Re: Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy

...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
________

Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth Institute

When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

The President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.

The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.

I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.

Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.

Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.

By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.

The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.

 

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Plea for Presidential Leadership on Sustainable Energy

...the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership...
________

Steven Cohen Executive director, Columbia University's Earth Institute

When President Obama ran for President, it seemed to me that he really understood the need to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. After eight years of Dick Cheney's Texas oil industry energy policy, it was a relief to hear Obama's perspective. As the campaign evolved, and certainly once he took office, the President decided that political expedience required that he favor nuclear power and deep sea oil drilling. My guess is that he is now a little less enthusiastic about these technologies. In fact, every so often he resumes his rhetorical push for renewable energy.

The President inherited an economic disaster that by necessity, dominated the agenda of his first two years in office. With the economy beginning to pick up steam, the BP oil disaster and the Japanese nuclear catastrophe are increasing the demand for President's leadership on energy. But so far, we haven't seen much. A new energy policy is urgently needed, and it must be influenced by an updated assessment of the risks of energy development after our experiences in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico.

Instead of a massive national mobilization for renewable energy, we got a "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" from the White House. The blueprint starts with the typical rhetoric about expanding the domestic production of fossil fuels. The big news in that plan is that coal is omitted in order to "expand safe and responsible domestic oil and gas development and production." The other elements of the plan include building more fuel efficient vehicles and encouraging more energy efficient buildings. Toward the end of the blueprint, they get around to "innovating our way to a clean energy future." This part of the blueprint includes the goal of generating 80% of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. The Obama energy plan provides a number of déjà vu moments. They really are rounding up the usual suspects.

The problem is that the Administration assigns a lower priority to energy and environment than to the economy, health care, and our military engagements. While sustainable energy could be a huge boost for the economy, the American political right is unwilling to invest government money in R & D and will not allow tax policies that favor renewable energy. All of that could be overcome with Presidential leadership, but I do not get the sense that the President really cares about these issues. Until he does, I don't think anything will change.

I hope it won't take another local disaster to move this issue up on the political agenda. As the news from Japan's damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants turns from very bad to even worse, one can't help but be reminded of the slow motion disaster of the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All the elements are there: assurances that the technology was manageable, the sudden lethal accident, a clean-up effort characterized by trial and error and unproven technologies. Let's hope the next energy disaster isn't the contamination of a city's water supply as a result of hydrofracking for natural gas.

Our inability to manage technology and our extreme need for energy leads to technological failures. The irony is that the only way to solve these problems is through the application of other technologies. Dismantling the energy based economy is not politically feasible. There is little question that along with the wondrous benefits of modern technology we face substantial risks. There is also little question that people are willing to tolerate those risks in order to obtain the benefits of technology. We know that we cannot live in a world without risk, but the issue is what type of risk? What is the probability of risk and what its possible scope and intensity? All risk is not created equal.

Every time you put your key in your car ignition and start to drive, you know you are risking an accident. You take steps to deal with the risk. To reduce the probability of risk, you might avoid icy roads. To reduce the potential scope of an accident you might use your seat belt and turn down that shot of tequila someone offers you "for the road," However, even a horrific auto accident is unlikely to result in massive death and destruction. While some of the impacts of a crash may well be irreversible, most will fade from view fairly quickly.

By definition, the technologies with the greatest potential negative impacts are large scale and capital intensive like most of the power plants that generate electricity. These plants are vestiges of the 20th century era of heavy industry. They are built on the management notion of "economy of scale." Today, inexpensive communication and information technologies allow you to build supply chains and production processes utilizing many organizations located in many places. We have done this in a number of business operations but not energy. It is possible to conceive of a decentralized energy system, but we have not yet built one. Distributed electric generation utilizing small scale power generators managed by smart grid technologies can ensure that electric generation capacity is less prone to breakdown due to the failure of a single generation source.

