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum. This is a rough estimate, yet it shows that nuclear power has played a major role in lowering CO2 emissions. <br /></blockquote> <br /> <br /> The clear question for society — and one that is highly debated — is whether the risks and costs of nuclear power outweigh the industry’s significant potential to offset fossil fuels. <br /><br /> <strong>Map Data and Disclaimer</strong><br /> The data was obtained from the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/" target="_blank">World Nuclear Association’s online database</a>, which can be accessed from their website. Many countries have “planned” reactors that are not shown on this map. Furthermore, the location of some planned reactors, especially in China, is only approximate.</span>David Kroodsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160894484562610noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-68814853080679042412011-04-14T13:14:00.000-07:002011-04-14T13:23:09.943-07:00Election Season or Innovation Season?I'm reminded recently of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-k5J4RxQdE">Daffy Duck fighting with Bugs Bunny</a>, the duck demanding that it's Rabbit-Hunting Season and Bugs refuting that it's Duck Season. In this cartoonish analogy, President Obama is both Bugs and Daffy, in a shouting match with himself. It's either Investment Season or Election Season. It apparently can't be both.<br /><br />There's a reason <a href="http://atrembath.blogspot.com/">Energetics</a>' subline is "A blog on climate, energy and politics." As frustrating as it sometimes is, the pursuit and achievement of goals on the path towards decarbonization and a clean energy future depend heavily on the institutional intricacies set up by our political landscape. The political infrastructure in place establishes the ability of our nation to invest in our future. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/04/13/country-we-believe-improving-america-s-fiscal-future">President Obama's speech</a> at George Washington University yesterday illustrated this notion, and his stump speech that ostensibly kicked off his 2012 campaign was often inspiring in its liberalism and rhetorical embrace of <a href="innovation%20economics.">innovation economics</a>.<br /> <blockquote>The America I know is generous and compassionate. It’s a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future we share.<br /> ...<br /> I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs.</blockquote><span class="fullpost">In place of "jobs," the President could have easily said "a national infrastructure renovation" or "a clean energy economy." All three are true, but the politics of the game will probably guarantee that jobs are the key focus of his speeches from now until at least November 2012.<br /><br />Like Bugs vs. Daffy though, there is some trickery at play. The President is calling this moment Investment Season when it's shaping out to be anything but. The sweeping and not entirely insincere verbiage dedicated by the President to investing in a "future we want" is undercut by the recent budget debacle, where we see funds for innovation, science and research cut across the board. The Breakthrough Institute <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/04/budget_deal_cuts_innovation_in.shtml">crunches the thoroughly uninspiring numbers</a>, and while investments levels for FY2012 aren't quite as low as they would be if Congressional Republicans had their way, more often not the President and his allies came away on the losing end of the draw.<br /><br />I believe the President would be better served by a more ambitious agenda, one that aims to significantly increase investments in our nation's transportation grid, energy infrastructure, education and technological robustness. Indeed, I wish Obama would act exactly like he said he would in his <a href="http://atrembath.blogspot.com/2011/01/state-of-union-2011.html">2011 State of the Union</a> address. Instead, we have conflicting messaging coming from his podium. "Invest in our future" is sidelined by "live within our means" and calls for the government to tighten its belt like millions of families across the country. Economists agree this is a <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/4031113622">red herring</a> -- now is not the time to worry about the deficit, but instead a time to rebuild a nation whose citizens, infrastructure and resources will guide it out of debt in the future.<br /><br />The President is going to win next year. But a victory without a bold agenda will ill-serve the needs of an American economy desperately crying for the investments it's been robbed of for decades. Obama need not fret whether it's Investment Season or Election Season. It's both. Investing in America's future is good politics, and Obama's characteristically hopeful and progressive political rhetoric needs a policy backbone that seriously invests in the future we want. </span>Alex Trembathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14244231185679621202noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-76319092397321917652011-03-30T10:02:00.001-07:002011-05-07T12:09:15.238-07:00Interactive Maps: Worldwide Nuclear Power<em>Cross posted on <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/">Climate Central</a>.</em><br /><br />As the world continues to watch the <a href="http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html" target="_blank">crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant</a> unfold, many are asking what the repercussions will be for the future of nuclear power. First, though, we must understand the current state of the nuclear industry: Where are the world’s nuclear power plants located? How much electricity do these plants produce? How much more nuclear generating capacity is planned, and for where? <br /><br />The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/WEO2010_es_english.pdf" target="_blank">about 16 percent of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear power</a>, and that given pre-Fukushima plans, this percentage would stay roughly constant over the next two decades, barring any major changes in policy. <br /><br />The maps below, which come courtesy of <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/gamechangers/Game_Changers_for_Nuclear_Energy/The_implications_of_Fukushima.html" target="_blank">Katherine Marvel</a>, a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, show where the world’s nuclear reactors are presently located and how many more are planned. <strong>(Visit <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink">Climate Central to see the maps with full interactive capabilities</a>.).</strong> <br /><br /><strong>Number of Nuclear Reactors <br /></strong><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink"><img src = "http://rideforclimate.com/nukes/1.jpg" width="450"></a><br><br /><br /><strong>Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power <br /></strong><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink"><img src = "http://rideforclimate.com/nukes/2.jpg" width="450"></a><br><br /><br />Before Fukushima, there were 443 functioning nuclear power plants in the world. About 62 were under construction, and another 324 were in various stages of planning. (This data comes from the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html" target="_blank">World Nuclear Association</a>, a nuclear power advocacy organization). <br /><br />The world’s nuclear power is concentrated in a handful of countries: Of the world’s 192 countries, only 30 have nuclear power plants, and 75 percent of global nuclear generation is concentrated in just eight countries: The United States, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, India, the U.K., and Canada. Membership in the "nuclear power club," though, is set to expand considerably if current proposals come to fruition. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />The following eleven countries lack nuclear power today, but are planning to build or are building power plants: United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Turkey, Poland, Belarus, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Kazakhastan. Another eight countries: Israel, Italy, North Korea, Thailand, Lithuania, Chile, Italy, and Malaysia, have proposed to build power plants. <br /><br />Number of Nuclear Reactors Under Construction <br /><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink"><img src = "http://rideforclimate.com/nukes/3.jpg" width="450"></a><br /><br /><strong>Number of Nuclear Reactors Planned</strong> <br /><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink"><img src = "http://rideforclimate.com/nukes/4.jpg" width="450"></a><br /><br /><strong>Number of Nuclear Reactors Proposed </strong><br /><a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/nuclear-maps/" target="_hplink"><img src = "http://rideforclimate.com/nukes/5.jpg" width="450"></a> <br /><ul> <li> <em>Operating = Connected to the grid.</em></li> <li> <em>Under Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way.</em></li> <li> <em>Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8-10 years.</em></li> <li> <em>Proposed = Specific program or site proposals, expected operation mostly within 15 years. </em></li> </ul> <br /><br />Another fact shown by the graphics is that although many countries have proposed or are planning to construct nuclear power plants, only China is aggressively building them — they have proposed 110 and are building 27. By comparison, the United States has 23 proposed reactors, but only one is under construction. And that single reactor, which is located in southern Tennessee, was begun in the 1980s, put on hold for 20 years, and is only now being completed. <br /><br />The disparity between planned power plants and plants under construction raises the question of how many of these proposed plants will actually be built. Also, the expansion of nuclear power to new countries raises issues related to nuclear proliferation — the technology to build certain nuclear power plants could be used to make nuclear weapons with relative ease. And what these maps do not show is what would be built instead of these nuclear plants, should they not move forward. In place of nuclear power, will these countries invest in coal, natural gas, hydropower, solar, or wind energy? <br /><br />Answering these questions will require continued work to balance the benefits and risks of nuclear energy against the growing energy demands of society.</span class="fullpost">David Kroodsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160894484562610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-58606031050199929662011-03-28T17:25:00.000-07:002011-03-28T17:32:23.342-07:00WattHead's Jesse Jenkins on NPR: Nuclear as Usual<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/npr.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2010/03/npr.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>WattHead.org Founder and Chief Editor and <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org">Breakthrough Institute</a> Director of Climate and Energy Policy Jesse Jenkins was on <em>NPR's</em> <em><a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/03/27/134899212/Energy-Think-Tank-Nuclears-Future-Is-OK?ft=1&f=10&sc=17">Weekend Edition</a></em> this past Sunday discussing Japan's nuclear crisis and what it means for the future of nuclear power. <br /><br />The interview touched on many of the issues that were the subject of a recent <em><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/nuclear-as-usual-why-fukushima-will-change-less-than-you-think/72913/">Atlantic Monthly</em> article</a> co-authored by Jenkins and Breakthrough Institute co-founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. <br /><br />Here is an excerpt of that article: <br /><blockquote>[L]ost in the hyperbolic claims of nuclear opponents, the defensive reactions of the nuclear industry, and the carefully calibrated repositioning of politicians and policymakers is the reality that Fukushima is unlikely to much change the basic political economy of nuclear power. Wealthy, developed economies, with relatively flat energy growth and mature energy infrastructure haven't built a lot of nuclear in decades and were unlikely to build much more anytime soon, even before the Fukushima accident. The nuclear renaissance, such as it is, has been occurring in the developing world, where fast growing, modernizing economies need as much new energy generation as possible and where China and India alone have constructed dozens of new plants, with many more on the drawing board.</blockquote> <span class="fullpost"><blockquote>Absent Fukushima, developed world economies were not going to build much new nuclear power anytime soon. The deliberations in Germany have involved whether to retire old plants or extend their lifetimes, not whether to build new plants. The decade long effort to restart the U.S. nuclear industry may result in the construction of, at most, two new plants over the next decade.<br /><br />By contrast, even a much more serious accident would have been unlikely to delay the construction of new nuclear plants in the developing world for long. For major emerging economies like China and India, energy is still too scarce and expensive for much of their populations and economies and they will likely continue to build new nuclear plants as fast as they can in the coming decades.<br /><br />In the end, what it all looks like is business as usual, for nukes specifically and the global energy economy more generally. Despite the claims of proponents, present day renewables remain too expensive and undependable for any economy in the world to rely upon at significant scale. So Germany, despite its vaunted solar feed in tariffs, will rely more heavily upon coal, which it has in abundance, as it retires its aging nuclear fleet. The US, already in the midst of a natural gas boom, will use more gas. And China and India, desperate for every kilowatt of power they can produce, will develop every available energy resource they have as fast as they can, including nuclear.</blockquote>Jenkins also appeared on <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42311635#42311635"><em>MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show</em></a> at 1:40 PM PST/ 4:40 PM EST today to discuss nuclear power and the situation in Japan. Here's the clip:<br /><br /><object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc91208e" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=42311635&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc91208e" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=42311635&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p><br /></span>Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-43341179627557985642011-03-16T11:41:00.000-07:002011-03-28T17:34:49.074-07:00Exploring Earthquake Risks to US Nuclear Power Plants<em>Cross posted on <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/nukes-and-quakes/">Climate Central</a>.