#EnergyChat: Why David Kroodsma Rode his Bike 30,000 Miles for the Climate, and Where He's Off to Next

Full Spectrum: Energy Analysis and Commentary with Jesse Jenkins

David Kroodsma has already logged more than 30,000 miles traveling the world by bicycle and raising awareness about climate change. This week, the author, data journalist, and travel adventurer embarked on his latest journey: an 8,000 mile journey across Asia from Turkey to Bangladesh.

I caught up to David to record this #EnergyChat interview shortly before he departed for Istanbul to begin his next bicycle adventure...

David is the author of The Bicycle Diaries: My 21,000-Mile Ride for the Climate, which recounts his first cross-continental bicycle adventure from California to Tierra Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America from November 2005 to March 2007 and a trip from Massachusetts to California following his return to the United States. (He also traveled across Eastern Europe in 2012, bringing his total odometer to 30,000-plus miles.)

The Bicycle Diaries is one part travel adventure and one part on-the-ground exploration of the twin humanitarian imperatives that define the 21st century: climate change and global development. It's an excellent read, and I highly recommend it to those with a thirst for travel or a desire to understand why climate change is both so important and so challenging to solve.

Throughtout his long journey across the Americas, David, who holds a masters degree in environmental science from Stanford University, delivered presentations on climate change for school children, did interviews with dozens of newspapers and television programs, and examined first hand some of the impacts of climate change. But the journey also took David far from the comfort of the United States and out of the developed world context within which so many of us think about, debate, and discuss climate change (myself included).

Reading The Bicycle Diaries, you are transported along with David into the one-room, mud-and-brick home of Melvin and Rosa, a Honduran family who lacks electricity, but watches Ugly Betty on a small black and white TV powered by a car battery. You meet Baltazar, a 55 year old Oaxacan who fishes for shrimp with his two sons in the mangroves along Mexico's Gulf of Tehuantepec earning 100 pesos a day (about $8.00). And you witness the relative prosperity of Bogota, Columbia, capital of a nation still plagued by armed conflict but where citizens are proud of the bicycle-friendly, human-scale city they have built over the last decade. 

David paints a clear picture of ecosystems and communities simultaneously at threat from climate change â€" from Monteverde's unique cloud forests to the mangroves that support Baltazar's fishery â€" and nations facing an even more pressing imperative to expand economic opportunity for millions of their citizens. It's an intimate portrait of the intertwined climate and human development challenges that quite simply must be solved together.

The following excerpt captures the complex moral challenges that animate David's book:

"Climate models suggest [we will see] ... both more flooding and more droughts, which could mean more years of failed crops for subsistence farmers like Melvin and Rosa.

Some economists argue that we should focus on helping the poor develop economically, so that when a warmer world comes, people can afford to adapt. This idea makes sense: if Melvin and Rosa's children had more wealth, then they could build a stronger house that could better survive storms. Perhaps they could be able to buy food imported from Canada, or maybe they would invest in genetic engineering to create crops that can survive a warmer Honduras.

Melvin and Rosa's house in Honduras
Melvin and Rosa's house in Honduras (Photo credit: David Kroodsma)

But to fuel such economic growth with our current technology would mean burning more coal and gasoline, which would just exacerbate global warming. More than two billion people â€" people like Melvin and Rosa â€" currently live on less than two dollars a day and use almost no fossil fuels. Before folks like them escape povery using the same technologies that my country used to develop our economy, we will likley pass the point of no return: when the world is on track to warm by more than what most experts consider "safe" (about 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.5 degrees Farenheit). Without affordable, abundant, carbon-free technologies, there is simply not enough atmosphere left for the Melvins and Rosas of the world.

... Before I left, I gave Melvin my headlamp, partly in thanks, and partly because it pained me to think of them in the dark every night. I wish I could have given them an electric light, and connected their house to the electric grid. I couldn't do either, but I feel we need to somehow help Melvin and families like his â€" the rest of the world's poor â€" improve their lives without overtaxing the atmosphere in the process. Melvin and Rosa deserve a more stable, comfortable lifestyle, which means using more energy, not less, and I am morally opposed to preventing them from getting it. If we have to choose between denying them energy or letting climate change occur, I would vote to let climate change continue unabated. I hope, though, that we don't have to make that choice."

It's an uncomfortable but powerful reality: only by developing and deploying a suite of clean, affordable, and massively scalable energy technologies can we hope to simultaneously confront climate change and fuel economic opportunity for those most in need of it.

On an intellectual level, I've known this for a long time. But reading David's book puts a very real, human face on the abstractions that have ruled so much of my thinking about climate change. 

If you can't hop on your bike and journey across the Americas yourself, you can at least pick up a copy of David's book and go on the journey with him as you read.

Stay tuned at TheEnergyCollective.com as well for dispatches filed from David's latest year-long journey across Asia along with his wife, Lindsey Fransen, a specialist in climate adaptation planning and water conservation.

David and Lindsey's 8,000-mile route across Asia

David and Lindsey's 8,000-mile route across Asia


Below you can read an excerpt from The Bicycle Diaries, reproduced with permission from the author.

Crossing the Border
An excerpt from The Bicycle Diaries: My 21,000-Mile Ride for the Climate, by David Kroodsma

I stopped pedaling and looked anxiously at the frontier. In front of me was the California-Mexico border, marked by a white tollbooth-like structure and a large sign that read Mexico in metal letters beneath the country's coat of arms: a large eagle perched on a cactus with a snake in its talons. It was an hour after sunrise on a sunday in early December, and the light angled through the cool desert air, illuminating the quiet, dusty town of Tecate just beyond the tollbooth.

If I was trying to be inconspicuous, I was failing. Clad in arm and leg warmers, I essentially wore full-body spandex, and I stood over six feet tall. My bike helmet had a large brim on the front and a cloth attached at the rear, both futile attempts to guard my pale skin from the sun. Between my outfit and my black touring bike with four red panniers, I wasn't going to blend in south of the border.

But, although I was conspicuous on the road, once I left it I was invisible. Unlike traveling by car, with a bike you can disappear off the highway at any point and set up camp, even just a hundred feet off the road, without a soul knowing where you've gone. Thieves can't rob you if they don't know you're there. It's the greatest sense of freedom; the world was my campground, my living room, my highway. The night before, five miles north of Tecate, I'd easily found a place to sleep, as numerous foot trails led away from the highway, and a patch of desert ground had already been clearedâ€"likely by people also wishing to keep hidden. I wondered how many illegal immigrants, how many of the people I saw working in California during my eight years in the state, had slept on similar patches of ground, staring at the stars.

