It Ain’t Easy Being Green
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is getting criticized by environmentalists for trying to bring solar, geothermal and nuclear power from other areas to LA. The rub is the impact of an 85-mile corridor of high power lines going through forests and other areas.
Many preservation and community groups have condemned the mayor for a plan that they say would destroy priceless vistas, natural areas and wildlife corridors. Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity recently wrote Villaraigosa a letter saying that not only was such energy consumption not ‘green,’ but unacceptable under any name. The ends cannot justify the means, he said.
Further, the anger over the proposed route underscores challenges nationwide over how to ship wind, sun and steam power from remote rural reaches to booming urban centers. (Source w/links to LA Times and other sites)
Wow, tough crowd.
Sunday the CBS News program 60 Minutes had a feature on the return of nuclear plants as a source of green energy — the power plants do not create the greenhouse gases that we get from coal-fired plants. Much of France is powered by nuclear energy. They currently recycle spent rods rather than bury them as we’ve done in the US for decades. The downside is the recycling creates plutonium which can be used for bomb making. Apparently the US Government is researching new methods of recycling the waste without creating plutonium as a by-product. We may well see more nuclear power plants in our future.
Meanwhile back in St. Louis, the Ameren “fact sheet” shows a major reliance on coal & natural gas. Out of a capacity of 16,200 megawatts (mw) only 1,190mw of that is from their single nuclear plant located in Callaway County, MO. Three hydroelectric plants, including the non-functioning Taum Sauk, total 800mw. The remaining 87% of their capacity relies on coal or natural gas. Not exactly green. What are the alternatives for Missouri and Illinois customers of Ameren?
Well, one option is net metering. Per Sustainablog, the Missouri Senate is considering such a bill:
Missouri is one of a handful of states that don’t have a net metering law. In other words, if you install a grid-tied renewable system on your home or business, utilities in the state are not required to credit your electric bill at the retail rate for excess energy produced — the current system that the state government calls net metering only requires utilities to credit energy-producing customers at the avoided-cost rate. That could change as early as this year, as Missouri Senate bill 674, the Easy Connection act, has been introduced, and is now under consideration by the Senate’s Commerce, Energy and Environment committee.
One thing is certain, I don’t hear our regional elected officials speaking on the topic of future energy sources. The LA Mayor may be getting a bad rap over his proposal but at least he is looking for solutions beyond his term in office.
NIMBYism found its voice in California.
Didn’t the voters in California and/or Colorado pass a proposition that x% of their power in the future needs to come from renewable sources? Yeah – I thought so : http://www.newstarget.com/021222.html http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=17736 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15652935/
It’s a lot easier for a politician to be PC when he already has a mandate to make it happen . . .
If we don’t reduce carbon emissions, then who will be around to enjoy nature? When it comes to energy, I always argue that we need to reduce sprawl thus consumption. Lifestyle changes will produce the most drastic impact, although they are not very popular or politically likely.
Duckworth and others:
You need to understand a little-talked-about fact regarding CO2 emissions. Even if we (as a globe) implement all of the recommendations of the leading world organizations for decreasing CO2 output, we will still be producing more CO2 in 50 years than we are now.
If you want to curtail CO2 emissions then you should think less about consumption and more about technological innovations that would trap and convert CO2 before it is released into the atmosphere. That is the only way to curtail emissions and sustain worldwide economic development.
I have just 2 points:
1) I find it pathetic that one reason given that our leaders will not sign the Kyoto Treaty is because even if we did, our emissions would only be reduced 3 or 4 % which won’t make a big difference (I’m paraphrasing here), but their take is…our impact will be small, so why bother? Gee thats like saying I can polute all I want because I’m just one of 300 million, so my mark isn’t going to be noticed.
2) Ameren has yet to offer incentives to conserve. When I was in Phoenix, you had a number of options: no special meter at one rate every day, every our, a two tier rate (you get charged more during peak hours, but in exchange, you get lower than market rate in off hours), or, an option to volunteer to black out when the city goes into brown out mode. Then there was the net metering as well.
Net metering would be a start. So would be tax credits for reducing consumption. There are two parts to this equation, supply and demand. Besides mandating a switch to sustainable energy sources, California law mandates significant reductions in energy consumption:
http://www.bdcnetwork.com/articleXml/LN595433987.html?nid=2073
More and bigger houses, more “toys” (computers, big-screen TV’s) and sprawl all drive demand. Better insulation, more efficiency (compact fluorescent lights, for instance) and conservation (turn off the lights) reduce demand. Higher densities reduce demand for both heating and cooling and for water, and potentially reduce daily travel distances.
Anything and everything helps. With a population that’s going to grow by a third over the next thirty-some years, demand will inevitably continue to increase, substantially, in the U.S. and around the world. One simple change here in the city would be to turn off every other streetlight – we won’t be any less “safe”.
