Uncategorized

Lil Peppi

"What's the solution? We're the solution. So stop with the excuses and make a contribution."

Word, Lil Peppi.

What's it going to take to enact proactive energy and environmental policy?

While the TVA hand-wringing went on at Senate hearings in Washington, D.C., another coal pond broke last week at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Jackson, Ala.

Not that we didn't know: Widow Creek was listed in a recent Environmental Integrity Project report as one of the worst 50 coal-fired power plant pollution "wet dumps" because of its toxic metals.

The "spill," this time in Alabama, according to the first reports, leaked "only gypsum."

Earlier this week, coal sludge was released into the Ocoee River Gorge in eastern Tennessee, as the TVA sought to repair a sediment dam. According to the state Department of Environment and Conservation, "Forest Service employees were walking the stream bank picking up what dead fish they could find ... No live fish were seen."

These accidents beg the question: How much longer are we going to sit back and allow crisis management to determine our energy and environmental policies?

What's it going to take? Dead bodies?

As Appalachian Voices editor Bill Kovarik pointed out, "The effusive praise in the hearing Thursday morning Jan. 8 went beyond the standard courtesies afforded witnesses in Senate hearings, perhaps because it was clear that the TVA's CEO was a relic of a bygone age who would need to be handled with respect and care as he was ushered out the door."

Instead of courtesies and crisis management, we need to:

• Phase-out all wet storage of toxic coal ash.
• Inspect all toxic coal ash storage and disposal units.
• Enact federal regulation of all toxic coal ash storage and disposal.

In the meantime, the EIP report found:

International energy group criticized for congenital ignorance and pessimism about renewables

Finally, someone is calling out the International Energy Agency for its absurd negativity about renewables:

The international body that advises most major governments across the world on energy policy is obstructing a global switch to renewable power because of its ties to the oil, gas and nuclear sectors, a group of politicians and scientists claims today.

The experts, from the Energy Watch group, say the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes misleading data on renewables, and that it has consistently underestimated the amount of electricity generated by wind power in its advice to governments. They say the IEA shows "ignorance and contempt" towards wind energy, while promoting oil, coal and nuclear as "irreplaceable" technologies. In a report to be published today, the Energy Watch experts say wind-power capacity has rocketed since the early 90s and that if current trends continue, wind and solar power-generation combined are on track to match conventional generation by 2025.

This is important -- people wield those IEA reports like they're gospel. They do immense harm to green efforts.

Here's the full report on wind power [PDF] from Energy Watch.

Small solar needs long-distance transmission as much as big wind

Average cost for new wind capacity in 2007 was per $1,710 per KW, according to the Annual Report on Wind Power 2007 [PDF]. Some of the largest new wind farms had costs as low as $1,240 per KW, while the smallest ones tallied costs as high as $2,600 per KW.

Further, large new wind farms got more use from each KW than small ones -- as much 40 percent capacity utilization for big farms on the best sites vs. a 33 percent to 35 percent average. Since capital costs and capacity utilization overwhelmingly determine wind costs, big wind is simply less expensive than small wind.

Ricoh puts wind-powered billboard in Times Square

Just what every clean-energy advocate has always dreamed of:

(thanks LL!)

More evidence that burden sharing is the same up and down stream

We can auction carbon permits or levy carbon fees/taxes upstream (at the mine mouth or well head, or on import or refining) or downstream, where fuel is actually burned. The main argument for levying downstream is that it will distribute the burden of who pays differently than levying upstream, because the fossil fuel industry won't be able to pass all of the fee or tax along. Most other arguments for downstream emissions pricing depend on that as a premise.

In my last post I pointed out that a gasoline tax, which is levied about as far upstream as possible, still ends up with about half the cost pushed back (PDF) to the producers. Since that thread has grown very long, I want to point out that general economic theory holds that where a consumption tax is levied generally does not affect tax incidence. To translate that from economic jargon: even if the store writes the check to the government, the customer still pays a lot of the cost. If the customer had to write the check to the government, the store would have to lower prices to make up for some (but not all) of the payment by the customer.

Green as in money

Wow -- somebody spent a lot of time taking notes at Grist, then found some deep, deep pockets and spent a lot of money putting up a slick corporate environmentalism-lite site called "Mother Nature Network."

It's a gagger.

The only blessing is that, given the cost structure required to keep all those beautiful people going, it's either going to be a vanity enterprise (like the Washington Times) or short-lived.

Florida PSC votes to establish a state renewable portfolio standard

My colleague Gwen Rose has spent a large part of the last two years working -- with a coalition of allies -- on a solar program for Florida. One would think solar in the sunshine state would be an easy sell, but it's been a rather tough slog.

Which is why we are pleased to report some good news. On Friday night, the Florida Public Service Commission voted unanimously to support a 20% by 2020 renewable portfolio standard.

We anticipate the program would establish about $300 million a year for solar. That's a big deal.

The fight now moves to the legislature, but for the moment, congrats to the many people who worked long and hard to put the sun in the sunshine state.

Green mideast peace

Cool video from Current about a nonprofit in Israel that brings kids together across borders to work on water problems:

Required reading for novice climate economists

Whether it's Pacific Northwest flooding or the other "strange" weather phenomena we've been seeing in the U.S. and across the globe, the present-day risks of a changing climate are real and threatening -- to say nothing about the future risks.

But the current economic downturn often drowns out calls for major spending to lower emissions or otherwise address climate change. Still, the reality is that the two -- economic and environmental revitalization -- can and should go hand in hand.

A great introduction to why is available from Frank Ackerman in Dollars & Sense magazine. "Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces" doesn't even need five full pages of English to make a strong case for action that stands up to climate change deniers.