President Obama's Clean Power Plant Plan

 

President Obama has recently made some headlines in the news by introducing a controversial environmental and energy plan.  The plan is basically an executive order to force coal fired power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.  This is the biggest stance the president has taken to fight climate change.  These said power plants account for about 40 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions.  They are also one of the largest suppliers of powering electricity in the United States.  The plan estimates that will, prevent 3,600 premature deaths, prevent 1,700 non-fatal heart attacks, prevent 90,000 asthma attack on children and prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays.  In addition it will also save the average american family nearly 85 dollars a year on their energy bills, save enough energy to power 30 million homes and save consumers 155 billion dollars from the years 2020-2030.  It will also boost the American economy by creating tens of thousands of jobs, continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy and leads to 30 percent more renewable energy generation.  These are all estimates of what life will be like in the year 2030.  

Now, there are negatives with this plan, such as immediately it will be very costly to put in place.  The proposal would also force the energy industry to deal wit the cost of decommissioning or retrofitting existing, functional power delivery systems and replacing them.  This is a very costly affair.  In addition, the Chamber of Commerce states that the plan places unrealistic demands on states, which results in more burden on individuals and businesses.  The chamber believes that the level of CO2 emissions reductions is unachievable for the power plants.  

However, even though this plan is far from perfect, it is a step in the right direction in terms of fighting climate change.  The leaders of our country need to realize that climate change is a serious problem that needs to be address sooner rather than later.  There is extreme weather happening due to the high levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  The united Sates alone lost 65 billion dollars on super storm Sandy and 2.3 billion dollars on Hurricane Isaac.  President Obama realizes that climate change is a serious issue and is stepping in the right direction to combat it with this plan.  

For more information here are some links:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/02/Pros-and-Cons-Obama-s-New-Carbon-Rule

                                                                       

Power politics

To talk about energy consumption, right now, is to talk about politics.

The world’s eyes are on Copenhagen, where the United Nations Climate Change Conference (http://en.cop15.dk) currently sees nations the world over trying to figure out an action plan. And any action plan about climate change, is also, really, an action plan about energy consumption.

The most recent development saw the European Union agree to fund—to the tune of $3.6 billion—assistance programs to help poorer countries develop cleaner energy. The countries that will most benefit from these funds are in Africa, where energy development and sourcing is significantly less technologically advanced than in the U.S. and other developed nations.

Also this week, U.S. senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman announced the first step in passing a Senate bill solidifying a energy plan in this country. In a letter outlining the framework of the bill sent to President Obama, it appears the negotiations for an energy plan include almost every type of energy source out there. The letter is unspecific about a possible balance between theses different sources, as well. It does say that the goal is to cut carbon emission 17 percent by 2020.

The main points are as follows:

• Better jobs, cleaner air.
• Securing energy independence.
• Creating regulatory predictability.
• Protecting consumers.
• Encouraging nuclear power.
• Ensuring a future for coal.
• Reviving American manufacturing by creating jobs.
• Creating wealth for domestic agriculture and forestry.
• Regulating the carbon market.
• Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution.
• Building consensus.

The letter mentions numerous times that a lot of negotiation is left before any legislation passes. That’s obvious. Right now, it appears to be everything to everybody, and based more on nice ideas than tough choices. It’s becoming clearer and clearer—just look at the ongoing talks in Copenhagen—that to advance an effective energy policy, not everyone will not necessarily walk away happy.

-Ed Johnson

‘Carbon reduction trumps nuclear waste’

An interesting story in this week’s Sustainable Life, a publication of the Portland Tribune, suggests that nuclear power may be rising in the eyes of some of our region’s energy-decision movers and shakers. The reason? Nuclear power isn’t perfect, but its carbon footprint is better than burning coal or natural gas.

From Steve Law’s article:

“Many people now say coal plants constitute a bigger environmental threat because they spew a large volume of greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Some prominent environmentalists, regional energy planners and PGE’s new CEO say it’s time to rethink nuclear power, given the potential global problems from climate change.

Angus Duncan, chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission and president of Portland-based Bonneville Environmental Foundation, is periodically asked his views on nuclear power plants.

“My answer is, ‘carbon reduction trumps nuclear waste,’ ” Duncan says.

He’s quick to point out that cheaper remedies for greenhouse gas pollution should be pursued first, such as energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy. But Duncan stresses that Oregon can’t meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals if PGE’s Boardman coal plant continues operating.

Boardman emits about one-tenth of all Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions, while nuclear power plants emit none.”

In Oregon, voters would have to approve the building on any new nuclear plant. And after years of being told the nuclear power is a danger, and fighting to get the old Trojan plant shut down, it seems unlikely that they would change their minds. It’s interesting how scientific data has changed what we view as critical energy-related danger over time. Can power utilities really sell voters on the idea that nuclear is “greener” than other forms of power, even if it still poses some danger?

Later in the article, a spokesman from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council revealed that for the first time in over 20 years, the organization researched nuclear power as an option. In their view, he said, nuclear power isn’t the best viable option in a short-term (20-year) plan, because Oregon, specifically, had better options like wind and hydro. Also, the abundance of Natural Gas in the region means that building an infrastructure around that source would be cheaper.

The Sierra club contends that nuclear power still has a high carbon cost, and so doesn’t support it. But this (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf) report out of the UK refutes that, putting the carbon cost of nuclear somewhere around the same amount as wind power. However, if more lower grade uranium ore is used in the future, because there is more nuclear power, the carbon footprint could skyrocket.

Moving forward in time, it seems that a true cost-benefit analysis of our power needs, and the damage those needs do to the environment, might lead us to some previously almost unthinkable decisions.

-Ed Johnson