</em><br /><br />This click-able map shows the 104 active nuclear reactors in the Lower-48 states, overlaid with both recent earthquakes and the <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/10_largest_us.php" target="_hplink">15 strongest earthquakes</a> in the region's history. Note that the most powerful earthquake on record, estimated to have measured 9.0 on the Richter scale, shook the Pacific Northwest back in 1700. You can click on each power plant to obtain more information about it, including the type of reactor design.<br /><br />The second (static) map shows the earthquake risk as measured by "<a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/" target="_hplink">Peak Ground Acceleration</a>" or PGA. During an earthquake, the ground shakes back and forth, and the damage is roughly proportional to the ground's maximum acceleration. The map shows the two percent likelihood that the PGA will exceed the shown values in the next 50 years. <br /><br /><em>Explore the maps, and read on for additional details below.</em><br /><br /><a href = "http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/nukes-and-quakes/"><img width=450 src="http://rideforclimate.com/tmp/map-quakes.jpg"></a><br /><a href = "http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/nukes-and-quakes/"><img width=450 src="http://rideforclimate.com/tmp/PGA.jpg"></a><li></li><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />The nuclear crisis following the disastrous 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan continues, and it's raising broader questions about nuclear safety both in and outside of Japan. Many Americans now are asking how vulnerable our country's nuclear facilities are to natural disasters, particularly earthquakes. <br /><br />Of the reactors in the U.S., about one third of them are boiling water reactors, using the same technology as the Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan. In addition, there are eight nuclear facilities located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are on seismically active areas around the country.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly, most of the earthquakes in the contiguous U.S. have occurred in California. But three of the most powerful 15 quakes occurred in Missouri, and another took place in South Carolina. And the strongest ever recorded, estimated to have measured magnitude 9.0, shook the Pacific Northwest back in 1700.<br /><br />The bottom map above shows the earthquake risk as measured by "<a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/" target="_hplink">Peak Ground Acceleration</a>", or PGA. During an earthquake, the ground shakes back and forth, and the damage is roughly proportional to the ground's maximum acceleration. The map shows the two percent likelihood that the PGA will exceed the shown values in the next 50 years.<br /><br />In other words, if the map shows that the PGA is 1.0g for a given spot (say, southeast Missouri), that means there is a two percent chance that the peak ground acceleration will be greater than 1.0g at some point in the next 50 years. PGA is measured in "g," with one g being how quickly an object accelerates in free fall (you can also think about "pulling Gs," as in a fighter plane).<br /><br />The PGA risk is what is typically used to set building codes. Most nuclear power plants are designed to operate under 0.2g PGA, and automatically shut off if the PGA exceeds 0.2g. However, they can withstand a PGA many <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf18.html" target="_hplink">times larger than that</a>.<br /><br />The magnitude scale is a measure of the total energy an earthquake releases. This is related to, but not directly proportional to the PGA. For instance, the recent earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, recorded a deadly PGA of 2.2g, even though it was "only" a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, while a recent earthquake in Chile, which measured 8.8 magnitude, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration" target="_hplink">recorded an acceleration of 0.78g</a>.<br /><br />If you click on the nuclear power plants on the map at the top, you can see what the 50-year two-percent likelihood PGA is for each power plant.<br /><br />The following nuclear power plants have a two percent or greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years:<br /><br /><li>Diablo Canyon, Calif.</li><br /><li>San Onofre, Calif.</li><br /><li>Sequoyah, Tenn.</li><br /><li>H.B. Robinson, SC.</li><br /><li>Watts Bar, Tenn.</li><br /><li>Virgil C. Summer, SC.</li><br /><li>Vogtle, GA.</li><br /><li>Indian Point, NY.</li><br /><li>Oconee, SC.</li><br /><li>Seabrook, NH.</li><br /><br />As the unfolding situation in Japan has demonstrated, ground acceleration is only one concern. In fact, the Fukushima reactor -- which is protected by a thick casing of concrete designed to withstand even a plane crash -- was built to survive an earthquake like the one Japan just experienced, and the peak ground acceleration at the plant on March 11 measured only 0.18g, <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/03/110314-japan-nuclear-power-plant-disaster/" target="_hplink">according to one report</a>. The safety of nuclear reactor design is addressed by "defense in depth," which means multiple back-up systems are installed as precautionary measures. If one safety measure fails, there are several others in place to prevent a nuclear emergency. The Fukushima complex was evidently not sufficiently prepared for the combination of an earthquake and a massive tsunami, and when the waves crashed around the power plant, the cooling system failed, leading to a cascade of problems. Some claim that the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html" target="_hplink">reactor design</a> is partially to blame, as well. Whether the events at Fukushima will reveal systemic problems at other plants remains to be seen, but it certainly highlights the need to be somewhat imaginative when planning for the worst-case scenario.<br /><br />The bottom line is that a major earthquake would probably not result in a nuclear meltdown at the reactors on the above map, but it could present significant engineering challenges. Quantifying the risks, and minimizing them as much as possible, is a key task for everyone involved in the nuclear energy industry. <br /><br /><em>Alyson Kenward contributed reporting to this article.</em></span>David Kroodsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160894484562610noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-2144523807320714432011-03-11T13:32:00.000-08:002011-03-11T13:35:25.058-08:00A Roadmap for America's Energy Future? Hardly<div class="body"> <div class="inner"> <p>For the second time in eight months, a coalition led by California Rep. Devin Nunes has proposed their <a href="http://www.nunes.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7cbffe7f-19b9-b4b1-12cf-a42fecc5649c&Region_id=&Issue_id=" target="_blank">Roadmap for America’s Energy Future (H.R. 909)</a>. The plan, introduced in the House last week, is advertised as a set of “comprehensive and forward thinking initiatives designed to address both the short and long-term energy needs of the United States.” Nunes and company deserve some credit for trying to straddle the market-and-drilling approach on the right with the green-deployment-now approach on the left; but, calling it a comprehensive energy policy solution? Far from it: the plan would do little more than drive fossil fuel development with some marginal progress on nuclear and renewables, while generally ignoring the need to drive innovation in the energy sector.</p><p> First, the key components: the bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer continental shelf (OCS) to drilling for oil & gas, codifying the aggressive five-year leasing program (<a href="http://www.boemre.gov/5-year/PDFs/2010-2015/DPP%20FINAL%20%28HQPrint%20with%20landscape%20maps,%20map%2010%29.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a>) proposed, quite literally, during the Bush Administration’s waning hours. It would also restore Bush Administration plans to open roughly 2 million acres of western lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to oil shale development, which were suspended by the Obama Administration, much like the OCS drilling program. The bill would then deposit the federal revenues gained from leasing royalties — generally 12.5 percent or 16.7 percent of the value of the lease, depending on location and water depth — in a new “American-Made Energy Trust Fund” establish within the Treasury Department. These funds would, in turn, be used to carry out a series of reverse auctions for renewable energy: contracts would be awarded to those generators who could produce megawatts at the lowest cost, multiple times a year and in different regions.</p><p> On nuclear, the bill takes several steps. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would be required to issue 200 new permits by 2040, and to finish consideration of Yucca Mountain or find an alternative site within a year. The bill attempts to streamline the licensing process, establishes a national nuclear council, and opens the door to increased funding for <a href="http://www.innovationpolicy.org/the-nuclear-energy-game-changer-thoughts-afte" target="_blank">small modular reactors (SMRs)</a> and spent fuel recycling, among other things. Lastly, the bill would direct the Defense Department to move forward on <a href="http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/" target="_blank">coal-to-liquid fuel technology</a>. </p><p> The real goal of any “comprehensive” energy policy must be to efficiently drive the clean energy transformation, simply put. This is best achieved through aggressive investment and support for energy innovation from lab to market, with the end goal of delivering affordable technology. The Roadmap’s sponsors take a worthwhile stab at this goal through the renewable energy reverse-auction idea. It’s an appealing premise: whereas production tax credits from clean power offer a flat subsidy per unit of energy produced, a reverse auction — with DOE as the demanding buyer and renewable generators as the striving sellers — can award contracts to those power producers who are able to achieve the best performance, each year. That means a built-in competition mechanism, forcing companies to compete against one another. And it sets limits on awards per source and per size, which means contracts wouldn’t be the exclusive domain of any one (or two) cheap technologies or biased in favor of large producers, ensuring an open field. As an incentive to help drive continual technical improvements in existing technology, it seems solid.</p><p> Beyond the auction, the plan also takes some decent first steps on innovation in the nuclear space, specifically on SMRs. The NRC does need to increase its manpower and resources devoted to assessing SMRs, a promising next step in nuclear technology, and while the bill guarantees nothing in terms of funding, it nevertheless acknowledges the problem. And some future reactor designs will run on spent fuel, so requiring NRC to pursue rulemaking on spent fuel recycling in the next two years is a good step forward.</p><p> But beyond these measures, there’s not much else to recommend it. There’s zero investment in the building blocks of innovation: no R&D support or tax credits, no public-private partnerships to develop energy gamechangers, no mention of manufacturing. This is a real shame, given that Nunes and company have devised what could be a sizeable fixed revenue stream for investment via drilling royalties. Revenues should theoretically reach tens of billions per year — well within the range of investment <a href="http://energyinnovation.us/data/analysis/gaps-analysis/" target="_blank">most experts say</a> we need. The reverse auction is a nice idea for back-end competitive market creation to drive down costs of existing technology, but without investing in front-end development to achieve big breakthroughs in new technology — especially technologies too risky for a risk-averse private sector — you’re not really solving the problem and filling the critical innovation gaps. Radical new technologies will naturally be more expensive than existing, deployed technology at first, so you have to be careful about crowding them out.</p><p> About that revenue stream: the truth is, while a carbon tax would undoubtedly be a better source of revenue, clean energy advocates might want to at least give drilling royalties a look, counterintuitive as it may be. Expanded drilling is probably more likely to pass Congress than a decent carbon tax at this point. With the recent <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html" target="_blank">run-up</a> in gas prices, the typically short-sighted chorus for expanded production has already started.</p><p> In fact, using expanded drilling royalties to fund a clean energy revolution might be the single best argument for opening up federal lands and waters...not that there are many other good ones. If the goal of national energy policy were to promote prolonged fossil fuel use without having a meaningful impact on petroleum prices, the bill could succeed wildly. The Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) has <a href="http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/ResourceAssessment.htm" target="_blank">estimated</a> the existence of roughly 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the OCS, and the USGS <a href="http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/anwr.html" target="_blank">says</a> there are 10 billion barrels in ANWR. The real mother lode, however, is western oil shale: the U.S. easily holds the largest reserves in the world, and could yield <a href="http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/" target="_blank">800 billion recoverable barrels or more</a>, assuming any commercialization challenges could be met.</p><p> Given that the country consumes around 19 million barrels per day, these appear to be large sums…except when one considers production ceilings. RAND <a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG414.html" target="_blank">has said</a> it could take decades to achieve even three million barrels per day from the oil shale deposits; the president of Chevron <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-p-luquette/deciding-today-on-energy_b_467943.html" target="_blank">has said</a> we might see 1 million barrels per day from the OCS; and EIA <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html" target="_blank">has estimated</a> similar sums from ANWR, eventually. So we realistically might see, what, a 5 million barrel-per-day boost in 10-20 years? The idea that global oil prices will somehow be restrained by expanded domestic drilling anytime soon is sublimely stupid. And this doesn’t even get into the emissions question.