At twenty-six years old, I was on the adventure I had dreamed of since I was twenty: starting from my home in California, I planned to ride south until I reached the southern tip of south America. I know this sounds a bit crazy. What sane person would camp along the Mexican borderâ€"the site of countless crimes and murdersâ€"let alone plan to ride alone across all of Latin America? Numerous countries I would travel through are besieged by the residual violence from recent civil wars; Colombia in particular endures an ongoing civil conflict, with nearly a third of the nation under rebel control. Moreoverâ€"except for in Chile, where I had studied for three months during collegeâ€"I had no friends and almost no contacts south of the border. My spanish was poor, and I had never traveled internationally by bike. Yet for some reason I chose to ignore all of these facts, and instead eagerly planned my route heedless of the risks. I decided I would ride solo across Central America, the Amazon, the Andes, and the wastelands of Patagonia, and I would reach the earth's end in just under a year and a half. And not only did I want to bike this distance alone, I wanted to take the opportunity to raise awareness of climate change in the processâ€"a topic I had spent the past four years studying. You might call me naïve. You might be right.

I had discovered bike touring six years earlier. After spending the summer after my sophomore year in college in the "biketopia" of Portland, Oregon, my friend Tom suggested that we "bike to school" in the largest sense of the phrase: riding the nine hundred miles from Portland to Stanfordâ€"and doing it in under two weeks. Pedaling a 1980s racing bike I had purchased that summer for $125, and carrying only a sleeping bag, tarp, and change of clothes, I biked with my friend along the rocky Oregon and California coastline. After just a few days, I was hooked.

While biking, no windshield protects you from the rain, heat, or wind, and there's no wall between you and the people along the road. In a car the scenery appears as if on television, framed by the windows. On a bike, you can practically touch everything you see. The world is right there, in 3-D. You also travel slowly enough that the person at the corner store can make eye contact and offer a greeting as you pass. And, off the highway, the bike becomes a prop for conversation, an excuse to talk. People lower their defenses and open their doors to cyclists in a way they don't for those traveling by car.

The trip to California took us nine days, riding as much as twelve hours a day. On that journey, we briefly met another cycle tourist who said he'd once taken off two years and biked to Patagonia. Our conversation was briefâ€"I didn't even get his nameâ€"but the idea stuck with me. When we arrived at the palm tree–lined boulevards of Palo Alto, I didn't want to start my classes; I just wanted to keep heading south. I later read online about a couple different adventurers who had cycled from North America to Argentina, and nearly every one said it was the best thing they'd done in their entire lives. It seemed like the greatest way to see the world, the most invigorating and intimate way to experience the planet. And a trip like this would also be relatively cheapâ€"the main costs just bike gear, food, and a return flight home. I calculated I could save enough cash for it in just two yearsâ€"that is, once I finished school and started working. From that point on I hoarded my earnings, planned, and dreamed.

I wanted more, though, than just an adventure. I somehow wanted to make a difference in the worldâ€"even though, in retrospect, I had a very limited idea of what this world is like. I had spent my entire life in school or labs, and it would be a major leap to head from the classroom to the open road. This bike-tour dream needed some fine-tuning.

so in the meantime I continued with my junior year at Stanford University, studying physics, a major I had chosen just because I enjoyed it, not because I thought it would make me particularly employable.Two years later I earned my master's degree, in interdisciplinary environmental science. I happened to be interested in the most abstract of global problemsâ€"climate change. I found it fascinating how carbon dioxide cycles through the earth's biosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceansâ€"and how this odorless, invisible gas has the power to so greatly alter the world's climate.

I was researching this issue in the years before the award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006, before climate change emerged as part of the national discussion.Through reading scientific papers and attending lab group meetings, and working on an ecological experiment studying the effects of warmer temperatures, I had become convinced that climate change poses a real and significant threat to our civilization, and that too few people understood the magnitude of the challenge. At some point I realized that these concerns dovetailed beautifully with my dream ride, so I decided to "ride to raise awareness of climate change." I would research the ways global warming was affecting the places I would be biking throughâ€"from California to Tierra del Fuegoâ€"and I'd encapsulate all I learned in a blog: www.rideforclimate.com. And as I traveled from region to region I'd share what I'd learned with each community, giving talks at schools and speaking with journalists about the very real threats climate change specifically posed to their environment.

In my head, it was a great idea; in practice, I had no idea how I would enact this plan in Latin America. I didn't even know how to say "carbon dioxide" in spanish when I started. And, given that the U.s. pollutes far more than Central and south America, raising awareness in those less polluting lands was a lower priority, earth-wise. And never mind that the original goal of my journey was adventure and not activism, or that multi-year bicycle vacations won't solve a problem as enormous as climate change. I was just as ignorant about my activist goals as I was about how I would travel in Latin America.

In retrospect, my goal of raising awareness in others was obviously backwardâ€"it was my own understanding that changed the most. I saw that climate change is just one of many challenges facing humanity. In many ways, it's less urgent than ongoing conflicts in the Middle east, or than the daily poverty experienced by billions of people across the globe. And it isn't something that we should solve by restricting development: most people in the world rightfully want more, not less.

But all that being true doesn't alter the fact that climate change is real, and my trip gave me a vivid and personal sense of what is at riskâ€"unique ecosystems, coastline settlements, and the livelihoods of countless people. While some of humanity will probably survive its consequences, I know we will regret what we will lose by not taking action.

At the border with Mexico, though, just a month into my ride, none of these thoughts crossed my mind. I didn't know what lay ahead or how it would affect me. I was just excited that the adventure had arrived, and that I was about to cross into Latin America. I didn't know my exact route, or whom I would meet, or how I'd raise awareness; I only knew that I'd ride south for months on end, until I ran out of road. I took a deep breath, inhaing the crisp December desert air, and pedaled toward the frontier. 

Read More

Diesel Truck Pollution: The Truth is Lost in the Fumes

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

TruckPollution_UNECE.jpgA couple things about diesel truck pollution: there’s still a lot of it in California, truck drivers are suffering from it, and most truck owners oppose rolling back the statewide truck clean-up rule.  These facts have been obscured by all the fumes emanating from a tiny but vocal minority of trucktivists who want to do away with the Air Resources Board measure curbing diesel pollution from trucks.  ARB will consider allowing some additional delays to their statewide diesel truck and bus rule adopted six years ago.

The diesel truck rule was already delayed in 2010 in response to the recession, but it remains a pillar of public health, cutting toxic diesel soot from the state’s largest source by 80 percent.  When the rule is fully implemented, a total of 3,500 premature deaths will have been avoided, along with relief to thousands of families in high truck traffic areas, who are suffering from asthma rates that are twice as high as other areas.

While we’ve seen a lot of improvement in air quality over the past decade with many diesel clean-up regulations phasing in, thousands of polluting trucks remain on the road.  Diesel trucks are still the largest source of nitrogen oxide pollution in California, which contributes to smog and soot, and they emit more fine particulate soot directly than all of the cars on the road.  