Locally, politics seems to favor ethanol production over solar and wind. And one area that probably needs to be looked at again is hydroelectric. We have the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. While there’s not much of a drop (compared to mountainous areas), there certainly is a massive volume of water passing by – spin some turbines and capture that energy.
Finally, I can only support a return to nuclear energy IF we commit to dealing with its waste locally. I find it unconscionable that consumers in urban areas expect to ship spent nuclear waste to sparsely populated areas for “disposal”. If you create the problem, deal with it! It’s no different to equating electric cars with being “clean” because you just “plug them in”. At the other end of the wire is, more than likely, a coal-fired generating plant sending electricty down the wire where 80% is lost in transmission to batteries that use toxic materials in their production and are just as toxic to dispose of!
Maurice, your analogy is flawed. If all 300 million people in this country took measures not to pollute we would have no pollution.
If all of the signatories to the Kyoto protocol actually applied its measures we would have…virtually the same CO2 output as we currently have. Even the advocates of the Kyoto protocol admit that it will have almost no effect on worldwide CO2 emissions.
What is pathetic is grandstanders like you who pretend to know what they are talking about on climate change. Stop misinforming people.
craig, if you’re going to call people pathetic you had better cite some references to back up your claims.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020601526.html
Read anything published by the International Energy Agency.
Florida’s efforts: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOU_XGR_FLORIDA_ENERGY_FLOL-?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Where can we all agree? In the debate on global warming and wasteful consumption, liberals and conservatives agree on this one point but our leaders refuse to debate it: as stated by Samuelson in Craig’s link above, “I’ve argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon.”
Yes as I’ve stated before, we should have a “Celebrate Bike Stands” Day. It will symbolize our freedom from volatile fuel suppliers, polution, waste, and from the burdens of autocentrism and overly-taxed wage income. “Viva la Bike Stands”!
Craig,
Explain how drastic cuts in consumption will not make a difference? I have not heard of this before.
from the washington post OP ED piece linked above:
“The IEA studied an “alternative scenario” that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from “renewables” (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.”
so according to the IEA the RATE OF INCREASE of emissions would DECREASE. that is GOOD! that is progress in the right direction! the rate of increase has to pass through ZERO before it becomes a rate of decrease. lowering emissions is not an instantaneous process and i don’t see how this could POSSIBLY be construed either as evidence against global warming or a reason to ignore the possibility. it is a demonstratable FACT that C02 and other green house gases trap heat. so tell me how, exactly, putting more C02 into the atmosphere will not effect the global climate. if you can provide evidence for some natural process that removes all that C02 as quickly as we stick it up there then maybe you’ll have a case. as it is now the evidence is in favor of warming.
Drastic cuts in consumption here will not be sufficient to reverse or offset a strong trend worldwide (unless drastic is defined as no electricity, no gas burning, etc.) No doubt we will have to make major changes in the way we live. This can either be forced on us by volatile energy markets or we can start taking steps to be more efficient. So what do you prefer, punishment or reward?
Government can attempt through new laws to dictate consumption patterns which usually lead to underground markets. The other option is to reward people for not polluting by making major changes in tax policy. The issue is how to incentivize the masses to be less wasteful (more efficient in the use of fuels) without dramatically lowering the standard of living.
Pick your poison as both will cause tremendous political turmoil. In the meantime, suck in the bad air, hope that more people will drive/consume less and scream for open and honest debates.
Will we as a society make scarifices for the benefit of others? If the behavior of local St. Louisans, particularly our leadership, is any indication of the answer, then there isn’t much hope.
i’m not saying that the US can do it alone. but, for example, i heard a gentleman on the radio yesterday talking about selling green technology to China. the point being that it would be mutually beneficial for both countries. although the upfront costs for green technology are higher, the efficiency, for example of green locamotives which we produce and China buys, saves a great deal of money in the long run. and it provides new free-market potential for the US as companies compete to provide the best, most efficient green technology in line with government-regulated green standards.
First, I’m not arguing against global warming. I’m assuming, for the sake of argument, that humans cause the warming, but that’s still very much in debate.
It’s fine if measures are taken to promote conservation and they don’t place too much of an economic burden on ourselves and our businesses. Especially in the oil sector where there are significant foreign policy reasons to encourage conservation. My point is that all of these measures are not enough to fix any climate change problem that might exist. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction if we can slow the rate of increase of CO2 emissions. Sadly, as the studies show, only managing to slow the rate of increase is not enough. If our current production of CO2 is causing the Earth to overheat then we must decrease CO2 emissions to below present levels. Even with valiant conservation efforts, this is a pipedream without new technology. Adam, I am again questioning your ability to reason.