The amount of investment in capital intensive energy generation has resulted in a powerful set of economic interests that have long prevented America from addressing its critical energy problems. These established interests define energy reality. New technologies that require R & D and other incentives to compete with low tech fossil fuels are defined as infeasible and inadequate. The terms of debate are controlled by these interests and reinforced by the ideology of the free market. This is an amazing argument given the tax breaks and other government funded incentives long enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

While there is a clear need for the U.S. government to implement an active and if you'll excuse the pun, energetic energy policy, the political calculus in Washington is moving in the opposite direction. The House Republicans are so clueless about the need for sustainable economic development, that they are working overtime to use the budget process to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses and other air and water pollutants. And the President seems reluctant to push energy and environment and provide meaningful, sustained leadership. This is not a new story. But I for one hoped for more. I still do.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Study: Global Solar Transition Achievable in 20 Years – Even With Peak Oil

A new peer-reviewed scientific report published by the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD) in London concludes that the world can undergo a rapid transition to a completely renewable energy infrastructure by 2030. The report argues that such a transition is necessary to respond to the twin crises of fossil fuel depletion and climate change. It shows that technologies such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaic (PV), and concentrated solar power (CSP), with a baseload capacity provided by existing storage technologies and petroleum as it is phased out, can produce enough energy consumption per person to sustain high human development requirements for all. Co-author Professor David Schwartzman of Howard University said: "Our study models how much fossil fuel resources we will need to make the transition to a full renewable energy infrastructure. With only 1 per cent of current annual consumption of fossil fuels being used for creation of solar power per year, we can achieve a global-scale transition in no more than thirty years – and with modestly greater inputs, fossil fuels can become superfluous in only twenty years. Moreover, this transition can be accomplished with less than one-third of the proven reserves of conventional petroleum serving to insure adequate global energy needs culminating into a full solar takeover." The report shows that by reducing the world's dependence on oil, this energy transition can increasingly buffer the global economy's vulnerability to oil shocks induced by accelerating energy depletion. But we also need to consume less energy. "Optimally, this transition should be combined with an aggressive policy of energy conservation", said co-author Professor Peter Schwartzman of Knox College. "In the United States, for instance, conservation could reduce oil consumption by more than half by 2025, and for industrial countries overall by up to 35 per cent – while improving the quality of life. But we have to act immediately. If we wait a few decades, we could permanently lose our chance to get this transition off the ground." Assuming a minimum of 3.5 kilowatt per capita necessary for a world standard high human development index (hdi), in the report's conservative "best case" scenario, a renewable energy infrastructure could double present global power capacity to 32 terawatts (TW) in 25 years. This would provide a minimum energy supply corresponding to 3.5 kilowatt per capita for up to 9 billion people. However, increases in efficiency resulting from using solar power in industrialized countries could significantly reduce the energy needed to supply this hdi. This could be achieved at current population levels with 16.7 TW – which is only 5 per cent higher than the present global power capacity. IPRD Executive Director, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, said: "There is a probability of a major convergence of food, energy, water and economic crises by around 2018 without drastic change - signs of which are already appearing in the form of the Arab uprisings. We are therefore pleased to publish this new study which rigorously models the prospects for a comprehensive renewable energy transition. So far, despite the rhetoric, government efforts to support transition have been too little, too late. This report proves clearly that the way forward is for the industrialized world to eliminate its wasteful energy consumption while demilitarizing the economy and investing rapidly in new renewable technologies – and that this is really the only way to maintain well-being and prosperity while solving the challenges of peak oil and global warming." [ENDS] The new IPRD Report, 'A Solar Transition is Possible' is available for free download from the IPRD website at http://iprd.org.uk/?p=6877. For more information or to interview Professors Peter and David Schwartzman, please contact info@iprd.org.uk and/or call +44(0)7824 441 044 Notes for Editors 1.      The authors of the report, 'A Solar Transition is Possible' are Peter D. Schwartzman and David W. Schwartzman. David Schwartzman is Professor in the Department of Biology at Howard University. He is the author of Life, Temperature and the Earth: The Self-Organizing Biosphere (Columbia University Press). He obtained a PhD in Geochemistry from Brown University in 1971. Peter Schwartzman is Associate Professor and Chair of Environmental Studies at Knox College. He obtained his PhD in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia in 1997. 2.      The Institute for Policy Research & Development (IPRD) is an independent, non-profit, transdisciplinary research network based in London, promoting equality, sustainability and security. IPRD Executive Director, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, is an international security expert specialising in the political ecology and historical sociology of mass violence. His latest work is A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (London: Pluto, 2010) For more information or to interview Professors Peter and David Schwartzman, please contact info@iprd.org.uk and/or call +44(0)7824 441 044

Institute for Policy Research & Development Suite 301, 20 Harewood Avenue, London, NW1 6JX http://www.iprd.org.uk info@iprd.org.uk

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Nuclear Vs. Coal-

I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?