The drivers of these trucks are on the front lines of exposure to diesel soot.  A 2007 NRDC study placing air monitors in the cabs of trucks, showed that drivers are exposed to increased diesel soot and health risks of roughly four times the average levels in urban areas.  While many drivers may feel fine in the short term, their lung and heart health is impacted in the long run, potentially leading to debilitating illnesses and shortening their lives.  (See this summary of the health impacts associated with diesel soot and fine particulate pollution)diesel_smokingtruck.jpg

We often talk about safeguarding the communities most impacted by diesel pollution. This remains a priority, but we need to recognize the drivers as part of those communities.   Cleaning up tailpipe emissions from trucks shouldn’t pit drivers against residents.  In fact, the vast majority of truck owners in California â€" at least 85 percent â€" are estimated to be in compliance with the truck rule. These owners have already made investments to clean up over 140,000 trucks and would be at an unfair disadvantage if the rule was weakened. This is why the California Trucking Association, which represents 2,000 companies, strongly opposes any roll backs to the rule. 

Various studies have shown key pollutants cut in half in recent years in some of the most polluted areas of the state (see here for example). While we celebrate these improvements, we need to stay on track to eliminate diesel pollution as quickly as possible, given the terrible health toll that it takes.  Our work is only halfway done.  If a cigarette was cut in half, smoking it would remain harmful to your health.   ARB should continue working to clear all the smoke, including diesel smoke, by moving forward with a strong diesel truck rule until every last tailpipe is cleaned up.

Read More

Energy Quote of the Day: 'No Country ... Can Expect Old-Style Geopolitics to Go Unchallenged'

About the panel

Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »

Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »

Elias Hinckley is a strategic advisor on energy finance and energy policy to investors, energy companies and governments More »

Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »

Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »

Kelly Klima is a Research Scientist at the Department of Engineering and Public Policy of Carnegie Mellon University. More »

Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »

Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »

Read More

California to Utilities: Connect Battery-Solar Energy Systems to the Grid

Energy Storage and Batteries and the Grid

California regulators have just issued a rebuke to utilities, and a thumbs-up to customers and companies that want to connect hundreds of now-stalled battery-backed solar PV projects across the state.

LastTuesday, the California Public Utilities Commission issued a proposed decision that would exempt most storage-solar projects from extra utility fees and interconnection studies (PDF). Instead, it would require utilities to treat them as regular old net-metered solar systems, as long as they meet certain requirements.

For the past twelve months or so, California’s big three investor-owned utilities -- Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric -- have been demanding these systems undergo extensive reviews that come with between $1,400 and $3,700 in extra fees. Utilities have said they need to do this for safety reasons, as well as to make sure that batteries don’t store grid power, then feed it back under the guise of green, net-metered power.

Solar and storage system installers say these unnecessary fees and studies have brought new battery-solar projects to a screeching halt, and slowed to a crawl grid interconnections for those that have been approved. SolarCity, for example, says that of the more than 500 customers that have signed up for its solar battery systems, only twelve have been connected to the grid.

Tuesday’s proposed decision makes it clear that CPUC agrees with SolarCity and its customers, not the utilities. “We disagree with IOUs’ conclusions and would have preferred that the IOUs had taken a more proactive and collaborative approach to avoid creating barriers,” it states. In an October assigned commissioners ruling, CPUC President Michael Peevey noted that more than 10 megawatts of solar-storage projects have been put on hold in the state because of the utilities' stance.

Indeed, storage and solar advocates have been anticipating a ruling that supports a more streamlined, no-cost solution. This proposed decision doesn’t give them everything they want, but it would certainly remove the main obstacles.

“I think it’s going to streamline it quite a bit. There were customers who weren’t able to pay these interconnection fees who we can now move forward,” Peter Rive, SolarCity co-founder and CTO, said in a Tuesday interview. UDPATE: Bloomberg reported Wednesday that SolarCity has resumed submitting applications for projects in light of the proposed decision.

SolarCity has been installing batteries from Tesla Motors in homes since 2010 as part of the California Solar Initiative program. In December it announced it was entering the commercial building market as well, competing with companies such as Stem, Green Charge Networks and Coda Energy to provide low-cost battery systems to mitigate demand charges.

But SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive and his cousin, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, complained during a February CPUC workshop that the utilities’ blockade has pushed the average wait time for interconnections to eight months. Last month, SolarCity announced it would stop filing applications with these utilities until the impasse was broken -- a stance that could be re-examined if CPUC commissioners approve this proposed decision at their next meeting.

Peter Rive noted in Tuesday's interview that opening the grid to solar-storage systems should also give utilities, grid operators, individual customers and aggregators like SolarCity a chance to optimize their interactions with the grid at large.

“The idea of solar plus storage being something that removes a customer from the grid is counterproductive to us seeing those benefits,” he said. “I think a lot of utilities don't know which way to go. They see these benefits, but they say, 'How do I aggregate these customers, when it adds up to tens of megawatts, not just hundreds of kilowatts?' […] We can aggregate customers in large numbers and use them like a virtual power plant.”

CPUC’s proposed decision lays out certain limits for systems that are exempt from all fees, interconnection studies and distribution system upgrade cost triggers. First, the energy storage component would have to be smaller than the net metering-eligible generator it’s attached to -- usually solar panels, but potentially wind or other qualifying resources â€" when the system is larger than 10 kilowatts. For systems under that scale, no sizing limits are proposed.

That size threshold also applies for two different ways to meter the output of solar-storage systems. Under Tuesday’s proposal, systems larger than 10 kilowatts will require a separate meter for measuring the interplay of battery-charging and solar generation, although the CPUC does take SolarCity’s suggestion to cap that extra meter’s cost to no more than $500.

For systems less than 10 kilowatts in size, the proposal takes up a system suggested by solar-storage startup Sunverge, to use the local data acquisition system to measure energy drawn into the storage unit, then use that to “de-rate” the annual net metering credit for on-site generation. In other words, it calls for trusting the solar-storage system to measure its own give-and-take status against the grid.

Also, “Because storage systems continually consume some power to maintain system services, these systems should not be penalized for de minimis consumption. Therefore, customers shall receive 100% of annual NEM credits where the annual de-rate factor is 95% or higher,” the proposed decision states. That’s important to avoid degrading the value of net metering, which makes up a significant payback stream for rooftop solar in California.

“We’re very encouraged by the proposed decision having no application fees, and having the costs of the meters capped,” Rive said. Given that SolarCity already monitors each individual installation at the meter and at the inverter, “I don’t think a meter is necessary at all -- but we’re moving things forward,” he said.

Other companies, such as Sunverge and Outback Power, have also been filing briefs in support of the CPUC’s proposal to exempt simple solar-battery projects from high fees and complicated studies. California is already pushing forward with rules for integrating 1.3 gigawatts of energy storage into the state’s grid by 2020, and calls for customer-sited storage to make up a significant portion of that total.

Besides the storage mandate, California is also undergoing a rewriting of its net metering policies, which could open up possibilities for storage-backed solar systems to interact with grid needs in new ways. Rive noted that SolarCity has just launched a Grid Engineering Solutions department that is working on ways to share its aggregated solar-storage capabilities with utilities or grid operators like California ISO.