</p><p> All drilling does is expand the long-term availability of fossil fuel sources, which is not what we should be doing – so if we do drill more in the near future, it just means we need to be that much more aggressive in developing viable clean alternatives. Which, unfortunately, the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future doesn’t really do. Nunes and company get credit for a couple innovative proposals, but they’ll need to do a lot more if this is to be considered anything like “comprehensive.”</p><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Originally posted at ITIF's <a href="http://www.innovationpolicy.org/a-roadmap-for-americas-energy-future-hardly">Innovation Policy Blog</a>.</span><br /></p> </div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-1824540980705117982011-03-10T06:52:00.000-08:002011-03-10T11:31:11.272-08:00The Nuclear Energy Game Changer? Thoughts After the NRC Regulatory Information Conference<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://online.wsj.com/media/wsj_BABYNUKEa100217.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 270px;" src="http://online.wsj.com/media/wsj_BABYNUKEa100217.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><div class="MsoNormal"><em>By Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst, ITIF </em></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">There is a growing chorus of experts, businesses, and public sector leaders espousing for one key clean technology: small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). And the reason is clear. These next generation advances in nuclear energy may be – dare I say – a silver bullet energy solution that <a href="http://content.thirdway.org/publications/340/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Thinking_Small_On_Nuclear_Power.pdf">transforms electricity generation</a>, provides the military with an <a href="http://www.itif.org/events/operation-energy-innovation-stronger-smarter-fighting-force">independent and more secure energy source</a>, and offers <a href="http://content.thirdway.org/publications/340/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_Thinking_Small_On_Nuclear_Power.pdf">industries</a> a low-carbon energy alternative. And like other clean technologies, and maybe even more so, SMRs require significant federal support to make them a viable clean energy option.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The significant up-front capital cost and decade-long development time for licensing and constructing large power plants has renewed interest in smaller nuclear options in recent years. In response, <a href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-262.pdf">nearly 60 SMR</a> designs have been proposed worldwide, though none have been deployed. Their <a href="http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/policybrief/small-reactor-development-advances-energy-environmental-benefits-in-new-markets">main selling points</a>: reduced cost, customizability, safety, less nuclear waste, and long power generation lifetimes without refueling (table below). </div><span class="fullpost"><br /><a title="View SMR_Benefits on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/50451530/SMR-Benefits" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">SMR_Benefits</a> <object id="doc_45495" name="doc_45495" height="600" width="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" > <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"><param name="wmode" value="opaque"><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=50451530&access_key=key-56l31u114hxc3dwjjaa&page=1&viewMode=list"><embed id="doc_45495" name="doc_45495" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=50451530&access_key=key-56l31u114hxc3dwjjaa&page=1&viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="600" width="100%" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed> </object><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Currently, <a href="http://www.nuclearinfrastructure.org/resources/DOE_Small_Modular_Reactors_Program_Dick_Black.pdf">two broad design categories</a> have emerged. Light water reactor (LWR) SMRs are similar to scaled down versions of current large nuclear power plants. LWR-SMRs range between 200-300 megawatts and are aimed at providing new baseload capacity or act as a replacement for retiring coal power plants with a 4 to 5 year fuel replacement cycle. LWR-SMRs are also closest to deployment. The first demonstration project – the mPower LWR by Babcock and Wilcox - is set to take place at the <a href="http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/clinch-river.html">Clinch River Site</a> by the Tennessee Valley Authority.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The second category is advanced SMRs, otherwise called fast-reactors or high temperature gas-cooled reactors. These designs are at an earlier stage of development because of their use of untested coolant system designs and more highly enriched fissionable material than presently regulated plants. But these reactors offer the prospect of much longer refueling lifetimes, often in excess of 10 years, and more flexible site locations, because many don’t use water for cooling.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">So, while “silver bullet” may be too strong of a statement – SMRs don’t solve <i>all </i>our clean energy needs - the potential benefits of SMRs are significant and the key to realizing these benefits comes down to creating a cohesive national clean energy policy to innovate through a <a href="http://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-07.html">number of technological barriers</a>. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. This week was the 23<sup>rd</sup> Annual Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Conference that brought together hundreds of nuclear energy leaders from industry and government to talk all things nuclear. The hottest topic? SMRs. The clear message? Industry and government leaders are ready to move forward in developing new small reactors as soon as policy makers give the green light.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In his opening <a href="http://nuclearstreet.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-00-34/3755.Jaczko_5F00_remarks.pdf">conference speech</a>, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko <a href="http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2011/03/08/20">remarked</a> that his agency will be taking the first steps in licensing new SMRs by announcing that, “[the NRC] may take final action on three design certification rules for new [LWR-SMR] reactors as early as this summer, and conduct the first mandatory hearing on a new reactor license since the 1970s.” Department of Energy’s Director for Advanced Reactor Design Sal Golub presented that the goal of his office is to “license and deploy LWR-SMRs by 2020.” The President proposed in both his 2011 and 2012 budgets to create a nearly <a href="http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2012_SMR_Factsheet_final.pdf">$100 million SMR program</a> within the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy that would focus on deploying LWR-SMRs as well as perform much needed advanced SMR RD&D. And bipartisan group of Senators have recently <a href="http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2011/03/09/7">proposed a bill</a> designed to speed up the deployment of SMRs.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But there is an immediate policy barrier: the <a href="http://www.innovationpolicy.org/presidents-2012-budget-proposal-white-house-p">federal clean energy innovation budget</a>. While Congress debates how best to reduce the federal budget deficit, clean energy innovation is in the unfortunate position of being a <a href="http://www.innovationpolicy.org/the-fierce-urgency-of-now-notes-from-the-arpa">prime target</a>. Like other emerging clean technologies, reducing or eliminating support for SMRs could effectively set back the United States nuclear industry by decades. NRC Chairman Jaczko <a href="http://nuclearstreet.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-00-34/3755.Jaczko_5F00_remarks.pdf">stated firmly</a> that possible budget issues require, “…<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">tough choices…because if everything is a high priority then nothing is.” Essentially, </span>if the NRC budget is slashed, its staff would have to focus on the 44 large reactor applications it is currently reviewing and not be able to more quickly attend to licensing first-of-kind SMR designs. The same budget decisions would have to be made by DOE if their proposed SMR program is not funded. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And the stakes are high for policy makers to “get it right” on clean energy innovation policy. Presently, </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/russia-launches-floating-nuclear-power-plant">Russia</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> is preparing to deploy the world’s first electricity generating SMRs and </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/Small-Nuclear-Reactor-Concept-Goes-Underwater_3457.html">France</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> has quickly progressed in developing their own SMR designs. In fact, the majority of SMR designs aren’t being developed in the United States and many U.S. nuclear technology companies are </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/hyperion-to-team-with-british-greek-firms-in-developing-a-nuclear-powered-tanker/">looking</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> to </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/despite-small-reactor-optimism-industry-leaders-wonder-if-they-can-run-the-nrc-gantlet/">foreign countries</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> to </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/debate-of-the-week-can-the-us-compete-globally-on-the-smr-playing-field/">deploy their technology</a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">. Whether this possible clean energy game changer has an impact environmentally and economically in the United States is up to policy makers because everyone else is waiting.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-28737778155271983822011-03-09T15:30:00.000-08:002011-03-09T15:44:37.656-08:00Senate Democrats Propose Across-the-Board Cuts in Energy Innovation BudgetsIn the latest in DC's battle over the federal budget, the Senate Democrats released on Friday their plan to fund the government through FY2011, which would make substantial cuts in federal energy innovation across DOE agencies. <br /><br />While ultimately keeping energy innovation-related spending at a higher level than would the House's Continuing Resolution (CR) (passed two weeks ago), the Senate's plan decreases budgets for each of the DOE's offices involved in energy-innovation as compared to FY2010 appropriations, in sharp contrast to the proposed increases for energy innovation related spending through President Obama's proposed FY2012 budget.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvOaXAKDeluFs7JZD8TJiiQBZe2Dnd-YmK8SSrWpjsyV3cNN05SS9RabItdMq7TEq91NSZQ1ufgxaEyKLbJuol2jHvFo6nVUSUJaqyCL2LSEBoqIXfrDbQ7UD0imY6sPCwYMZN/s1600/ChartTotalBudget.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 218px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvOaXAKDeluFs7JZD8TJiiQBZe2Dnd-YmK8SSrWpjsyV3cNN05SS9RabItdMq7TEq91NSZQ1ufgxaEyKLbJuol2jHvFo6nVUSUJaqyCL2LSEBoqIXfrDbQ7UD0imY6sPCwYMZN/s320/ChartTotalBudget.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582229048989956914" /></a><small> (click to enlarge)<br />*ARPA-E received $400 million in ARRA funding, to be spent over FY2009 and FY2010, or $200 million per year on average. No additional funding was provided for the agency in regular FY2010 appropriations.<br />**The estimates for Fossil Energy R&D used in this post refer solely to the Fossil Energy R&D program, rather than Fossil Energy Program as a whole, as Fossil Energy R&D is where energy innovation investments are concentrated.<br />***For exact figures, see chart at the end of this post.</small><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Overall, the plan would cut over $800 million from the overall budgets of key DOE agencies engaged in energy innovation, relative to FY2010 levels (see Graphic 1/Table 1). Below, we estimate the impact on direct energy innovation investments that would result from these cuts. (Graphic 2/Table 2). We find that the overall budget cuts would strip at least $332 million in energy-innovation specific investments from these DOE agencies relative to FY2010 levels.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaSsY1WoyPPiRmOwBqFbSmI7tVZs5neH8YBt7_M_jvfUuJIi6Qho_1Mi5VazZpepqJFJe-4HhHjTfQp1Wm4457ku7Rwnfy3aFnKPfNwS7anUU-S01qCwXvF5QCibTHlDVa6ON9/s1600/InnovationBudgetChart.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 218px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaSsY1WoyPPiRmOwBqFbSmI7tVZs5neH8YBt7_M_jvfUuJIi6Qho_1Mi5VazZpepqJFJe-4HhHjTfQp1Wm4457ku7Rwnfy3aFnKPfNwS7anUU-S01qCwXvF5QCibTHlDVa6ON9/s320/InnovationBudgetChart.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582229200196310930" /></a><br /><small>(click to enlarge)<br />*Calculations for share of FY11 House and Senate CR budgets devoted to energy innovation for the Fossil Energy R&D program are estimates based off of proportion of 2010 Fossil Energy R&D budget devoted to energy innovation projects. However, calculations for share of the FY12 Obama Administration's proposed budget for Fossil Energy R&D differed, as the Administration stated throughout the proposed budget its goal of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and proportions of total budget devoted to energy innovation are expected to change accordingly. For an explanation of the calculation used to estimate that number, see this <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">post</a>.<br />**See <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">here</a> for details on methodology used to estimate energy-innovation proportions of office budgets.<br />***For exact figures, see chart at the end of this post.</small><br /><br />The largest of these cuts would come from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is engaged in the research, development, demonstration and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and whose energy innovation budget would be decreased by approximately $152 million. The Office of Science (OS), too, would see an energy innovation budgetary decrease of $55 million from FY2010, and the Office of Nuclear Energy's energy innovation investments would decrease by $81 million. <br /><br />This plan is merely a starting point as the House and Senate gear up for negotiations with the White House over how to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. However, this presents a worrisome development for energy innovation investments, as the opening positions of both <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/house_gops_proposed_continuing.shtml">chambers of Congress</a> now embrace across-the-board cuts in energy innovation investments. Senate Democrats appear poised to abandon the <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">Obama Administration's efforts</a> to preserve or enhance critical national investments in energy innovation, and as the House and Senate close the gap between their two proposals, more cuts may be forthcoming. <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOGTFz-UjY94_EEyPs0yhP9LNlRs3MRO5PbQnq2RElFIT9OiT-d6CTyxpPFf3L01Z_-8PY57z9TnnVCyQlJ9OOSV3TMpxY04qpdHJFjpf8LtIyJ00T8sLrBO23wBL4DK0AZriR/s1600/Table1.