Articles by David Roberts

The players: Business, labor, advocates, and the public

Big business It was once accurate to speak of the business lobby in the U.S. as a monolithic and implacable opponent of government action to restrict carbon or disturb the dominance of dirty energy and carbon-intensive manufacturing. That’s no longer quite true. A number of things have changed. For one thing, the country has been […]

Two more coal plants won't be built, another will switch to biomass

• NV Energy, Inc. announced that it is postponing plans to build a "clean coal" plant in eastern Nevada, citing "environmental and economic uncertainties." This bit is worth noting:

The company will not move forward with construction of the coal plant until the technologies that will capture and store greenhouse gasses are commercially feasible, which is not likely before the end of the next decade.

Meanwhile, they're still building the high-voltage transmission lines that were part of the original plan -- they're just going to use them to carry renewable energy.

• In Ohio, American Electric Power has put plans for an IGCC coal plant on hold, citing the lack of sufficient subsidies "state of the economy." Oh yeah, and the assessment that construction costs will top $2 billion.

Plans for the project have been placed on hold repeatedly, due to cost recovery issues, construction costs and regulatory issues. However, Celona said, AEP has not changed its plans, and still hopes to build here.

I'll hold my breath.

• The University of Wisconsin's Charter Street heating plant, long a target for enviros, has announced that it will no longer be burning coal. It's switching to biomass, mainly wood and agricultural products.

"[It's] taking … heating from the 19th century into the 21st century," [UW Associate Vice Chancellor Alan] Fish said. "It's a more than $200 million investment by the state, and will eliminate the burning of over 100 tons of coal and have the potential to burn 250,000 tons of biomass."

Yes, all the usual criticisms of biomass apply, but at least it's creating electricity and not fueling cars. It's a step.

I could do a post like this every few weeks. Coal is on the ropes in the U.S. Next up: shutting down existing plants!

Today's leftovers

A couple of notable things today that I won't be able to give the time they deserve:

• Brad at the Wonk Room notes that the self-styled Senate "centrists" who carved $100 billion 600,000 jobs out of the stimulus bill -- under the guise of "cutting the fat" -- managed to protect a $50 billion boondoggle for nuclear power, water down loan guarantees for renewable energy and grid projects, and boost subsidies to dirty energy. Nice work, "centrists."
• Amory Lovins has a guest post on the NYT's Freakonomics blog, making his familiar case that small and smart beats big and powerful when it comes to electricity generation. The comments reflect all the usual misunderstandings Lovins encounters, including the comical demand that he supply statistics to back his case. Whatever Lovins' faults, lack of statistics isn't one of them. He's even quantified the number of hidden economic benefits of micropower: there are exactly 207!
• Huzzah to Keith Johnson at the WSJ's energy blog for making a point that is too-little understood by the broader body politic: dirty power is "cheaper" than clean power because dirty power doesn't pay for its full costs. This seems incredibly basic and obvious to people who have been studying and writing about energy for a while, but it still hasn't really penetrated the public conversation. Witness the outbreak of dumbassery in the WSJ comments.
• David Sirota makes a good point: if you tax energy companies to fund good things, you make those good things dependent on energy companies -- perversely, you strengthen the political hand energy companies can play. Careful how you use tax revenue.

And that was just from today!

The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe

I'm seeing a lot of people passing around a link to this story on TPM, which mocks Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes for saying that the case for man-made warming is "falling apart" but refusing to divulge any of his sources for that seemingly significant piece of info.

At first I just laughed about it, but it occurred to me later that maybe people really don't know the answer to this question -- maybe people really don't know where Barnes is getting his info. The answer is an open secret:

Barnes gets his information on climate change the same place everyone in the right-wing media world gets it: from Marc Morano, the in-house blogger/agitator for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).