Photo Credit: Solar Energy and the Grid/shutterstock

greentech mediaGreentech Media (GTM) produces industry-leading news, research, and conferences in the business-to-business greentech market. Our coverage areas include solar, smart grid, energy efficiency, wind, and other non-incumbent energy markets. For more information, visit: greentechmedia.com , follow us on twitter: @greentechmedia, or like us on Facebook: facebook.com/greentechmedia.

Read More

The Losing Economics of Investing in Aging Coal Plants: Part 2

Agin Coal Plants

Noah Long, Legal Director, Western Energy Project, Energy & Transportation Program; and Clean Energy Counsel, Land & Wildlife Program, San Francisco

This entry is the second of a two-part follow up to the blog I posted last fall. The first entry focused on the national story of coal's decline, this entry focuses on the west.

Investors already projected another bleak year for the U.S. coal industry â€" but 2014 may be the worst year for coal producers. In contrast, investors are increasingly warming up to the economic viability of alternative energy sources, including energy efficiency, and giving the dirty coal industry the cold shoulder. And nowhere is this trend more clear than in the West, where coal was once king. Despite waning domestic demand for coal and frequent announcements of coal plant retirements, coal producers cast about for new markets to stay afloat. But the writing is on the wall: the negative economics of coal make it increasingly more difficult for utilities to justify long-term investments in its aging infrastructure and polluting power production.

Coal isn’t just losing the economics battle, it’s also losing the war for public opinion: a majority of Americans don’t want energy policies that prioritize coal production. Recent studies show Americans prefer energy conservation over production in U.S. energy policy. And when increased production is pursued to address the nation’s energy problems, two-thirds of Americans prefer the emphasis to be on alternative energy sources, not oil, gas and coal.

The findings in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report must have sounded familiar to Western states still reeling from the impacts of recent climate-related extremes, including heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires. The current climate variability, which is predicted to increase in coming years, revealed the West’s significant vulnerability and exposure to the impacts of climate change â€" particularly for Western states’ water supply, food production, ecosystems, infrastructure and people’s health and livelihoods. With predictions of increasing climate change-induced volatility to cause further damage, these states; investments that reduce fossil fuel emissions and tap into cleaner, more sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and energy efficiency, become economic and strategic no-brainers.

More dirty power plants shutting down

Due to rising costs associated with keeping aging coal plants running many owners are choosing to retire them instead. In fact, nearly a quarter of the nation’s coal fleet could be retired by end of the decade, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Of 536 coal-fired plants in U.S., 84 have already announced retirement and estimates that 146 units more may retire by 2020. 

Keeping pace with the national trend, western coal plants are shuttering their doors at a rapid rate. Since my last blog in October 2013 that listed recently-announced retiring coal plants, the following coal plants in Western states have also announced closures:

  • Carbon Power Plant in Utah
  • North Valmy Generating Station in Nevada (227 MW of 567 MW closing)
  • WN Clark Station in Colorado
  • Arapahoe Generating Station in Colorado
  • Valmont Generating Station in Colorado
  • Cherokee Generating Station in Colorado
  • Neil Simpson 1 in Wyoming
  • Osage Power Plant in Wyoming

Utilities are getting out of these plants because less polluting alternatives are better investments. They will also significantly reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, and make it easier for western states comply with upcoming federal carbon standards for power plants.

Utilities are starting to avoid coal to reduce risks

Fossil fuel’s volatility and associated price risks are influencing investments decisions across the West, too. For example, Montana’s largest utility, NorthWestern Energy, is diversifying its portfolio by investing in hydropower to insulate itself from the price and regulatory risks of doubling down on coal.

Meanwhile in Arizona, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) announced that it is starting to diversify its coal heavy portfolio and has committed to cost-effectively meet growing demand, while relying less on coal (one-third less capacity) and investing more in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the future.

Coal markets are drying up

As utilities look to get out of making long-term investments in coal and natural gas continues to be the cheaper alternative, the domestic demand for coal is slumping. For example, Wyoming â€" the country’s biggest coal producing state â€" did not see any successful federal coal lease sales last year. One scheduled sale received no bids. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management rejected the highest bid it received for another sale, stating it was below market value.

States that rely on coal are seeking increasingly more extreme options to find new customers and markets. Now Wyoming coal producers want to export coal, despite being landlocked. To pull this off, they would have to send loaded coal trains from Powder Basin through states in the Pacific Northwest.

Stiff local opposition across Washington and Oregon against coal export terminals’ pollution, coal dust and noise has dampened support and delayed these plans, sometimes indefinitely. Out of Ambre Energy’s original six coal export port projects in the Pacific Northwest, three have already been dropped all together. Legislators in Wyoming are now calling for the state budget to include half a million dollars to cover lawsuits to gain access to the west coast’s ports and therefore the Asian market. Other coal companies are now turning to Gulf of Mexico to avoid this opposition that coal export plants are facing in the Pacific Northwest.

But as coal producers desperately cast about for new markets, reports find that Asia may not be the best bet long-term. China’s thermal coal demand for power generation is projected to flatten as soon as 2020 due to slowing economic growth, current plants’ efficiency improvements and increasing efforts to reduce the country’s choking air pollution. The alternative options for coal producers domestically and globally continues to shrink.

Efficiency gains momentum to replace dirty energy

In contrast to coal becoming more expensive, energy efficiency remains the cheapest resource by far to reduce demand and fulfill peak load needs. A recent study by ACEE underscores that efficiency, not the recent economic recession, is reducing electricity use nationally. This trend, brought about by utility investments in energy efficiency, decreases demand and therefore coal’s market share even further.

And this is good news for electricity users and ratepayers: another new federal study confirms that saving energy is far less expensive than generating power in a power plant. As my colleague Becky Stanfield points out, it is projected to cost between four and ten times more per kwh to build and use a new power plant than it has been to implement energy efficiency programs to simply reduce the amount of energy we waste.

As domestic demand for coal wanes and Western states cope with the continued environmental and economic impacts of climate change, the economic viability of cleaner alternative energy resources is becoming increasingly clear to investors and utilities.  

Co-authored by Meredith Connolly, NRDC Energy Law & Policy Fellow


Photo Credit: Aging Coal Plants/shutterstock

Read More

IPCC Working Group III Recommends Nearly Quadrupling Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Power and the IPCC Report

A few of my pronuclear friends have been disappointed by the treatment of nuclear energy in the recently released final draft of the IPCC working group III Summary for policy makers. For example, Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues thinks that the IPCC is prejudiced against nuclear energy.

While there may be some members of the body who don’t like nuclear energy very much, the rational, numerate members of IPCC working group III managed to slide some very important words past the dissenters in a way that makes me, as a lover of careful wording, want to praise their composition skills.

Policy makers should note that the word ‘nuclear’ appears 11 times in the summary. In four of those important passages, it is a key component of a short list of zero- and low-carbon energy sources.