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 76px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOGTFz-UjY94_EEyPs0yhP9LNlRs3MRO5PbQnq2RElFIT9OiT-d6CTyxpPFf3L01Z_-8PY57z9TnnVCyQlJ9OOSV3TMpxY04qpdHJFjpf8LtIyJ00T8sLrBO23wBL4DK0AZriR/s320/Table1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582229773161598754" /></a><small>(click to enlarge)<br />*ARPA-E received $400 million in ARRA funding, to be spent over FY2009 and FY2010, or $200 million per year on average. No additional funding was provided for the agency in regular FY2010 appropriations.</small><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIGASSlL3_KXv6gBPIFcFG_z0fUccP1iOrPdtFtlOEbsSEhdljYJagNTnpxpSnwYt0slmnPVA_eXkrSp_YEoWtoCBcKasg6GM0RNBlxe_-VfLyYcvydn5PJMRo2MONZIeCmnUL/s1600/Table2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 86px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIGASSlL3_KXv6gBPIFcFG_z0fUccP1iOrPdtFtlOEbsSEhdljYJagNTnpxpSnwYt0slmnPVA_eXkrSp_YEoWtoCBcKasg6GM0RNBlxe_-VfLyYcvydn5PJMRo2MONZIeCmnUL/s320/Table2.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582229916666615282" /></a><small>(click to enlarge)<br />*Calculations for share of FY11 House and Senate CR budgets devoted to energy innovation for the Fossil Energy R&D program are estimates based off of proportion of 2010 Fossil Energy R&D budget devoted to energy innovation projects. However, calculations for share of the FY12 Obama Administration's proposed budget for Fossil Energy R&D differed, as the Administration stated throughout the proposed budget its goal of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and proportions of total budget devoted to energy innovation are expected to change accordingly. For an explanation of the calculation used to estimate that number, see this <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">post</a>.<br />**See <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">here</a> for details on methodology used to estimate energy-innovation proportions of office budgets.</small><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-13406213398350012712011-03-04T09:28:00.000-08:002011-03-09T15:20:03.010-08:00Climate Science Roundup<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/uploads/breaking/blog_alyson_bulbs-330x220.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 260px;" src="http://www.climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/uploads/breaking/blog_alyson_bulbs-330x220.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><em>Cross posted on <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/weekly-climate-science-roundup-feb-22-to-28/">Climate Central</a>.</em><br /><br />Welcome to Climate Central's weekly science round up. Among last week’s noteworthy research papers were an investigation of over-estimating improved energy efficiency, a look at how the allergy season is growing longer, and a study of the history—and future—of drought in the American southwest. Also published last week were a pair of studies on heavy rain (over North America and Hawaii) and a review of California's changing temperature trends.<br /><br />These studies, and a number of others, published between February 22<sup>nd</sup> and 28<sup>th</sup> are summarized here:<b> </b><br /><br /><strong>Paper Title: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-527N8N7-1&_user=492137&_coverDate=02/23/2011&_rdoc=13&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235713%239999%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23display%23Artic" target="_blank">Modifying the rebound: It depends! Explaining mobility behavior on the basis of the German socio-economic panel</a><br />Journal: <i>Energy Policy</i><br />Authors: Wenzel Matiaskea, Roland Mengesb, and Martin Spiessc</strong><br /><i>The Gist: </i>This paper investigates the “rebound effect" — the idea that if consumers replace old products with more energy efficient ones, they won’t save as much energy as expected because they will actually use some of their extra savings to buy more energy. For instance, the rebound effect says if lighting is more efficient (and thus cheaper) consumers might end up using more lighting in their homes. People would probably still use less electricity than they did originally, but they wouldn’t have “saved” as much energy as anticipated by simple calculations. This new study concludes that in Germany (where the research was done), consumers who purchase more efficient cars drive more miles, but only up to a point. In this case, the rebound effect is strongest for users switching from low-efficiency cars to medium-efficiency cars, but it disappears with cars that get about 30 miles to the gallon. More generally, the “rebound effect” has recently been discussed by <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_owen" target="_blank">The New Yorker</a>, <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/01/six_misconceptions_about_rebou.shtml" target="_blank">The Breakthrough Institute</a>, and <a href="http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-01_ReplyToNewYorker" target="_blank">Rocky Mountain Institute</a>.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><strong>Paper Title: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09670.html" target="_blank">Climate change and evolutionary adaptation</a><br />Journal: <i>Nature</i><br />Authors: Ary A. Hoffmann and Carla M. Sgro</strong> <br /><i>The Gist:</i> Some plant and animal species — especially those with short life spans and large populations — will adapt to climate change through natural selection and evolution. In fact, some species, such as mosquitoes, which have short life spans and can thus adapt quickly, have already “evolved” due to climate change. Scientists have <a href="http://pages.uoregon.edu/mosquito/reprints/bradshaw_science2006.pdf" target="_blank">shown</a> that warmer temperatures have caused the genetics of some mosquito populations to change. This particular study suggests improved ways to model how different species will adapt to global warming, taking into account their ability to evolve relatively quickly.<br /><br /><strong>Paper Title: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09839.html" target="_blank">Extended megadroughts in the southwestern United States during Pleistocene interglacials</a><br />Journal: <i>Nature</i><br />Authors: Peter J. Fawcett and 18 others</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: By studying sediments in New Mexico, these researchers estimated precipitation and temperature in the region for the period between about 370,000 and 550,000 years ago. Why is does this past climate matter? The researchers found that during the warmest times of that period — which might have been slightly warmer than today — the region experienced extreme drought. Most climate models predict that the U.S. southwest will experience severe drought as the planet warms. This new study shows this type of “permanent dust bowl” could develop in the future because it happened in the past. The <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/a-future-mega-drought-in-the-southwest/" target="_blank">New York Times</a> offered a nice summary of this research earlier in the week. And in the journal <i>PNAS </i>this week, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/16/1014947108.abstract" target="_blank">another study examined</a> how a drier Southwest could increase wind erosion as the vegetation changes in response to drought.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jobgarcia/" target="_blank"><img style="float: left; margin:10px" src="http://climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/uploads/breaking/blog_alyson_venice-290x194.jpg" width="290" height="193" alt="" /></a><strong>Paper Title: <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6q0um8464497127/" target="_blank">The identification of distinct patterns in California temperature trends</a><br />Journal: <i>Climatic Change</i><br />Authors: Eugene C. Cordero. Wittaya Kessomkiat, John Abatzoglou, Steven A. Mauge</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: Analyzing 80 years worth of climate data in California, this study finds some interesting results: the average daily low temperature warmed more than twice as much as the average daily high (a warming of 1.36°C versus 0.56°C over 80 years). The researchers did not study why these trends have evolved differently over time but they say the discrepancy is a sign that there are probably many different factors influencing how temperatures are changing in the region.<br /><br /><strong> Paper Title: <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046258.shtml" target="_blank">Influence of hurricane-related activity on North American extreme precipitation</a><br />Journal: <i>Geophysical Research Letters</i><br />Author: Mathew Barlow</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: Last week <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/human-connection-to-precipitation-extremes-studies-say/" target="_blank">we reported</a> on a series of papers that provide evidence climate change has probably already increased the amount of rain falling in big storms. This week, a new paper looks at heavy rainstorms specifically in North America, finding that for locations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, hurricanes account for a disproportionate number of the storms with heavy rainfall. How hurricanes respond to climate change — which is still uncertain — will determine the future of heavy rainstorms in these areas and this topic is now being heavily researched.<br /><br /><strong>Paper Title: <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD014923.shtml" target="_blank">Projection of changes in the frequency of heavy rain events over Hawaii based on leading Pacific climate modes</a><br />Journal: <i>Journal of Geophysical Research</i><br />Authors: O. Elison Timm, H. F. Diaz, T. W. Giambelluca, M. Takahashi</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: Climate change is expected to increase heavy rainfall, on average, across the globe. But will every place experience stronger storms? Because there are so many factors that influence regional rainfall, including temperature, humidity and larger climate oscillations like El Niño, more localized studies can offer more insight to this question. This study examines projections for rainfall in Hawaii and finds that climate models don’t show a major change in number of days with heavy rain. This estimate, though, is highly uncertain because currently climate models don’t agree on how rainfall will change in that region.<br /><br /><strong> Paper Title: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/11/1014107108.abstract" target="_blank">Recent warming by latitude associated with increased length of ragweed pollen season in central North America</a><br />Journal: <i>PNAS</i><br />Authors: Lewis Ziskaa and 19 others</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: Global warming is lengthening the ragweed pollen season, and this trend is especially evident in northern areas. Within the northern U.S. (northward of Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont, for example) the pollen season has increased between 13 and 27 days since 1995. Last week, Climate Central provided a more i<a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/allergy-season-is-extending-scientists-find/" target="_blank">n depth summary</a> of this article. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whertha/"><img style="float: left; margin:10px" src="http://climatecentral.org/images/sized/images/uploads/breaking/blog_alyson_ragweed-330x248.jpg" width="330" height="248" alt="" /></a><strong> Paper Title: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/02/23/1015078108.abstract" target="_blank">Climate change risks for African agriculture</a><br />Journal: <i>PNAS</i><br />Authors: Christoph Müllera, Wolfgang Cramera, William L. Harea, and Hermann Lotze-Campena</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: This paper surveys recent studies of how climate change could affect agriculture in Africa and finds there is wide disagreement. Some research says crop yields will generally increase across the African continent but others say yields will decrease. The range is broad because not only are modelers trying to predict how greenhouse gases will warm the planet and how plants will respond, but they are also trying to predict how farmers and markets will respond. Combining these natural environmental factors with socioeconomic influences is still particularly difficult task. Nonetheless, this new review paper concludes that Africa’s agriculture faces significant risk from warming temperatures.<br /><br /><strong> Paper Title: <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103142y" target="_blank">Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Domestic Anaerobic Digesters Linked with Sustainable Sanitation in Rural China</a><br />Journal: <i>Environmental Science & Technology</i><br />Authors: Radhika Dhingra, Erick R. Christensen, Yang Liu, Bo Zhong, Chang-Fu Wu, Michael G. Yost, and Justin V. Remais</strong><br /><i>The Gist</i>: Last year China set a goal of powering 27 million homes with biogas — gas from fermented human and animal waste (yes, that can include animal feces). The biogas is produced by putting waste in airtight containers where anaerobic microbes turn it into methane gas. The methane can then be burned for heat, allowing people to heat their homes without using fossil fuels. Methane, however, is also a potent greenhouse gas; if large quantities of the gas escape into the atmosphere before being burned, it could potentially cause more warming than the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. This study analyzed methane leaks at the gas production sites and people’s houses and determined that even somewhat leaky systems emitted much less gas to the atmosphere than houses that used coal or natural gas.<br /><br />That’s all for this week. If you have a question about one of these papers, feel free to ask in the comments below.