If climate change is caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions, the only way to fix the problem is with new technologies to trap or convert the gases. The focus should be on the technology rather than on conservation efforts that cannot halt the increase of CO2 emissions.
Too easy to talk and feel good then to do good! Yes when I look and listen to all the talk, comments, etc., I rarely meet people who are willing to adjust their lifestyle to meet their talk. Then there are those who swallow the feel-good marketing at a drop of a hat. Who out there really believes that driving a Prius is eco-friendly?
“Democrats demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 in opposition to any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America…” (George Will) Does anyone think that even Democrats have changed much?
There is only three readily available ways to be less fuelish! Walk, bike and buy local.
craig,
what part of my reasoning are you questioning? it is feasible that humans are causing global climate change (and until it is proved otherwise it is the safer assumption). i’m saying that efforts need to begin NOW, regardless of whether or not they are the MOST efficient solutions, to reduce emissions. along the way more efficient solutions will emerge and speed up the process but not without significant efforts. we can’t ignore the problem until some magic bullet technology appears because that’s most likely not going to happen. it’s going to take small steps. and in terms of calculus, slowing the rate of increase IS enough. at some point the rate of increase reaches zero at which time no new net emissions are entering the atmosphere. after that the rate of increase becomes a rate of decrease which corresponds to removal of excess gases from the atmosphere. you’re just saying that transition isn’t worth the costs unless it happens overnight. i’m saying that it is because it’s not going to happen overnight.
Local media finally admits the obvious, will you? Alternative fuels are not the answer as the production creates greater sacrifices than most realize and fail to accout for. Read between the lines folks… truckin’ bosses need new highways like the New I64. The value of the most coveted public asset, our central corridor, will be severely damaged, forever.
PD: In Minnesota, one of the few states that require reporting of water use, a state study in 2005 found that ethanol plants used an average of 4.5 gallons for every gallon of ethanol. The water drawn for ethanol is a cost borne by communities — or whole regions — and a price sometimes ignored in the planning stages for new plants, experts say.
Promoters have not identified principal funding sources other than to say they have been working with investors in New York. One of the Gulfstream founders is Greg Wilmoth, a trucking company executive from Mount Vernon, Mo., who has drawn extra attention because of family connections: He is a cousin, once removed, of the state’s most prominent ethanol booster, Gov. Matt Blunt.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/2CE7802268EB6382862572BD001D245F?OpenDocument
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_5660567
Adam, the problem with your reasoning is that it ignores the facts. Currently, there is not even a glimmer of hope that we can reduce CO2 emissions enough to actually cause a decrease in emissions from year to year. Until that can be done, if you believe that warming is caused by CO2 emissions, then you have to admit that we can’t put a dent in the problem.
As I said before, I am not against conservation in principle. There are many benefits to conservation aside from its effect, or lack thereof, on climate change. But, conservation cannot be ordered without a calculation of its costs.
You guys are missing the point and gettng off the track with global warming debate. Both sides agree, for the sake of national security and just saving money, that renewable sources to include solar and wind are the answer. AND NET METERING is the best conduit for market forces and individuals to utilize and improve upon these technologies. Everyone and 40 other states by law agree to just that, except Missouri whose politicians are blinded by campaign money from AMERENUE. Someone please stop the background banjo music 🙂
Anyone want to bet that Senate Bill 674 will die in committee? Now that this website has acknowledged that net metering is an answer and mentioned a state bill, will this website monitor the progress of Senate Bill 674 and publish those state senators that vote against it or chairmen that will not even allow it for a vote BY NAME?
craig,
the only “facts” you have presented are the numbers spit out by the IPA’s model which, like any mathematical model, is an approximation with a certain statistical confidence attached to it. the rest of your words are your opinion, not fact. for example: “Currently, there is not even a glimmer of hope that we can reduce CO2 emissions enough to actually cause a decrease in emissions from year to year.” (by the way, i’m not sure what you mean by this since reducing emissions is the same as causing a decrease in emissions. do you mean reduce emissions enough to have an impact on the rate of warming?) the fact is that the IPA’s model does indeed predict a decrease in emissions (i.e. the rate at which new greenhouse gases are introduced into the atmosphere – NOT to be confused with the amount of greenhouse gas IN the atmosphere and thereby the rate of warming) based on proposed policies. your opinion is that this predicted decrease is insignificant compared to the effort/cost required. the fact is that it’s the best we can do at the moment. and i doubt we’ll see the necessary technology if substantial money isn’t spent on the problem.
Sorry, Adam. I was not clear. What I meant was that based on the models, we are not capable of decreasing CO2 emissions to the point where they would be less than today’s rate of emissions.
yikes. that should be IEA, not IPA (2 comments ago). i must have been thinking about beer. sorry.