  • At the global level scenarios reaching 450 ppm are also characterized by more rapid improvements in energy efficiency, a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero- and low-carbon supply from renewables, nuclear energy AND fossil energy with carbon capture and storage (CCS) OR bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) by the year 2050. (p. 15)
  • Zero- and low-carbon energy supply includes renewables, nuclear energy, AND fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), OR bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). (p. 16)
  • In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy (RE) nuclear AND CCS) increases from the current share of approximately 30% to more than 80% by 2050, AND fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100. (p. 23)
  • annual investment in low-carbon electricity supply (i.e., renewables nuclear AND electricity generation with CCS) is projected to rise by about USD 147 (31-360) billion (median: +100% compared to 2010) (p. 29)

(Emphasis and capitalization of operators added.)

Not only have I spent time smithing words for human consumption in intensely political environments, but I also have a fair understanding of Boolean logic. I admire what the IPCC authors have accomplished. In both human communications and computer programming, the operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ have important meanings. So do modifiers like ‘with’. (Fossil with CCS is a completely different animal than fossil without CCS.)

In my analysis, the recommendation for policy makers is quite clear. The only way to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration at acceptably low levels is to nearly quadruple the output of renewables, nuclear, AND electricity generation from fossil or bioenergy with CCS. The ‘and’ means that all of the items on the list are needed, the program cannot pick and choose the one or two that it likes the best.

However, since current electricity generation with CCS is virtually zero, nearly quadrupling it will mean it is still nearly zero in 2050. Renewables will gain a substantial market share, but the biggest current source of zero- or low-carbon energy in the developed world â€" nuclear energy â€" will have to grow the most in absolute terms to keep doing its share of the heavy lifting.

IPCC working group III also provides some explanation for the current state of nuclear energy and its perceived utility.

Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since 1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply, but a variety of barriers and and risks exist (robust evidence, high agreement)
Those include: operational risks, and the associated concerns, uranium mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear weapon proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion (robust evidence, high agreement. New fuel cycles and reactor technologies addressing some of these issues are being investigated and progress in research and development has been made concerning safety and waste disposal.

That explanation, in my opinion, is carefully worded to answer the logical questions that curious policy makers would be sure to ask â€" “If nuclear energy is a proven, mature, low- or zero-emission power source, why isn’t its use growing?” The IPCC working group has informed policy makers that the engineers and scientists are doing their part of addressing the reasons why nuclear energy has not been growing for the past 20 years, but the rest of the issues must be tackled by the policy makers themselves.

Most of the listed barriers to increasing clean energy output using atomic fission are political, not technical. That does not make them any more difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions are at hand, now all we need is a little more honesty and accurate risk assessment. The public’s opinion can be swayed by the people who have assumed the burden of leadership and spend most of their days working to influence the public to do the right thing.

The post IPCC working group III recommends nearly quadrupling nuclear energy appeared first on Atomic Insights.

Photo Credit: IPCC and Nuclear Power/shutterstock

Authored by:

Rod Adams

Rod Adams gained his nuclear knowledge as a submarine engineer officer and as the founder of a company that tried to develop a market for small, modular reactors from 1993-1999. He began publishing Atomic Insights in 1995 and began producing The Atomic Show Podcast in March 2006. Following his Navy career and a three year stint with a commerical nuclear power plant design firm, he began ...

See complete profile

Read More

Java for the Grid Edge: From Blu-Ray Players to Smart Grid Devices

The long-promised goal of embedding open, flexible computing power in all types of smart grid devices is starting to be realized in 2014.

Open platforms from Silver Spring Networks, Cisco, Itron and other grid vendors are being introduced. Multi-vendor partnerships driven by utilities like Duke Energy and Toronto Hydro are creating new ways for smart meters, solar PV and battery inverters, distribution grid gear and other equipment to interact on the grid edge.

Open computing platforms like Linux, Android and Java are at the foundations of many of these efforts. Oracle, the database giant with a significant stake in smart grid technology, just happens to own Java developer Sun Microsystems. Embedded Java -- the version designed for mobile or remote computing platforms -- is now part of billions of SIM cards and mobile handsets, millions of TV devices (including every Blu-ray player), and other networked machines from office equipment to cars.

So it makes sense that smart grid devices are next on Oracle’s Embedded Java roadmap. In fact, they’re already out there today, in test beds like San Diego Gas & Electric’s Borrego Springs microgrid project (PDF), a showcase for Oracle’s grid management software to tackle a range of grid edge challenges.

“We’ve built prototypes for Borrego Springs, and demonstrated that,” Brad Williams, vice president at Oracle Utilities, said in an interview last week. “Certainly this is a key investment area for us. The main point is that Oracle embraces these distributed architecture concepts, and supports them through our core applications.”

For Oracle, those core applications range from its customer relations, billing and meter data management software used by a hefty roster of utility customers, to its network management system. That's Oracle’s version of an advanced distribution management system (ADMS), which is the central platform at Borrego Springs.

As for the equipment that’s getting embedded with Java, “we are working with our customers to do that with meters, head-end systems, home area network devices,” said Williams. “But our intent is to take this further into substation automation, switchgear, manufacturers like S&C Electric, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories,” he said. Oracle has had some initial discussions with them, though it hasn’t announced any official partners yet.  

Of course, this work is still in the “visionary” phase, Williams noted -- as are the rest of the distributed intelligence grid projects underway around the world. It takes some convincing to get grid equipment vendors to open up their systems, and even for heavy utility trendsetters like Duke, it’s still being done as an experiment. If those experiments prove fruitful, vendors are going to have to make some important changes to their device hardware, starting from the chipsets on up.

“The way we work with the ecosystem is [we] go back to system-on-a-chip [firms] like Freescale and Qualcomm to increase their portfolio of equipment for Java,” said Simon Nicholson, senior director of product management for Oracle’s Java team. “We also work with the OEMs, the major meter manufacturers.”

Take the example of Oracle’s work in Latin America, where it’s partnering with Dutch data security company Gemalto and Brazilian metering company V2COM to embed Java in smart meters and connect them with its MDM software. Oracle, which owns smart meter data analytics company DataRaker, is working on several distributed applications to run across the strongbox-secured meters that Latin American utilities use to prevent meter tampering, he said. One obvious application is non-technical loss (i.e., theft) detection, Nicholson noted -- “There’s tremendous commercial value there.”

Why the grid edge needs distributed intelligence

As with many other embedded intelligence efforts, one of the key issues Oracle hopes to solve is managing the massive amounts of data being generated by smart devices on the edge of the network, Nicholson said. “If you can start driving decision-making to the edge, or locally, you can enable faster turnarounds,” Nicholson said.

But there’s also the possibility of embedding applications in the devices themselves, he added. “Because the Java at the edge is the same as the Java at the data center, that makes integration from the back end much easier. […] They can potentially move application logic out into the neighborhood,” he said. “We’re already seeing engagements now, and deployments in some cases, where Java is enabling the intelligence platform on the edge.”