</span>David Kroodsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160894484562610noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-44677794449425031582011-03-03T10:58:00.000-08:002011-03-04T08:21:10.047-08:00The Fierce Urgency of Now: Notes from the ARPA-E Summit<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/arpa-elogo25.jpg?w=300&h=83"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 83px;" src="http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/arpa-elogo25.jpg?w=300&h=83" border="0" alt="" /></a><i>by Matthew Hourihan and Matthew Stepp, Policy Analysts for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation</i><br /><br />There are times when the nation’s political leadership in Washington is perfectly in sync with the realities of the day, and there are times when much of that leadership is out to lunch. Exhibit A: the current energy debate. Even as global demand and instability threatens to challenge affordable supply, and as overseas states are <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/11/rising_tigers_sleeping_giant_o.shtml">investing heavily</a> in clean technology, many of the nation’s leaders are contemplating gutting domestic investment in clean energy.<br /><br />Amid this context, enter the <a href="http://www.ct-si.org/events/EnergyInnovation/">2011 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit</a>, a gathering of some of the best and brightest in clean energy innovation intended to showcase often-astounding advances in energy technology. The <a href="http://arpa-e.energy.gov/">Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy</a> – one of the single most important agencies in the federal innovation portfolio – has recently been fighting for its budgetary life, <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll055.xml">surviving</a> a recent push to de-fund the program, and still facing significant <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/csteger/as_i_noted_in_a.html">uncertainty</a> over future appropriations. Yet few programs are doing what ARPA-E is doing: supporting cutting-edge energy research in the private and academic sectors in search of revolutionary game-changers to fundamentally alter our energy landscape.<br /><br />ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA – the cutting-edge Defense Department research agency – to be an agile, dynamic innovation engine at the recommendation of the National Academies. It’s early yet (the agency’s research programs are multiyear endeavors), but if just a handful pay off, the potential upside is enormous. Already, certain awardees are leveraging public funding to entice private investment at a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/business/energy-environment/03energy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1">4-to-1</a> ratio. Agency Director Arun Majumdar summed up the program’s mission on the first day: “What ARPA-e does best is identify the opportunities and create the competition. And eventually, the market will pick the winners.” (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxz-_tawbvg">video</a>)<br /><br />Even given its relative youth and small size, the agency has attracted plaudits for its ability, as when CO Sen. Mark Udall remarked of ARPA-E at the summit, “You're a model of efficiency. That’s government at its best.” On top of this well-earned reputation, <a href="http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/">multiple</a> <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/11/pcast_eyes_a_10billion_boost_f.html">expert</a> <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463">recommendations</a> have said ARPA-E is critical to American cleantech competitiveness and urged a boost to its original $400 million budget. And last year Congress saw fit to reauthorize the agency for three more years in the America COMPETES Act, albeit at lower levels than has been recommended.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Nevertheless, some leaders want to zero out the agency, and even those who nominally support it remain unwilling to invest adequately. AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/146685-murkowski-arpa-e-likely-wont-be-funded-at-levels-requested-by-obama">acknowledged as much</a>, warning that “Many programs are never funded at their authorized levels, let alone higher. At what level Congress will support funding for ARPA-E remains uncertain.”<br /><br />Suffice to say, we hope those leaders out to lunch will finish up soon and get back to investing in the future.<br /><br /><b>The Future on Display</b><br />Congressional disconnect notwithstanding, what the conference made clear is that there is enormous vitality behind the movement towards energy innovation. This is partly due to the urgency of the cleantech competitiveness challenge. As Energy Secretary Stephen Chu <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QHVOoUDpN4">put it</a>, “Clean energy is a race and the train is leaving the station.” Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was more colorful, but still spot on, ending his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xeS7KsPMkM">sterling keynote address</a> with a reference to his past role as Conan the Barbarian that got plenty of laughs: “I’ve made a lot of action movies in the past, so I know about action. And you are the true people of action. Conan [the Barbarian] was asked, 'What is best in life?' He answered, 'To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the women.' Now, my views have evolved since. But my point is that Conan was not big on philosophy or navel-gazing. He was big on action, just like you.”<br /><br />And that vitality is there for good reason: the energy technology sector—from private entrepreneurs and investors to scientists and engineers in university labs—is brimming with, well, energy, in the form of radical and frequently eye popping ideas for advanced low-carbon energy technology. Dozens of these experimental projects – many of which are supported by ARPA-E – were on display at the technology showcase, a sampling of which can be found <a href="http://blog.energy.gov/blog/2011/03/01/arpa-e-technology-showcase-project-spotlight">here</a> (with photos <a href="http://gigaom.com/cleantech/photos-bleeding-edge-greentech-at-arpa-e/">here</a>). In the midst of a burgeoning trillion-dollar market, many of these technologies could yield massive returns on investment – assuming, of course, adequate and appropriate policy support is there to accelerate their development.<br /><br />The discussion covered much more ground than can be summarized here, but there were a few key themes that rose to the surface through the summit.<br /><br /><b>DOD Wants Effective Cleantech</b><br />Top Navy official John Quinn told the summit his superiors need to “be bold” on energy innovation. Partnering with ARPA-E is a good start: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus made news by <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/arpa-e-and-dod-advance-partnership/">announcing</a> a pair of energy storage projects in partnership with ARPA-E. Many have made the <a href="http://www.cfr.org/energy-security/national-security-consequences-us-oil-dependency/p11683">connection</a> between overseas fossil fuels and national security risks, but Mabus also made clear during <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1i2vL8VWWc">his speech</a> that clean energy also represents an opportunity: to make a more agile and efficient fighting force free of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html">dangerous supply convoys</a>, as well as to reduce the need to defend the global oil pipeline. Solar-powered rucksacks save marine patrols from having to carry 700 pounds of extra weight. And alternative fueled ships like the USS Makin Island could save hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. Contrast this with Mabus’ observation that every $1 increase in the price of oil costs the Navy $31 million (and keep in mind, world crude has <a href="http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTOTWORLD&f=W">increased by $30</a> over the past year). These are resources to purchase, transport, and protect that could be used elsewhere.<br /><br />As for the naysayers who argue that an effective fighting force can’t rely on petroleum alternatives, Mabus pointed out that they’ve been there every time the Navy transitioned to new energy sources, from wind to coal to oil, but “every time it’s lead to a better navy.”<br /><br /><b>IT and Power Electronics Have a Big Role to Play</b><br />Whether through the use of supercomputers to develop more efficient wind turbine blades or the development of innovative software to develop new and better chemical energy solutions, IT was a common theme throughout the summit and stamped on nearly every project.<br /><br />For example, CREE Inc. – an <a href="http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/ADEPT/15kVSiCIGBTPowerModulesforGridScalePower.aspx">ARPA-E supported</a> business – is developing the necessary technology to seamlessly integrate grid-capacity clean energy and rapidly charge electric cars on-grid. Their idea seeks to create an efficient, intelligent substation, replacing traditional transformers, to manage the stream of energy coming from clean sources to consumers. These new transformers would be drastically smaller and much less costly, and act as an IT middle man – allowing bidirectional flow of energy (consumers both producing and consuming clean energy) as well as efficiently managing the often time-inconsistent flow from clean generators through a smarter grid (which would of course be mitigated by advanced storage eventually).<br /><br />Another showcased example is <a href="http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/ADEPT/LowCostHighlyIntegratedSiliconCarbideSiC.aspx">Arkansas Power Electronics International</a> (APEI). Consumers will require plug-in vehicles to rapidly charge, just like gasoline power vehicles can be quickly refueled. But with greater penetration of PHEVs, rapid charging could quickly strain or overload the grid and local infrastructure. APEI showcased advances in small, modular power conversion technologies utilizing silicon-carbide semiconductors that promise high-temperature operation, meaning they would allow for high power densities conducted by rapid-charge PHEVs. And because this technology is modular and significantly smaller than typical high power density converters, their cost is greatly reduced.<br /><br /><b>Manufacturing Needs to Be Here</b><br />Many economists shrug off the need to maintain a viable manufacturing base. But this is of course <a href="http://www.itif.org/events/impact-offshore-manufacturing-technology-innovation-implications-us-policy">mistaken thinking</a>, as the message came through loud and clear from the manufacturing-oriented panel. As Siemens Chairman Peter Solmssen pointed out, “Innovation includes R&D, and the 'D' part in particular is important to a competitive manufacturing sector.”<br /><br />What also was clear is that government has an important role to play in boosting that sector, through a comprehensive approach: stable market creation for scaleup, targeted R&D support, incentives for investment, and a coherent strategy to tie it all together. Business Roundtable President and former Michigan Governor John Engler highlighted the importance of making the <a href="http://www.itif.org/content/reduce-uncertainty-make-rd-tax-credit-permanent">R&D credit permanent</a> and in continuing to foster productive programs like NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-2636030211087188302011-03-02T17:58:00.000-08:002011-03-03T08:12:57.709-08:00Climate Challenge Hinges on Fueling China with Clean and Cheap Energy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/china_emissions_cropped.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/china_emissions_cropped.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><em>This column originally published at <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.shtml">the Breakthrough Institute blog</a></em><br /><br />I've said it <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/11/iea_report_confirms_clean_and.shtml">before</a> and I'll say it again: when it comes to the global climate challenge, as goes China, so goes the world. <br /><br />Driving that aphorism home, <a href="http://www.co2scorecard.org/">co2scorecard.org</a>, a not-for-profit project that closely tracks global greenhouse gas emissions, <a href="http://www.co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/18">now reports</a> that China's CO2 emissions increased by 906 million tons in 2009 -- the second largest annual increase for any country in recorded history. China's soaring emissions were enough to completely offset the drop in emissions wrought by the economic havoc plaguing much of the Western world (see graphic below). <br /><br /><strong>China's unprecedented surge in CO2</strong><br /><br /><div class="caption picture right" style="width:300px;"><em><small><form mt:asset-id="2975" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Exhibit_2_and_3.shtml" onclick="window.open('http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Exhibit_2_and_3.shtml','popup','width=767,height=970,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/assets_c/2011/03/Exhibit_2_and_3-thumb-300x379.jpeg" width="300" height="379" alt="Exhibit_2_and_3.jpeg" class="mt-image-right" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 20px 20px;" /></a></form><b>As Goes China, So Goes the World</b>: Soaring CO2 emissions from energy use in China drive global greenhouse gas trends (click image to enlarge; source: <a href="http://www.co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/18">co2scorecard.org</a>)</small></em></div><br />Over the last decade, China's annual emissions of climate destabilizing CO2 jumped by 5 billion tons per year. According to Shakeb Afsah, President and CEO of co2scorecard.org, that's "the highest [increase in annual CO2 output] for a single country in recorded history, representing an average annual emissions increase of almost 12%--more than four times the rate observed [for China] the previous decade."<br /><br />To put this unprecedented 5 billion ton increase in annual CO2 emissions in context, Mr Afsah and colleague Kendyl Salcito <a href="http://www.co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/18">note</a> that during the 14-year long post-war boom period of 1959-1973, during which U.S. CO2 emissions rose each year, America's annual output of CO2 jumped by only 2 billion tons. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />This new analysis comes on the heels of the latest International Energy Agency's <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/"><em>World Energy Outlook</em></a>, which projects China's soaring demand will single-handedly account for 36% of all global energy demand growth over the next 25 years. According to the global energy watchdog group, China's energy use will rise 75% between 2008 and 2035, raising the nation's share of global energy use to 22 percent, up from 17 percent today. <br /><br /><strong>Sliding backwards?