Voracious Global Warming Denier Bachmann Named to House Republican Panel April 29, 2009

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), whose name will be immediately familiar to anyone who has been tuned into the recent spate of increasingly paranoid and outrageous rantings of the Republican Party, has been named by House Republicans to a panel designed to deal with the nation’s energy policies.  Rep. Bachmann has a few bills in the energy field, as is described in her website statement on the appointment to the Republican energy group. 

 

One reason this is important to note is that it demonstrates the House Republicans’ desire to maintain the “drill baby drill” mantra, although perhaps a bit less vocally.  Three of the four energy bills Bachmann describes in her web announcement would basically fast-track drilling.  One would even take away the government’s power, either judicially or administratively, to review any leases once they were reviewed by the President or a designee.  Another bill would require the government to waive regulations with respect to existing leases if the price of oil exceeds $100 per barrel.  This kind of focus on drilling and fossil fuels is simply a continuation of the current, non-renewable, globally dangerous energy policy that the United States has had for years. 

 

Another reason this is important is because it highlights the House Republicans’ desire to impede efforts to find a solution to global warming.  If the House Republicans were serious about helping to combat global warming, they would not appoint a member of Congress to a working group to help craft energy policies who said this:  “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax.  It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” 

 

I think it will be important to remember this when, as the debate over our federal response to global warming increases, we see more and more Republicans and conservatives raise red herrings and try to delay our efforts to green our economy.  

Renewable Requirement in Global Warming Bill Will Not Dramatically Increase Energy Costs April 29, 2009

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report developed in response to a request by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) evaluating the effect that the 25% renewable requirement, contained in the global warming bill now being considered by Congress, will have on electricity prices.  The report found that there will be about a 2.9% increase in the cost of electricity around 2025, dropping down to about 1% by 2030 and after. 

 

Two of the big objections to the bill (and in fact objections to taking any far-reaching actions to combat global warming now) are that the current economic situation cannot afford such measures and, relatedly, that it will hurt business interests.  (In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA) said that the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill, which would cap the level of greenhouse gas emissions that polluters can produce and create a market-based system trading scheme for the right to emit greenhouse pollutants, were “an economic declaration of war on the Midwest.”) The EIA report directly undermines those arguments, albeit in the particular context of mandating renewables.  The reality is that we have to act now.  Arguments such as these should be seen for what they are—scare tactics aimed at delaying progress in the effort to combat global warming.  

Most Americans Favor Nuclear Power March 24, 2009

With President Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, we can look happily forward to a new drive toward development of alternative sources of energy.  But, just as in every other area of public policy, there will be fights over what to develop, how much money to allocate, where to locate plants and transmission lines, and negative environmental consequences.  I anticipate the biggest fight to occur over development and construction of new nuclear power plants.  As I posted about last week, the government is experiencing a flurry of requests to construct new nuclear facilities.  As the government determines what course to take, it will be interesting to see how the environmental community responds.  Again, I predict a pretty big fight.  And, according to a recent Gallup poll, it seems as though there will be a big fight among the general public, as well.  

According to the Gallup poll, 59% of Americans somewhat or strongly favor nuclear power.  This is apparently the highest level of good graces that nuclear power has attained in the United States.  I imagine it has something to do with the fact that there has been no catastrophe for quite a long time.  Yet, our memories remain strong.  The Gallup poll also found that 42% of Americans are wary of the safety of nuclear plants.  This is not a huge margin and I expect that there will be much more talk about both the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power.

Our Nuclear Future? March 19, 2009

With no apparent intentional irony, Reuters today published two news briefs close together on their website, both of which involved nuclear power.  I don’t have a screenshot, but they appeared side-by-side this morning (March 18).  The first said that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting to receive numerous requests to build new nuclear reactors across the United States.  After Obama was elected, I expected to see an increased push toward nuclear power.  After all, nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of large amounts of electricity.  The carbon emissions are low and the electricity output is high.  Other sources of renewable energy might be cleaner and greener overall, but no other alternative source of power comes close to contributing as much power as does nuclear. 

Of course, there are drawbacks with nuclear power.  The obvious is the catastrophic consequences when the reactors fail.  And that was the subject of the second news item from Reuters.  It described a study that was recently conducted of the animal populations in the Chernobyl area more than 20 years after the famous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear plant.  The study found that animal populations, across species, were far lower than was believed.  So, even after the passing of so much time, the effects of the disaster are still very much apparent. 