In the meantime, safety and security are critical utility concerns. “Particularly when we’re talking about grid operations, utilities cannot have these distributed processes doing things that could create safety concerns," Williams said. That makes back-office applications, like Oracle’s network management system (NMS) in Borrego Springs, the "overarching authority to the distributed intelligence."

“We are the database of record for the real-time model configuration,” he said. “If we dispatch a crew to work on that line, we’ll tag that out, lock that out, and synchronize the devices that are tagged and locked out with distributed processes.” That’s something that the most sophisticated ADMSs are only beginning to take on in field operations.

Security is another part of that local-plus-central coordination. “We want to make sure our devices have the security to authenticate [that the information] is coming from a valid application, a valid location, before it will allow that change to happen.” Open systems are obviously open to intrusion and attack by bad actors, but the history of open standards in the IT world have proven that they end up improving security in the long run -- something that’s gotten lots of attention in the smart grid space lately.

As for which applications utilities are asking for, “the big ones that we know our customers are wanting today are around meter device management, firmware updates, configuration management, those types of things,” he said. “We have the back-office applications that already support that through the proprietary meter head-ends, and we’re working to try to make these more standards based."

This kind of IT threading through whatever proprietary or partly closed, partly open systems utilities have already installed is a challenge. But it’s also critical to make sure the central-control-to-device platform being built can really do what Java allows internet-networked computers to do: open up secure, yet reliable, channels for multiple applications to coexist.

For example, if properly set up, “any of the applications can go do a meter ping, and it’s routed through the actual proper device,” Williams said -- something that’s surprisingly hard to set up using today’s convoluted set of enterprise-to-operations-to-devices IT architectures. More standardization could make smart-meter-based analytics and automation much cheaper and simpler to implement, and help boost the still low number of utilities fully engaged in managing the smart meter data they already have, according to Oracle’s surveys on the topic.

Beyond that, a world of grid edge applications opens up, including the gamut of solar sensing and forecasting, smart inverter communications and control, grid sensor and voltage regulation coordination, and switches and reclosers to keep it all contained within the proper boundaries that it’s testing out in Borrego Springs with SDG&E.

What’s built for a microgrid like that could be applied to many distributed contexts, he added. One very big East Coast utility has asked Oracle for end-to-end visibility, including Embedded Java on each endpoint, for distributed control, he said. “They’ve got to have ways to collect that data and respond to that in real time.”

That fits in with Greentech Media’s concept of the grid edge as a frontier for IT innovation. And it also aligns with the epochal challenge utilities are facing in integrating their millions of new active, co-generating customers into the grid.

“That’s what the utility wants -- they want to be assured they’re in control,” Williams said. “Those are some of the concerns with some of the smart grid technology â€" and it’s getting further than arms’ length from their control.”

To learn more about innovations in distributed intelligence on the grid, join Greentech Media at the Grid Edge Live conference this June 24-25 in San Diego, Calif.

greentech mediaGreentech Media (GTM) produces industry-leading news, research, and conferences in the business-to-business greentech market. Our coverage areas include solar, smart grid, energy efficiency, wind, and other non-incumbent energy markets. For more information, visit: greentechmedia.com , follow us on twitter: @greentechmedia, or like us on Facebook: facebook.com/greentechmedia.

Read More

DOE Poised to Hit a Home Run with Its New Proposed Efficiency Standards for Linear Fluorescent Light Bulbs

Energy Efficient Lights

Noah Horowitz, Senior Scientist and Director of the Center for Energy Efficiency, San Francisco, CA

The Department of Energy has just hit a home run with the recently proposed minimum energy efficiency standards for linear fluorescent light bulbs, the tube lamps that are located in virtually every office, hospital, school and airport in the country. According to DOE estimates the proposed standards provide Americans with net savings of $8 billion over a 30 year period due to lower electricity bills. In addition, the standards will prevent almost 100 million tons of CO2 by 2030, the main heat trapping pollutant responsible for climate change, from being emitted from our power plants.

Today’s proposed rule follows up on DOE’s prior standards set in 2009 and will require all new tube lamps to incorporate the latest available technology. The standards will go into effect three years after adoption. This is a big deal as these lamps consume almost 5% of all national electricity consumption. Since many of these lamps are on 10 or more hours per day the savings really add up.

We commend DOE for selecting the efficiency levels they did and urge them to finalize the rule in an expeditious manner so the savings can begin to accrue as soon as possible. 

The other part of today’s rule also covered incandescent reflector lamps, the bulbs that go into recessed cans and flood lights. Unfortunately DOE was prohibited from setting standards for a large portion of this market due to a funding prohibition caused by a Congressional rider. Clever manufacturers have over the past decade tweaked their bulbs in order to avoid the current standards. These go by various techie names such as BR which stands for bulged reflector lamps and are a little wider in parts than the regulated bulb, while providing no added performance benefit. Due to this loophole, bulbs with efficiency as low as 8 lumens per watt, which is much less efficient than the old 125 year old incandescent lamp, are still being sold in large numbers. We hope DOE is able to close these loopholes soon and we can harvest the hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted energy and prevent the pollution these bulbs cause.

Bottom line, today’s proposed rule continues DOE’s efforts to bring down the 20% of our nation’s electricity use that lighting consumed as of 2010 (see DOE Lighting Market Characterization Study) and is another great step forward to meeting the President’s Climate Action Plan goals. The new bulbs perform just as well as the old ones do with one important difference, they consume less energy. This means lower electric bills and cleaner air. What’s not to like!

Read More

Climate Preparedness Task Force Should Use Water Infrastructure Funding to Protect Communities from Climate Risks

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

Recent disasters in communities throughout the U.S. vividly illustrate that we’re increasingly at risk from flooding and drought events. Torrential downpours swept across the South earlier this week, causing at least one death and flooding numerous homes, streets, and businesses. More than 60 percent of the West, including greater than 99 percent of California, now is facing drought conditions. In response, several communities in California have enacted mandatory water restrictions and some farmers have had to fallow land.      

                                                        Uvas Reservoir, Santa Clara, CA | Don DeBold

These types of events are likely to only grow more dangerous and more costly as climate change drives temperatures higher, makes precipitation more extreme, raises sea levels, and increases the power of storms. These escalating climate risks threaten public health, affect water availability and quality, and put homes and infrastructure at risk. Fortunately, there are solutions we can put into place to better protect our communities and critical infrastructure systems from these threats.

President Obama’s State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness is in the process of compiling recommendations from its members on how the federal government can remove barriers, modernize grant and loan programs, and develop tools to help communities deal with the impacts of climate change. To aid this effort, we provided recommendations to task force members on how EPA’s State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which have enabled states to provide more than $109 billion dollars in low-interest loans and grants to communities to maintain and upgrade critical water infrastructure, can better incorporate water efficiency, green infrastructure, and flood risk reduction policies to help build climate-resilient communities. Included below are highlights from our recommendations, which we’ll be releasing officially in an NRDC issue paper in the months ahead.   