</strong><br /><br />Despite a much-publicized national climate policy centrally focused on driving down the CO2 intensity of the Chinese economy through greater industrial and power plant efficiency, the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic output in China slid backwards during four of the last ten years. In 2009, after four years of steady progress, the carbon intensity of China's economy took a big step backwards, regressing to 1999 levels, according to co2scorecard.org (see graphic below)<br /><br /><div class="caption picture" style="width:450px; text-align:center;"><em><small><form mt:asset-id="2978" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Exhibit_62.shtml" onclick="window.open('http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Exhibit_62.shtml','popup','width=1267,height=528,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/assets_c/2011/03/Exhibit_6-thumb-550x229.jpeg" width="450" alt="Exhibit_6.jpeg" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></a></form><b>Backsliding</b>: The carbon intensity of China's economy took a big step backwards in 2009, erasing a decade's worth of periodic gains to revert to 1999 levels. (Click to enlarge; Source: <a href="http://www.co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/18">co2scorecard.org</a>)</em></small></div><br />That factoid means there's more going on here than just simple economic growth driving emissions growth. China's macroeconomic policies are actually driving the carbon intensity of the nation's economy backwards, working at cross-purposes with the central government's avowed climate strategy.<br /><br />The analysts at co2scorecard.org point the finger at China's promotion of an export-oriented manufacturing economy, including the nation's increasingly controversial currency policies.<br /><br />Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built up a manufacturing juggernaut that has taken over global supply chains for some of the world's most energy intensive industrial processes, including cement, steel, glass and chemicals production, turning predominately to carbon-intensive coal to fuel this economic engine. That was a recipe for both soaring economic output and carbon emissions alike.<br /><br />The recent impact of the global recession has only exacerbated China's outsized role in global emissions. According to co2scorecard.com:<br /><blockquote>Through the global recession, China's depressed exchange rate protected its energy intensive industries, serving as a subsidy for export-oriented manufacturing industries (Wolf 2009). Other countries that would have grown their industrial sectors couldn't compete against China's deflated prices. So China has ended up with a lion's share of industrial production within its economic pie, subjecting itself to a sub-optimally large share of CO2 emissions and other industrial pollution.</blockquote><br /><strong>China's carbon commitments: ambitious or lackadaisical?</strong><br /><br />To meet a targeted 40-45% reduction in carbon intensity by 2020, announced in November 2009 as China's pledge at <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/12/copenhagen_coverage.shtml">global climate negotiations in Copenhagen</a> that year, China's central government has recently forced the closure of inefficient factories and power plants, enforced planned blackouts, and launched other seemingly heavy handed steps to reduce the energy intensity of the national economy. <br /><br />Despite these high-profile measures, analysts including Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr., have repeatedly <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/12/chinas_carbon_intensity_pledge.shtml">warned</a> that China's seemingly ambitious climate target really just amounts to continuing on a course of business-as-usual -- which would mean another decade of unprecedented emissions growth.<br /><br />Messieurs Afsah and Salcito note that this latest evidence adds credence to such concerns. "Though impressive on paper," China's carbon intensity pledge "represents the status quo," the duo writes. <br /><br />Between 2005 and 2008 China's average annual CO2 intensity reduction rate was 4.35%, according to co2scorecard.org's analysis. Simply continuing that BAU rate would see China's emissions shrink 45% in around 13 years - by 2018, or two years ahead of their pledged goal. <br /><br />"Maintaining the 4.35% reduction rate would not require any additional effort on China's part," Afsah and Salcito write. But hitting their goal in 2020 instead of 2018 would mean China could even slack off a bit, requiring just a 3.9% annual reduction. <br /><br />"China is not just setting itself up for a business-as-usual carbon intensity reduction plan; it has committed to a lazier plan, allowing its emissions to continue increasing for an extended period of time," write Afsah and Salcito (see graphic above).<br /><br /><strong>A recipe for rebound?</strong><br /><br />Worse yet, China's primary focus on improving industrial energy efficiency as the key to meeting carbon intensity goals is almost perfectly designed to trigger rebounds in energy demand that erode or even negate climate gains from such measures.<br /><br />As noted in Breakthrough Institute's February report, "<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/new_report_how_efficiency_can.shtml">Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena</a>," energy efficiency measures lower the effective price of the services derived from fuel consumption -- heating, cooling, transportation, industrial processes, etc. -- thus triggering a rebound in demand for those services (<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/faq_rebound_effects_and_the_en.shtml">see a FAQ on rebound effects here</a>). <br /><br />These "<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/faq_rebound_effects_and_the_en.shtml">rebound effects</a>" are likely to be particularly pronounced in both industrial sectors and in developing nations, like China, where demand for goods and services, including energy services, is far more elastic (responsive to changes in price), and where industrial productivity improvements are key drivers of economic growth. For every step forward taken through efficiency, rebounds in energy demand take China -- and the world -- one or more steps backwards away from climate mitigation goals.<br /><br />Thus, increased efficiency, particularly in China's industrial sectors, will drive greater economic growth and energy use. The net effect: <em>total</em> CO2 emissions are likely to keep soaring, even as China meets its lackadaisical carbon <em>intensity</em> goals.<br /><br /><strong>Breaking China's carbon dependence</strong><br /><br />Is there any way then to really break the link between China's soaring economic output and soaring emissions?<br /><br />Pursuing China's current path of unambitious carbon intensity goals -- principally met with industrial efficiency efforts likely to trigger serious rebounds in energy demand -- looks like a recipe for continued disaster.<br /><br />And while co2scorecard.org's Afsah and Salcito note that a halt to China's currency depreciation efforts and other economic policies designed to spur an exports and industrial manufacturing-fueled growth strategy would cool both emissions and economic growth rates, this analyst considers it unlikely that China will assent to policies that drive down carbon by simply slowing economic growth.<br /><br />That leaves only one other real option then: de-link economic growth from carbon emissions by fueling China -- and the world -- with clean, affordable, and massively scalable energy technologies. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the menu of technologies that meet all three of those criteria -- clean (e.g. zero or very low-carbon), cheap (e.g. relatively affordable compared to conventional fossil fuels), <em>and</em> massively scalable -- is still <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/10/friday_factoids_the_clean_ener.shtml">quite limited</a>. Cleaner energy alternatives must continue to improve in price, performance, or both, to meet a 'China-sized' appetite for energy.<br /><br />China, America, Europe and the rest of the world must rapidly accelerate the pace of improvement in a whole suite of clean energy technologies, from nuclear and solar alike to plug-in hybrid vehicles, energy storage, and advanced biofuels. And a whole set of next-generation energy technologies must cross the Valley of Death from laboratory to commercialization in the coming decades<br /><br />On this point, a cadre of energy experts including analysts at the <a href="http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/06/iea_calls_for_massive_clean_en.shtml">IEA</a>, U.S. Energy Secretary <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/02/energy_secretary_steven_chu_ho.shtml">Steven Chu</a>, dozens of <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/07/34_nobel_prize_winners_write_p.shtml">Nobel Laureates</a>, <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/06/us_hightech_leaders_call_for_t.shtml">high-profile American business leaders</a>, and <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/10/postpartisan_power.shtml">leading</a> <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/11/creating_a_clean_energy_centur.shtml">think</a> <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/02/a_new_paradigm_in_energy_innov.shtml">tanks</a>, are all united: <em>we must make clean energy cheap, and fast.</em><br /><br />China is already on a roaring path towards single-handedly swamping any hopes of climate stability, and success is far from assured. <br /><br />The only thing that is certain is that the clock is ticking, and there's no time to waste in developing clean, cheap, scalable energy technologies to fuel both China and the world. The entire climate challenge hinges on our ability to do just that.<br /><br />As the writer and environmental activist Bill McKibben is fond of <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/earth-obama">saying</a>, "You can't negotiate with the planet." <br /><br />Bill's right of course. But as <em>TIME</em> magazine environmental correspondent Bryan Walsh <a href="http://www.good.is/post/cap-and-trade-is-dead-now-what/">observes</a>, "it turns out you can't negotiate with the human desire for growth and development either--not in any political system on this planet. We need policies that provide us with the energy for both--or we may end up with neither."<br /><br /><em><a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/staff.shtml#jesse">Jesse Jenkins</a> is the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.shtml">the Breakthrough Institute</a></em></span>Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-59267132670357809232011-02-28T14:31:00.000-08:002011-03-03T07:35:25.689-08:00Solving the Energy Poverty Problem<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><i><img src="http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/262/cache/energy-news-african-cooking_26283_600x450.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: px;" border="0" alt="" />Originally published at <a href="http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/solving-the-energy-poverty-problem/">Americans for Energy Leadershi</a>p | By Natalie Relich</i></span><i><br /></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><p>In the age of iPhones, Facebook, and Twitter, we have instant access to information and constant means of communication. It is difficult to imagine life without these luxuries, but they are just that, luxuries. For a large portion of the world these technologies are not only a rarity, but an impossibility, as there is no access to electricity.</p><p>1.5 billion people do not have access to electricity; 585 million of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa and 404 million in India. Three billion people, almost half of the world’s population, rely on biomass, such as wood, charcoal, and dung for cooking and heating purposes. Sub-Saharan Africa is an especially dire case. Only 31% of the population has access to electricity and the Sub-Saharan African population (excluding South Africa) of 791 million consumes as much energy annually as New York State, a population of 19.5 million, according to a recent IEA and UNDP report entitled "<a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_poverty.pdf" mce_href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_poverty.pdf" target="_blank">Energy Poverty: How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal."</a></p><p mce_style="text-align: left" style="text-align: left; ">These people are living in energy poverty, the ramifications of which extend far beyond heating and cooking. Instead of children - usually young girls - going to school, they have to spend hours collecting firewood to heat their homes and cook. If the children are able to go to school, they can only do school work during daylight hours because they have no light to study by at night.</p><p mce_style="text-align: left" style="text-align: left; ">Energy poverty is one of the least discussed aspects of our current energy challenge, yet it poses serious threats to economies, national security, the environment, and public health throughout the world. It is unacceptable that such a massive social problem exists, yet here in the U.S. we do little to alleviate it. This article seeks raise awareness about energy poverty and to describe the threats posed by it and what is being done to remedy them.</p><span class="fullpost"><p mce_style="text-align: center" style="text-align: center; "><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.worldcoal.org/media/jpg/585/112949electricity_access_graph.jpg" mce_src="http://www.worldcoal.org/media/jpg/585/112949electricity_access_graph.jpg" alt="" width="468" height="299" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; " /></p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Energy Poverty and Economic Development</span></p><p>From an economic standpoint energy poverty is a serious hindrance to growth. Households and countries as a whole cannot develop economically if a significant portion of the population is living in energy poverty. Time that could be spent working must be spent gathering fuel for cooking and heating. This task usually falls on women, preventing them from pursuing economic opportunities like starting their own business.</p><p>People cannot charge cell phones, if they have them, limiting their access to information and markets. They have little access to machinery, so their farming techniques (most of the energy poor live in rural areas) are primitive and inefficient. If businesses or households do have access to electricity, there are often power cuts and blackouts, seriously limiting productivity and efficiency.