These news pieces highlight my own indecisions about nuclear power.  On the one hand, I recognize that our need for large volume electricity must be met, even in the short term, with some source of power that is (much) cleaner than coal and that in the history of nuclear power, meltdowns have been few.  However, when those catastrophes occur, they are devastating.  And, of course, there are other issues, like where to store the nuclear waste and the negative effects on aquatic ecosystems of dumping out huge amounts of super-heated water from the reactors into marine environments.  At least until other sources of renewable power can produce the amount of electricity to match nuclear, it really is a question of how much risk we as a society are willing to accept to power our lives.  

Renewable Energy: Advanced Geothermal August 30, 2008

A few years ago, I had the wonderful opportunity to visit a geothermal plant as part of The Geysers in Northern California, which is a hotspot of fumaroles. I was worried that the various pipes and equipment would mar the beautiful natural landscape. To the contrary, the facilities were rather small and were painted green to blend in with the vegetation on the surrounding hills. The process of geothermal is impressive. Hot steam that naturally rises to the earth’s surface is used to turn giant turbines, creating electricity. According to the operators of the plant that I visited, no modern toxins have been measured in the steam that is currently being used to create the electricity. This means that the source of the moisture predates the industrial revolution. Not only does the facility create electricity from a non-polluting source, but it actually contributes to waste management in the Sonoma region. Treated wastewater is pumped from nearby towns to the facility and injected back into the earth, so that it can turn into steam to move the turbines and create electricity.

One drawback of geothermal is that the technology is necessarily limited to the location of the naturally occurring steam vents, or fumaroles. But, that limitation may become moot. Google is funding research into geothermal technology that would not rely solely on the relatively shallow steam vents, but drill deep into the earth where magma could turn water into vapor. Water would be injected (hopefully treated wastewater), which would rely on the extreme temperature to change to steam and turbines would be powered as in traditional geothermal. This new type of deeper geothermal would permit the technology to be used in many areas of the world.

Are Electric Cars Better? March 28, 2008

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Ford and other big car companies are testing plug-in hybrid SUVs that would get about 120 miles per gallon.  The engines would work just like current hybrids, with a gasoline motor and a battery, but the car would be plugged into an electricity source when not in use.  Now, aside from the fact that Ford is testing this on an SUV, the idea of plug-in hybrids is not that much better than what we have now, with our reliance on gasoline.  The reason is the source of the majority of the nation’s electricity generation: coal.  Far more than any other energy source, coal accounts for a huge amount of the electricity generation in the United States.  Unfortunately, that means greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants.  By running after electric hybrids, we’re trading one greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel for another.  In the end, what are we really trying to accomplish?  Without changing our nation’s energy generation system from one based in fossil fuels to one based in renewable sources, the electric hybrid is a wash. 

Solar Cells on an Inkjet Printer March 7, 2008

Exciting news on the solar cell front.  This week, Konarka announced it had manufactured a small, thin, flexible, lightweight solar cell film that is much more versatile than traditional solar cells.  The film does not require silicon and it can be printed on inkjet printers.  What is most interesting is its versatility.  The film can be made in a variety of colors or transparent.  Some of the ideas for using the film include on the siding and roofs of houses and on windows.  Unfortunately, the film version of the solar cell is much less efficient, but I imagine that will change as the technology improves. 

I heard about this technology (I’m supposing in a concept phase) a few years ago.  Its potential to make solar power a common household energy source is truly titillating. 

Alternative Energy Update March 6, 2008

• Cheap, Fast, High-Output Liquid Solar–An article in the New York Times describes a relatively new method of producing energy—solar thermal plants. Resembling photovoltaic cells, large swaths of panels are aligned in the desert, using the sun to heat liquid to produce steam. The steam operates turbines, which produces energy. Probably the best aspect of this method of alternative energy production is that they can produce huge quantities of power (equivalent to three nuclear reactors) yet they take a fraction of the time to construct (only two years).
  

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Solar Cell Production–A recent study concluded that, when compared with traditional fossil-fuel production, the manufacture of solar cells results in far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. While the production of solar cells requires the use of heavy metals, which are released into the atmosphere, traditional energy production releases much more damaging amounts of materials in the air.

• Tidal Turbines Under the Golden Gate Bridge–The quest to harness the power of the tides in San Francisco Bay has been ongoing for some time. The idea is to place underwater turbines beneath the Golden Gate Bridge and to partially meet the energy needs of the City of San Francisco. While alternative energy production is certainly a contentious issue, it might become more so in the coming years. This week, a report for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) found that submerging turbines under the Golden Gate Bridge to harness tidal power would be prohibitively expensive in terms of construction and maintenance costs. Mayor Gavin Newsom indicated that he would continue to pursue the project and make tidal power in San Francisco a reality. We obviously need alternative sources of energy. I agree with Mayor Newsom that San Francisco should continue to pursue the possibility of tidal power from San Francisco Bay.