Climate Climate & Energy

We can do more than he calls for, but I would settle for Gore’s objective

Everyone is talking about Gore's proposal to decarbonize electricity over the course of 10 years.

Without considering transmission and storage losses, Gore's estimate of $1.5 to 3 trillion would require capital costs of under 37 to 74 cents per annual kWh. Taking those losses into consideration, cost would have to be more in the 28 to 56 cents per kWh range. (Note again these are not cost per watt of capacity. These are costs per annual kWh. They are levelized costs translated into capital numbers.) Jon Rynn and I have a worksheet in process on costs to 95 percent decarbonize economy, rather than 100 percent decarbonizing the grid. But it does include 99 percent decarbonizing the Grid, including a 30 percent redundancy to handle annual variations. The bottom price with the most aggressive improvements we looked at came to 66 cents per annual kWh. That comes out to $3.54 trillion, about $540 billion more than Gore budgets. But because biomass has proven so devastating ecologically, and so disastrous to the poor we assume very little use of biomass. Also we phase out nuclear as well as fossil fuels, something I'm pretty sure Gore does not. More nuclear and biomass not only reduce the amount electricity that needs to be generated, but it also reduces the need for storage losses. So Gore's plan does pencil out at the high end with 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity at under $3 trillion.

If you follow our plan you would probably see the grid more like 90 percent decarbonized in first 10 years. But you would also see 85 percent of truck freight shifted to mostly electrified trains, construction of light rail, and massive reductions of emissions in residences, commercial buildings, and industrial use. So we reduce emissions by more than Gore's proposal, and reduce oil use significantly too, something Gore's plan would not do. So not only is Gore's plan feasible over a 10 year period, much greater reductions are feasible than Gore calls for over a 10 year period. Gore remains, as he as always has been, a mainstream centrist. That so much of the environmental community and netroots chooses to back away from it as "almost feasible" or "a moonshot," that is, as too radical, says something about their timidity.

Progressives discover there is no coherent energy movement to take advantage of this moment

I talked with lots of people inside and outside the green movement at Netroots Nation, and one theme arose again and again. Everyone agrees that the energy issue is more salient every day, in virtually every area of politics (economy, foreign policy, etc.). Lots of people are now being pushed to address it. They’re looking […]

Feds note electric rate increases and high construction costs for nuclear and coal

An interesting new report [PDF] from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeks to explain why electric prices are currently increasing so dramatically.

They lay most of the blame on rising fuel costs and rising commodity costs (copper, steel, etc.), which is certainly contributory, but in my opinion deceptive, since it suggests that -- but for commodity volatility -- things could be hunky-dory again. This implicitly diminishes the fact that we're entering a build-cycle in the power fleet, and thus fails to understand all the chickens now coming home to roost in the power sector.

That said, it still makes for an interesting read -- even if one disagrees with the causes. The reality of rising power prices and even higher prices on forward markets is something that we must understand -- and for which we must start thinking through the consequences.

A big addition to the Western Climate Initiative

Ontario officially joins the Western Climate Initiative as a full partner. Sweet.

Some Americans may not fully realize the significance of this. So for my fellow Yankees (and with apologies to readers north of the border) ... Ontario is the California of Canada in the sense that it has more people and economic activity than any other province. On the other hand, Ontario is the Michigan of Canada in the sense that it has a huge auto manufacturing base. And yet Ontario is also the New York of Canada in the sense that it is the seat of the country's biggest city, major banks, and cultural headquarters. And finally, Ontario is the Washington, D.C. of Canada in the sense that it is home to the nation's capitol.

So it's a big deal.

Ontario adds nearly 12.9 million people to the Western Climate Initiative. In combination with British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec -- already members of WCI -- nearly 80 percent of Canada is now under a hard carbon cap. In political terms, this means that prime minister Stephen Harper and the province of Alberta (the Texas of Canada) will now have to go off and play by themselves. It's a giant poke in the eye to Canada's lax federal leadership on climate change.

And it's terrific news for the WCI states too. Ontario has a GDP comparable to the combined economies of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Utah. And it means that the WCI is now home to nearly 85 million North Americans.

Bloggers weigh Gore’s plan in advance of ‘Meet the Press’

Liberals love Gore's gall. Conservatives hate that he drove a gas-guzzler to the big speech. Politicians grumble over his timing. Climate policy wonks and science geeks admire the inititive, but want something a little more ... feasible ... say, 50 to 90 percent renewable electricity by 2020 with a little natural gas for good measure?

Across the blogosphere, however, certain questions about Gore's plan remain unanswered. What practical measures will we take to get to zero emission electricity in 10 years? Who will lead the charge? From where will the requisite funds come to finance this energy operation? Will Tom Brokaw grill Gore on "Meet the Press" this Sunday? Or will the Goracle leave the details to those in the political trenches and dodge the pragmatic bullet?

The remaining voices:

Ontario joins up with Western carbon cutters

Ontario has joined the Western Climate Initiative, a regional carbon-trading agreement with a goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The province joins seven U.S. states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and three Canadian counterparts (British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec). For those folks not up on […]

Are biofuels a core solution?

As part of my ongoing series on core climate solutions (see links below), let's examine biofuels.

If we are going to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes, we need some 11 "stabilization wedges" from 2015 to 2040. So if you want to be a core climate solution, you need to be able to generate a large fraction of a wedge in a climate-constrained world. And that is a staggering amount of low-carbon energy.

Princeton's Socolow and Pacala describe one wedge of biofuel in their original August 2004 Science article [PDF] on the wedges:

A simple regulatory fix to the coming power crisis

Our electric regulatory model is broken. It preferentially deploys expensive power sources before cheap ones. It compares the variable costs of dirty fuels to the all-in costs of clean fuels and deludes itself into thinking that the dirty, expensive power is economically advantaged. It places the interests of utility shareholders above the interests of other potential investors in our power grid, massively skewing capital allocation, even while it insulates utility investors from the disciplines imposed by a competitive market.

These problems arise fundamentally from the over-regulation of our electric sector, which has created stable utilities, but virtually no opportunities for the kind of economic "upside" necessary to attract entrepreneurs into the sector. This ought to be good news; after all, we Americans are really good at taking risks, deploying our prodigious entrepreneurial talents and making big financial bets. The problems we face all play to our strengths. Unfortunately, any positive change to our system is by definition deregulatory -- a word that has been politically poisoned by the botched restructuring (don't call it dereg!) in California and Enron's machinations. As factually irrelevant as those bogeymen may be to any discussion of deregulation, they present formidable political obstacles to reform -- and only the most quixotic windmill-tilter chases reforms that are politically untenable to both sides of the aisle.

Houston, we have a solution.

Netroots Nation: David talks about energy and the economy

Who’s that grizzled chap in the plaid? It’s our own David Roberts, on a panel earlier today titled “Debunking the Issue Silo Myth: Why the Broader Progressive Movement is Green,” at Netroots Nation. His part is about 14 minutes into it:

Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere

It goes something like this:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

Of course that's not true. Today a statement appeared on the APS website saying:

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

For a list of societies that have endorsed the mainstream position on climate change, see this post.