</p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Energy Poverty and Health Risks</span></p><p>The use of wood, charcoal, and dung cook stoves poses serious health risks; these risks are some of the most serious health risks in the developing world today. Primitive cook stoves create indoor air pollution because homes are poorly ventilated and the dirty air sits in the home, breathed in by the occupants. The number of deaths from this kind of indoor air pollution currently kills more people each year than malaria or tuberculosis according to the IEA report. The report also estimates that by 2030 the number of premature deaths from household air pollution will be more than the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria, or tuberculosis, all of which are projected to decline over this period. By 2030 the number of deaths from biomass smoke is estimated to increase to 1.5 million per year, or 4,000 deaths per day.</p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">Energy Poverty and National Security</span></p><p>Economic development and security are inextricably linked. In a post 9/11 world, the security of a nation is no longer guaranteed by a large military; the biggest threat to national security is no longer a strong, well organized military of another country, but rather disconnected, unpredictable networks of extremists. When people have a job, food on their table, and an overall good standard of living, they are less likely to turn to radical groups for change. One of the contributing factors to the recent protests across the Middle East is high unemployment and lack of economic opportunities. Instability in the Middle East or any region that is home to extreme groups is a threat to US security. There are of course many reasons why people turn to extremism and poverty is just one of them, but one cannot overlook this important link.</p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">How to solve the energy poverty problem</span></p><p>Alleviating energy poverty poses numerous problems. Most of the energy poor live in remote rural areas making it difficult and costly to connect to the electrical grid. Some energy poor countries simply do not have the infrastructure or economic means to connect rural inhabitants to the grid.</p><p>Environmental and climate change issues also makes dealing with energy poverty a tricky situation, mostly because coal remains the cheapest source of energy for much of the world. If electricity was generated from clean, but more expensive sources like wind and solar, rural inhabitants would likely be unable to afford it. Over a billion people are without electricity, so how do they improve their quality of life without adding huge amounts of greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere?</p><p>Because of the difficulty in connecting rural inhabitants to the grid, small-scale, off the grid energy projects currently provide the most feasible way of bringing energy to people in remote areas, but achieving this on a large scale is difficult. Large corporations and governments are the most financially and technically equipped to deal with these issues, but corporations lack incentives to do so. Funding a small scale project in a rural Africa does not yield as much return as funding a large scale renewable energy project in China. For governments, finding funding for such innovative projects has largely proven tricky.</p><p>One potential funding source could come from the developed world. Those countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol are required to purchase carbon credits in order to offset their own emissions. This could be done by funding small scale projects that would greatly enhance the quality of life for rural inhabitants, but for now these offsets are most easily achieved by investing in large utility scale projects. There is also much uncertainty associated with these small scale projects because they are in such remote areas and funding these types of projects is a relatively new concept.</p><p>The United States is not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore not required to offset carbon emissions, however we still fund renewable energy projects in developing countries. In 2009, the Obama administration announced the launch of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-clean-energy-technology-announcements" mce_href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-clean-energy-technology-announcements" target="_blank">Climate REDI</a>(Renewable and Efficiency Deployment Initiative) a program to “accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in developing countries.” The initiative created several programs and partnerships as well as funding mechanisms to bring energy efficiency to developing countries. New programs were:</p><ul><blockquote><li>“The <span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Solar and LED Energy Access Program</span> will accelerate deployment of affordable solar home systems and LED lanterns to those without access to electricity. This program will yield immediate economic and public health benefits by providing households with low-cost and quality-assured solar alternatives to expensive and polluting kerosene.</li><li>The <span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment Program</span> will harness the market and convening power of MEF countries to improve efficiency for appliances traded throughout the world.</li><li>The <span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program (S-REP)</span>, under the World Bank’s Strategic Climate Fund, will provide policy support and technical assistance to low-income countries developing national renewable energy strategies and underwrite additional capital costs associated with renewable energy investments. Funding through Climate REDI will accelerate the launch of S-REP.</li></blockquote></ul><p>The $350 million pledged for these programs will come from the United States as well as other developed nations.</p><p>Despite modest government lead efforts, most small scale energy production in the energy impoverished world is being taken on by nonprofits and local organizations. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/science/earth/25fossil.html?_r=1&emc=eta1" mce_href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/science/earth/25fossil.html?_r=1&emc=eta1" target="_blank">NY Times</a> recently ran an article about small scale renewable energy systems and the role they are playing in Sub Saharan Africa. The article discussed one woman and the arduous process she had to go through to charge her cell phone. She relied on a cell phone for “small money transfers, contacting relatives, and checking prices at the nearest market”, but had no electricity and therefore no means of charging her phone.</p><blockquote><p>“Every week, Ms. Ruto walked two miles to hire a motorcycle taxi for the three-hour ride to Mogotio, the nearest town with electricity. There, she dropped off her cellphone at a store that recharges phones for 30 cents. Yet the service was in such demand that she had to leave it behind for three full days before returning.</p><p>That wearying routine ended in February when the family sold some animals to buy a small Chinese-made <a title="More articles about solar power." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/solar_energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" mce_href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/solar_energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">solar power</a> system for about $80. Now balanced precariously atop their tin roof, a lone solar panel provides enough electricity to charge the phone and run four bright overhead lights with switches.</p><p>Since Ms. Ruto hooked up the system, her teenagers’ grades have improved because they have light for studying. The toddlers no longer risk burns from the smoky kerosene lamp. And each month, she saves $15 in kerosene and battery costs — and the $20 she used to spend on travel.</p><p>In fact, neighbors now pay her 20 cents to charge their phones, although that business may soon evaporate: 63 families in Kiptusuri have recently installed their own solar power systems.”</p></blockquote><p>These small scale solutions are spreading throughout Africa and other parts of the developing world as a result of small businesses and nonprofits. One such organization called <a href="http://eandco.net/" mce_href="http://eandco.net/" target="_blank">E+Co</a> invests in green businesses in developing country to provide them with the capital to implement off the grid energy solutions. E +Co has offices in 20 developing countries and has invested $40 million in various businesses. Some of E+Co’s investments include a $127,000 investment to Ghanaian company, Wilkin Solar, that sells solar powered lanterns to rural and urban homes in Ghana so homes do not have to rely on kerosene and firewood for lighting; a $224,241 investment to an Indian company, Selco India, that has sold small scale solar systems to more than 70,000 households in India, and an equity investment in Chinese company, DLLD, that manufactures mini hydropower systems that are used to generate electricity in rural China.</p><p><a href="http://www.energyincommon.org/" mce_href="http://www.energyincommon.org/" target="_blank">Energy in Common</a> is another organization working to fight energy poverty by allowing individuals to make micro loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Individuals can choose from a list of green entrepreneurs on their website, make a loan to help fund green energy projects, track the progress of the project, and eventually get repaid. This is a sustainable and affordable way for ordinary citizens to become involved in remedying energy poverty.</p><p><a href="http://solarcities.blogspot.com/" mce_href="http://solarcities.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Solar CITIES</a> is a nonprofit that works in Cairo to install solar-powered hot water systems and biogas reactors in Cairo’s slums. <a href="http://www.charcoalproject.org/" mce_href="http://www.charcoalproject.org/" target="_blank">The Charcoal Project</a> works to raise awareness about the dangers associated with using biomass fueled stoves and bring together stakeholders to work towards potential solutions. <a href="http://light.lbl.gov/light.html" mce_href="http://light.lbl.gov/light.html" target="_blank">The Lumina Project</a>, an initiative of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, works to “enable small companies to innovate more rapidly, advises international organizations how to support these emerging [energy] markets, designing market research and performing market research, and helps students engage in the issue.”</p><p>These organizations are doing inspiring work, have noble goals, and continue to make a real impact on the lives of the world's poorest citizens; however, they are small organizations with limited capacity and funds. Small scale projects are for now, the most feasible and economical way of bringing people out of energy poverty, but the projects are just that, <span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">small</span>. For the 3 billion people living in energy poverty, this relief is not coming fast enough.</p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">R&D and the Future of Energy Poverty</span></p><p>At AEL, we have frequently written on the need for energy innovation and the role it has to play in America's economic growth, competitiveness, and national security. By investing in energy innovation America can simultaneously fuel its economy and help to alleviate international energy poverty. AEL President Teryn Norris and CEO of the Cleveland Foundation Ronald Richard recently wrote an op-ed entitled<a href="http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/presidents-day-winning-our-energy-future/" mce_href="http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/presidents-day-winning-our-energy-future/" target="_blank"> "Winning Ohio's Energy Future"</a> that highlights the energy innovation projects occurring in Ohio's private sector and the 35,000 jobs they have created. The article notes that while Ohio's private sector has stimulated innovation and growth, there is also a need for the federal government to do the same:</p><blockquote><p>"If America wants to lead the next great growth industry, it’s imperative that we make a serious national commitment to advanced energy technology. Today, the United States spends more on potato chips than federal energy research and development, and continues to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels."</p></blockquote><p>The <a href="http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/" mce_href="http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/" target="_blank">American Energy Innovation Council</a> has issued similar calls for government investment in energy research. The AEIC is a group whose mission is to "foster strong economic growth, create jobs in new industries, and reestablish America’s energy technology leadership through robust, public investments in the development of world-changing energy technologies" and is led by a group of prominent American business leaders such as Microsoft's Bill Gates, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, Norman Augustine, and the chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt. The AEIC recommends investing $16 billion annually in energy research, increasing funding of the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program to $1 billion, and establishing a New Energy Challenge Program to build large scale pilot projects.</p><p>To put $16 billion in perspective, the US currently spends $30 billion in health research and $80 billion in defense research and development. In an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR2010042205126.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2010042304245" mce_href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/22/AR2010042205126.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2010042304245" target="_blank">op-ed</a> Gates and Holliday wrote for the Washington Post last year, they discussed the US's lack of initiative on energy research, the importance for energy innovation, and why the public sector should be the one to do it:</p><blockquote><p>"But our country is neglecting a field central to our national prospect and security: energy. Although the information technology and pharmaceutical industries spend 5 to 15 percent of their revenue on research and development each year, U.S. companies' spending on energy R&D has averaged only about one-quarter of 1 percent of revenue over the past 15 years...</p><p>...We need a vigorous strategy to invent our future and ensure its safety and prosperity. In the realm of energy, as with medicine and national defense, that requires a public commitment. Why can't the private sector do this? What makes energy different from, say, electronics? Three things.</p><p>First, there are profound public interests in having more energy options. Our national security, economic health and environment are at issue. These are not primary motivations for private-sector investments, but they merit a public commitment.