These sustainable solutions will better enable local communities to address issues such as flooding, water scarcity, and infrastructure resiliency. Yet, there are no current federal requirements regarding the use of SRF financing to support local climate resiliency, and many states do not require project applicants to proactively consider climate change risks. Together, these solutions will not only help communities meet their water infrastructure needs now but also better equip them to handle storms, floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events in the years ahead.                     

Water Conservation

                                                                   Water-efficient Landscaping | Jose Kevo

Water conservation and efficiency are effective in increasing resilience to climate impacts such as increased drought, decreased precipitation, and declining snowpack. These measures lower demand for water, improve the reliability of existing water supplies, reduce capital expenditures for new water infrastructure, and decrease energy demands associated with the treatment and delivery of water and wastewater. Water-efficient landscapes, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, water rate mechanisms, and the detection and repair of leaks in water distribution systems are a few examples of ways to reduce urban water demand. 

Making SRF financing contingent upon the implementation of water conservation policies and programs ensures that project applicants are considering measures to reduce inefficient water use. A number of states are already using these approaches or similar ones; and there are many examples of water and wastewater utilities that have successfully used (or are currently using) water conservation strategies to reduce water demand and the costs of water and wastewater infrastructure.

Green Infrastructure

                                       Green Roof, Washington, DC | Chesapeake Bay Program

Green infrastructure techniques, such as green roofs, rain gardens, roadside plantings, porous pavement, and rainwater harvesting, can be utilized to reduce the flooding risks associated with more frequent and intense rainfall events. These techniques use soils and vegetation in the built environment to absorb runoff close to where it falls, limiting flooding and sewer backups. Green infrastructure  techniques not only reduce flooding and protect water quality, they also transform rainwater from a source of pollution into a valuable resource that helps to literally green the urban landscape, cool and cleanse the air, enhance water supplies, reduce asthma and heat-related illnesses, cut heating and cooling energy costs, create urban oases of open space, and enhance property values.

Prioritizing projects that incorporate green infrastructure measures and ensuring that sufficient funding is available for green infrastructure projects and programs will help to expand the implementation of these cost-effective and sustainable solutions. Maryland is an example of a state that is promoting green infrastructure through its SRF program.

Reducing Flood Risks

                                                          Storm Surge on Lake Michigan | Chris Bentley

Water infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to increasing flood risks. Heavy rainfall events and coastal storm surges present challenges for water management and flood control infrastructure; increase flooding risks for treatment plants and other facilities; and jeopardize service reliability. Ensuring that SRF loan recipients adequately consider existing and future flood risks in the design and construction of projects will help to reduce damages associated with future storms and flood events, and thereby decrease service interruptions, reduce threats to public health and safety, and build climate resiliency. New York and New Jersey are examples of states that are requiring SRF projects applying for post-Sandy funding to protect against flood risks by either relocating outside of vulnerable areas or elevating above expected flood levels.

Read More

Seeking Consensus on the Internalized Costs of Coal

internalized coal costs

What is meant by "internalized costs"?

Internalized costs are the costs which can be accurately accounted for in our current systems. In energy production, these costs typically consist of capital costs, financing costs, operation and maintenance costs, and exploration costs. Some energy options incur these costs in various stages such as extraction, transportation and refinement. Profits and taxes are excluded wherever possible in order to isolate the pure cost of production.

Internalized costs related to coal can become very low. That is one of the main reasons why coal has thus far proven itself to be the standout energy source of the 21st century (figure below) despite rising prices, decades of talk about climate change and huge hype about alternatives. We will seek to better quantify these low internalized costs in this article.

Image 

Internalized costs of coal

The International Energy Agency has complied the cost curve for global hard coal reserves shown below. It is important to note that the cost ranges given on the y-axis is the free-on-rail (FOR) cost which includes all costs except for long-distance transportation costs associated with international trade which can be large in countries like China and Russia. It should be mentioned, however, that less than 10% of Chinese coal is traded internationally.

Image 

(NOTE: It appears as if this IEA graph contains an error in converting $/tce to $/MBtu by assuming exactly 50 MBtu/tce. In reality, the value is about half this number.)

The current average cost of coal production is around $50/tce (ton coal equivalent) or $43/ton of average coal. It should also be noted that about 14% of global coal use is in the form of lower quality brown coal (lignite) which is substantially cheaper than the hard coal discussed above.

Breakdown of coal consumption

The bulk of global coal (61%) is used in the power sector (BP Energy outlook) and the rest is primarily used for industrial purposes. For transportation, coal-to-liquids processes are currently only responsible for about 0.4% of global oil-equivalent supplies, but will also be considered as the IEA predicts a rather impressive 8.8% yearly growth rate up to 2035.  

We will take a very brief look at all three of the above elements:

Electricity

Since coal is fairly cheap, the cost of coal electricity is greatly influenced by the capital costs of the power plant. These costs vary greatly across the world depending, among others, on local material & labour costs and local legislation. The LCOE for different plant capital costs given by this study are shown below as a function of the coal price. Additional assumptions include a 40 year service life, 40% electric efficiency (supercritical technology), a capacity factor of 75%, a low 5% cost of capital to remove profit-taking from the financial industry and $6/MWh of O&M costs. Coal was assumed to yield a heating value of 23 GJ/ton.

Image 

Heating

Because it is so cheap, coal is often used for supplying industrial heat. The two largest uses are steelmaking (where coking coal is also an essential reducing agent) and cement-making.  Coal for steelmaking purposes (coking coal) needs to be of higher quality than that used for general heat (steam coal) and commonly demands a market premium of 50-100%. The cost of coal per unit energy is shown below based on the assumption of a 23 GJ/ton heating value.

Image 

Transport

The IEA gives the cost of one barrel of oil-equivalent final fuel from coal-to-liquids processing as $40-100. One barrel contains about 159 litres (42 gallons). Based on this information, the cost per volume for liquid hydrocarbon final fuel from coal is shown below.

Image 

Commenting

In order to assist in finding the consensus view on the internalized costs of coal energy, please follow these simple commenting guidelines:

Three types of comments are welcome, each introduced by a keyword:

  1. DATA: Please give your opinion on any of the numbers presented in the article. Of particular interest are the average global free-on-rail costs of coal ($/ton) and the average global coal power plant investment costs ($/kW). Each DATA comment will be weighted by the number of "likes" when the data is ultimately processed.
  2. REBUTTAL: If you strongly disagree with an existing DATA comment, please write a short rebuttal. The "likes" received by a REBUTTAL comment will subtract from the "likes" of the DATA comment. A REBUTTAL comment can once again be rebutted to reduce its weighting.
  3. CORRECTION: If you see a serious error in the numbers presented in the above analysis, please correct me (with a reference if necessary) so that I can correct the article.

Miscellaneous guidelines:

  • Make sure your comment gives only one piece of information (use multiple comments for multiple pieces of information).
  • Keep things short.
  • Please try to be as objective as at all possible. For this process to work, we all need to be in the mindset of dialectic instead of debate.
  • Externalities are off-topic and should not even be mentioned.