____________________

A No-Win Ethical Dilemma

Kelly Rigg Executive Director, GCCA crosspost via Huff Post Green

Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant are rightfully being hailed as heroes. A glimpse into their lives shows the high price they are paying to stave off a nuclear catastrophe -- 12 hour shifts, very little food, deplorable sleeping conditions and an expectation that some of or all of them will soon die. It's heartbreaking and telling that industry insiders refer to them as "glow boys" despite their immense sacrifice.


The fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster is spreading and we need to get prepared for the consequences. I'm not referring in this case to the contaminated particles that have seeped into the land and sea surrounding the crippled plant, but fallout of a less radioactive and far more political variety.

In the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the anti-nuclear Green party won a stunning upset victory over Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union on March 27, despite Ms. Merkel's last-ditch effort to win voters by announcing the temporary closure of some of the country's oldest reactors. China temporarily suspended approvals for new nuclear plants, and announced that it would likely scale back its nuclear ambitions, decreasing the proposed share of nuclear power from 5% to 3% of the total power supply by 2020. In the UK, Deputy Prime Minister Clegg suggested the government may be rethinking its plans to build a new generation of reactors:

We have always said there are two conditions for the future of nuclear power: [new plants] have to be safe, and we cannot let the taxpayer be ripped off," he said. "We could be in a situation now where the potential liabilities are higher, which makes it more unlikely to find private investment.

That sounds like the understatement of the year. Governments and investors must be starting to realize that the smartest money is on clean energy. New research by the Pew Environment Group is backing this assumption:

The clean energy sector is emerging as one of the most dynamic and competitive in the world, witnessing 630 percent growth in finance and investments since 2004," said Phyllis Cuttino, director, Pew Clean Energy Program. "In 2010, worldwide finance and investment grew 30 percent to a record $243 billion.

The biggest risk right now is that governments will look to high carbon energy sources such as coal, shale, or tar sands to warm their cold nuclear feet. But the urgency of climate change suggests this is no time to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
It's also worth remembering the ongoing devastation wrought by the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, whose one-year anniversary is coming up in April. BP set up a $20 billion fund, of which $4 billion has already been paid, to settle claims by businesses and individuals. This is on top of the actual costs to BP itself (and its insurers). Moreover, US authorities are considering prosecuting BP managers for manslaughter due to their cost-cutting measures which compromised safety.

And let's not forget the thousands of coal miners who die each year, or those who die of respiratory illnesses linked to air pollution spewed out by coal-powered plants. A report by Sierra Club puts the death toll at 4,000 per year in just the Northeastern region of the U.S. alone (PDF).

As governments grapple with the implications of Fukushima, we have a window of opportunity to fill the nuclear vacuum with safe, reliable renewable sources of energy. Japan is already thinking along these lines. As reported by Kyodo News:

Pursuit of solar power, bioenergy and other clean energy sources will be a key pillar of the government's reconstruction strategy to be drawn up for areas hit by a massive quake and tsunami following the country's worst nuclear accident, top government spokesman Yukio Edano said Tuesday.

Just last week, yet another study was published showing that we can make the transition to a completely renewable energy infrastructure, in this scenario by 2030.
But some low-carbon advocates, normally friendly to the environmental camp, have environmentalists stretching their heads. Rather than leveraging the crises at hand to help accelerate the shift to renewables, they are running a rearguard action to promote the benefits of nuclear power.

This brings to mind an old joke about the absurdity of tunnelvision. Three guys are shipwrecked on a remote desert island. One day a bottle washes ashore and out pops a genie who grants them three wishes. The first guy says, "I want to be home, enjoying a home-cooked feast with all of my friends," and poof, he's gone. The second guy says, "I wish I were home, making love to my beautiful wife," and poof he disappears as well. The third guy looks around and says, "Gee, it's kind of lonely around here... I wish those other guys were back here on the island."

But choosing our energy future is no joke. Given the 30-50 year lifespan of a power plant built today, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to get it right. Quite apart from the long-term risks from climate change, I propose we throw down the gauntlet to anyone advocating expansion of nuclear, coal, petroleum-based or other hazardous energy technologies: would you send your son or daughter to work in the coal mines or to clean up after an accident at a nuclear power plant? Would you accept the siting of such a facility in your neighborhood? Would you accept an oil rig off your nearest shore?
If not, then what moral right do you have to ask others to make such sacrifices?

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com