</p><p>Second, the nature of the energy business requires a public commitment. A new generation of television technology might cost $10 million to develop. Because those TVs can be built on existing assembly lines, that risk-reward calculus makes business sense. But a new electric power source can cost several billion dollars to develop and still carry the risk of failure. That investment does not compute for most companies.</p><p>Third, the turnover in our power system is very slow. Power plants last 50 years or more, and they are very cheap to run once built, meaning there is little market for new models.</p><p>It is understandable, then, why private-sector investments in clean energy technology are so small. Yet, while it may make sense for individual companies to make these choices, accepting the status quo would condemn our country to very bad options. There is vast opportunity in energy. Prices are declining in solar energy and wind, and they could fall further with new technology. There is a critical need for better electricity storage technologies to enable electric vehicles and very-large-scale renewable energy."</p></blockquote><p>Investment into energy R&D would not only help secure America's future, but could also do much for the billions living in energy poverty. As noted earlier, small scale renewable projects provide the best opportunity for alleviating poverty while not adding to greenhouse gas emissions. By driving down the cost of solar cells, wind turbines, and energy storage electrifying rural areas could become not only become a cost effective proposition for governments, but profitable endeavor for private investors. While renewables remain a tough business pitch in much of the developed world, these margins become even smaller in the developing world, with lower electricity prices and increased technical hurdles. Lowering prices and creating more logistically feasible renewable power could also stem off the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168121874735414.html" mce_href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168121874735414.html">growing trend</a> of developing nations looking to coal as the basis for electrification.</p><p><span mce_name="strong" mce_style="font-weight: bold;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">In Conclusion</span></p><p>Energy poverty is one of the most important and devastating social issues of our time that has been neglected for too long, and bringing half of the world’s population out of energy poverty is an enormous task. Innovative policies are needed to bring energy to people who live away from the grid and financing is needed to implement those solutions. America’s Climate REDI initiative is certainly a step in the right direction as are the efforts of groups like E+Co and Energy in Common. Projects like E+Co and the Energy in Common need continued sources of funding so they can reach the small businesses and local entrepreneurs in energy poor areas who are trying to make a difference.</p><p>Ultimately, more public-private investment in these initiatives -- especially those based around energy R&D and technology transfer -- and strategic partnerships between developed and developing countries are needed to truly reach all of those off the grid. Nonprofits and small businesses alone will not be able to bring electricity access to billions of people. Meanwhile, technological innovation is needed to drive down the cost of clean technologies so they are competitive and no longer need international subsidies. New ways of connecting remote rural areas to the grid are needed, and in cases where connection to the grid is impossible, improved storage mechanisms for distributed generation resources would improve electricity access in remote areas.</p><p>__</p><p><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "><a href="http://leadenergy.org/our-team/#Relich" mce_href="http://leadenergy.org/our-team/#Relich">Natalie Relich</a><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "> </span><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and her work will be regularly featured on the website. <span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "><span mce_name="em" mce_style="font-style: italic;" class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; ">The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></span>Americans for Energy Leadershiphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03223830125259302125noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-7497444194318326422011-02-22T17:34:00.001-08:002011-02-22T17:37:36.723-08:00Senate Democrats' Agenda Aims to Invest in Energy Innovation<span style="font-style:italic;">Originally posted by Sara Mansur at <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/senate_democrats_agenda_aims_t.shtml">the Breakthrough Institute</a></span><br /><br />Last week, a group of Senate Democrat leaders unveiled their <a href="http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/pr_021611_democratagenda.cfm">plan</a> to build off of the <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/president_obamas_budget_would.shtml">innovation-centered budget proposal</a> released by the President two weeks ago, including several important energy innovation investments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the proposal as an effort to simultaneously "create jobs, promote growth and help America win the future by making smart investments in education, innovation and infrastructure while cutting spending to live within our means." <br /><br />The Senate Democrats' plan to judiciously invest in innovation while cutting wasteful spending stands in sharp contrast to the Continuing Resolution bill passed by the House this weekend. The House bill <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/house_gops_proposed_continuing.shtml">budget</a> would recklessly cut more than $60 billion from the federal budget to fund the government through FY2011, slashing several important energy innovation initiatives. <br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Instead, the Senate Democrats' agenda will focus on pushing investments across the energy innovation cycle, from R&D to manufacturing to deployment. Below are some key components of the plan: <br /><br /><u><strong>R&D Tax Credit:</strong></u> Senate Democrats will seek to make permanent the income tax credit for research and development, which acts as an important incentive for private companies to invest in early-stage R&D. <br /><br /><u><strong>Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration:</strong></u> Senate Democrats will aim to develop a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), whose purpose would be to provide financial support to the riskiest clean energy technologies, helping them move from the laboratory to commercialization. Without creative public-private partnerships, these capital-intensive, high-risk technologies are at great risk of getting stuck in the commercialization "valley of death," an innovation fate that can spell doom for the widespread deployment of potentially critical clean energy technologies. <br /><br /><u><strong>Expand the Build America Bonds Program:</strong></u> Democrats will focus on extending and expanding the Build America Bonds program, which lowers the cost of borrowing for municipalities to support new infrastructure projects and create jobs.<br /><br /><u><strong>Extend the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit:</strong></u> The Senators will aim to further the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit, which offers a 30 percent credit for domestic companies to build new clean energy technologies. This tax credit is an effort to boost domestic clean energy manufacturing and compete with China. <br /><br />These measures, among others, are vital to encouraging American competitiveness in the clean energy sector. By establishing a policy environment conducive to innovation, the US will attract the entrepreneurs, industry, and private capital necessary to encourage a thriving clean energy sector. <br /><br />The Senators' plan for a selective and targeted approach to clean energy investment will post a much higher return than the House's proposal to carelessly slash programs that are most vital to American growth. Senate Democrats have realized this fact, but it remains to be seen if Senate Republicans can get on board. <br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-55026748695384547552011-02-21T11:38:00.000-08:002011-02-21T11:42:40.156-08:00Presidents Day: Winning Our Energy Future with $15 billion for R&D<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/TERM-Obama.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px;;" src="http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/TERM-Obama.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Today, we have an op-ed published in the Presidents' Day edition of <em>The Plain Dealer</em>, the largest newspaper in Ohio. The op-ed, "<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/02/winning_ohios_energy_future_ro.html">Winning Ohio's energy future</a>," arrives one day before President Obama <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/02/president_obama_to_visit_cleve.html">visits Cleveland</a> to promote the administration's "winning the future" agenda and host a business forum on entrepreneurship and innovation.<br /><br />Co-authored with the CEO of the Cleveland Foundation, one of the country's largest community foundations, we discuss how greater federal investment in clean energy technology innovation -- on the scale of $15 billion annually for R&D -- can unleash economic growth in the Midwest and across America, help recapture our global clean-tech leadership, and drive down the price of low-carbon energy.<br /><br /><strong><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/02/winning_ohios_energy_future_ro.html">Winning Ohio's energy future</a></strong><br /><em> The Plain Dealer – Cleveland, OH</em><br />Monday, February 21, 2011<br /><br />By Ronald B. Richard and Teryn Norris<br /><br />When President Barack Obama visits Cleveland on Tuesday to talk about entrepreneurship and innovation, he will find a city and state where those forces are driving a revolution in clean, green energy – and where a greater federal commitment to energy innovation can secure our national competitiveness.<br /><br />Northeast Ohio entrepreneurs are building an innovation ecosystem in clean-energy technologies and pushing the region and state into national leadership. NorTech, the regional technology-promoting nonprofit, has pulled together more than 400 public and private partners to create a cluster of advanced-energy innovation. Case Western Reserve University's Great Lakes Energy Institute is conducting cutting-edge research into improvements in power generation, storage and transportation.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">All over Ohio, advanced energy is spawning employment: The industry already accounts for more than 35,000 jobs in Ohio -- more than all but three other states. Toledo gave birth to one of the world's largest solar-power companies. Some 90 manufacturers are supplying parts for wind turbines.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:13.3333px;">And we hope the most visible symbol of Ohio's place in this 21st-century economy will soon sprout from Lake Erie near downtown: a wind-turbine farm that will energize homes and help position our region as a global leader in the freshwater wind-power niche.</span><br /><br />But the president and his Cabinet must depart from Cleveland State University with the clear understanding that all of this progress is precarious. Without substantial federal and state investment, leadership and policy change, energy innovation in Ohio and all across the United States will short-circuit.<br /><br />If America wants to lead the next great growth industry, it's imperative that we make a serious national commitment to advanced energy technology. Today, the United States spends more on potato chips than federal energy research and development, and continues to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels. The results are clear: Since the 1970s, the United States has failed to cut our dependence on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, China recently announced a plan to invest a whopping $740 billion in its clean-tech industry over the next decade.<br /><br />Recognizing this challenge, a growing group of business leaders, scientists and economists has settled on a target for increased federal energy R&D: $15 billion, compared to the current level of about $3 billion. The consensus extends from a coalition of business titans including Bill Gates and GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt, to dozens of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, to the president's chief technology advisers. This investment, they argue, can drive down the price of low-carbon energy, help regain U.S. clean-tech leadership and spur the development of entirely new industries. The Obama administration's latest budget proposes a $750 million increase in annual energy innovation spending -- a critical first step.<br /><br />For decades, the Department of Defense has been hugely successful at fostering breakthrough technology. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but an organization called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency did -- along with the GPS in your phone, speech-translation technology, stealth planes and much more. Today, a new organization modeled after DARPA at the Department of Energy, called ARPA-E, is doing the same for energy technology, and it has already leveraged more than $100 million in private capital. Similar to a venture capital firm, ARPA-E can direct federal energy-research dollars to drive innovation and growth, and eventually pay for itself many times over.<br /><br />Our nation's track record is indisputable: When the United States wants to lead, we make a national commitment and invest the necessary resources. Since World War II, few policies have enjoyed as much bipartisan support as research and development. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Manhattan Project created the nuclear power industry; Presidents Dwight Eisenhower's and John Kennedy's post-Sputnik programs sparked the information technology and aerospace revolution; and Reagan's investments in defense technology helped win the Cold War.<br /><br />Energy innovation won't solve all of America's and Ohio's economic woes, and broader federal support is necessary to spur clean-energy deployment and manufacturing, including a national target for clean-energy production. But public investment in technology innovation was central to making the 20th century the American century, and with bold federal commitment today, the United States might begin achieving the energy revolution we need.<br /><br />--<br /><em>Ronald B. Richard is president and CEO of the Cleveland Foundation. Teryn Norris is president and founder of Americans for Energy Leadership, a national energy policy advocacy group.</em></span>Teryn Norrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00723085730269980167noreply@blogger.com0