Many comments are welcome. More data = greater accuracy. 

Authored by:

Schalk Cloete

I am a research scientist searching for the objective reality about the longer-term sustainability of industrialized human civilization on planet Earth. Issues surrounding energy and climate are of central importance in this sustainability picture and I therefore seek to learn more from the Energy Collective community. My current research focus is on second generation CO2 capture processes ...

See complete profile

Read More

Must See Video: Showtime Climate Series 'Years of Living Dangerously'

Showtime has posted online the entire video of Episode 1 of its visually and emotionally gripping documentary series event, “Years of Living Dangerously.” The landmark 9-part series is produced by the legendary James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jerry Weintraub â€" together with former 60 Minutes producers who have 18 Emmys between them.

In addition, ThinkProgress has an exclusive video of a post-premiere panel, which includes Executive Producer Dan Abbasi, correspondent Tom Friedman, and me, Chief Science Advisor. Panel moderator Carol Browner, former EPA Administrator, said after watching Episode 1:

I’ve seen a hundreds shows on climate change and I’ve seen all the graphs and charts…. But really in my experience, this is the first time it is about people.

James Cameron himself said, “This is 100 percent a people story.” And to tell these powerful stories, the series engaged top-flight journalists (like Chris Hayes and Friedman) and some of Hollywood’s biggest stars (like Matt Damon, Jessica Alba, Ian Somerholder, and Harrison Ford).

See for yourself:

If you liked that video, please tweet and Facebook it, please repost and email it to your friends and family.

I’ve been reviewing all the segments for technical accuracy as Chief Science Advisor with climatologist Heidi Cullen. I’ve been blown away by just how compelling the show is â€" every episode is as good as Episode 1.

This is not just going to be a landmark climate change series, it is going to be a landmark television series, like Ken Burns’ The Civil War. It is what everyone is going to be talking about from April to June. As the latest international climate report makes clear, climate change is happening right here, right now â€" in America and around the world. It is the biggest story of our time, and it needs a big platform to tell it.

In a front-page New York Times story David Nevins, Showtime’s president of entertainment â€" the architect of hits like Homeland and Masters of Sex â€" explained that he puts a show like “Years of Living Dangerously” on Sunday night “because I want to signal to the audience: This show matters. This is a big show.”

“Years Of Living Dangerously” is going to be a very big show. It premieres Sunday on Showtime, April 13 at 10PM EDT/PDT.

Here’s the panel discussion:

The post Must See Video: Showtime Climate Series ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Authored by:

Joseph Romm

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential ...

See complete profile

Read More

Driving Into an Age of Increasing Oil Freedom

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Washington, D.C.

Highway_401_by_401-DVP.jpgPhoto by Nayu Kim, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

We are living in exciting times when it comes to the nation’s oil and energy dependence. You could call this era the age of increasing oil freedom. From the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s the U.S. used and imported more oil every year, but since the mid-2000s that trend has reversed, with lower oil consumption and lower oil imports every year. To be clear, I’m not claiming that we are at or near energy independence, a clarion call that has been sounded by U.S. Presidents since Nixon; and I will not be discussing oil production, which is only one half of the equation. I am simply making an observation that is obvious from examination of recent trends in U.S. oil consumption, specifically in our transportation sector which accounts for the lion’s share. Whether and how this trend of lower oil consumption continues is up to our national and state governments.

First, let’s examine how efficiently we’re using this resource in our world-leading fleet of cars and trucks. In the early 2000s oil prices began rising at an alarming rate. I still recall a comment made by one of NRDC’s communications experts as we worked on a study: the scenario in which the price of oil would rise to $100 per barrel just didn’t “pass the laugh test.” Just three short years later the price of oil broke the $140 mark. This is a reminder that ~$100 per barrel prices are a relatively new normal, and this backdrop has added a boost to policy drivers described below.

This oil-price rocket boosted the chances that new policies could be implemented to reduce the nation’s oil dependence, and that’s in fact what happened, especially from 2007 on. In 2007, one short year after stunning the world by declaring that “America is addicted to oil” in his State of the Union address, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act into law. This law gave Bush’s successors the tools to dramatically raise the fuel-economy-performance bar for our fleet of cars and trucks. And that is what President Obama has done, in a series of historic rulemakings such as those in 2012 and 2013. These policies are driving record jumps in fuel economy and help explain the plateauing of long-term oil consumption projections.

Beyond vehicle efficiency, another discontinuity is putting the squeeze on oil consumption: flattening vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT) trendlines. As I wrote recently, this has spurred analysts to reduce their projections of VMT growth, which forms the baseline for energy use and pollution estimates for the transportation sector. By 2030, projected demand drops more than one-fifth compared to the 2008 baseline, so one-trillion vehicle miles vanish every year! Conventional wisdom said this would turn around once the economy recovered, but as the trend continues more analysts think change may be structural and therefore lasting. Even bureaucratically calcified state highway agencies are changing their projections.

This is all very good news for energy security and the environment. However, while federal policy drives the first set of efficiency trends by raising the standards for fuel economy, it has yet to contribute to the second set by shaping the nation’s transportation infrastructure so people can drive less.

Transportation law relies heavily on state authority to plan and invest in infrastructure. However, federal infrastructure spending can be hugely influential because it accounts for about one-fifth of the nation’s transportation investments every year, and since spending federal dollars requires local, state, and/or private matches it leverages a lot more spending than that.

This is why the reauthorization of the national transportation law is a focus of policymakers, advocates, industry and state and local officials every few years. The most recent law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), was enacted in 2012 and it’s sadly a lackluster statute when it comes to saving energy and the environment.

Transportation law made a huge leap forward two decades ago in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which as Robert Puentes at Brookings wrote recently remains relevant to transportation even if its promise of more balance in authority between metropolitan regions and states and between modes (e.g. vehicle, bus, rail) remains largely unfulfilled. This bill was followed by two sequels (TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) that preserved the basic architecture of the original and shared its “TEA” namesake.

MAP-21 includes a notable set of steps forward in its planning sections, specifically a performance management process with measurements being designed right now by federal rulemaking and guidance (schedule). However, tying performance to funding â€" seems logical, doesn’t it -- is facing resistance from recalcitrant state highway bureaucrats.

And this is exactly where the next battle lines are drawn for advancing transportation energy policy beyond vehicle efficiency. State agencies must change colors â€" challenging though it may be â€" to become leaders and not laggards in the energy security race. Vehicle performance standards are doing their part to improve fuel economy performance of our fleet, yet states remain poor partners with metropolitan areas where the vast majority of us live (especially in the suburbs, like yours truly).

We may be entering a new era, however, for three reasons. First, the lasting moderation of VMT growth as described above. Whatever the factors driving it â€" demographic (millenials forsaking the car culture, as another article in this issue describes [link to Lucian’s article]), economic, environmental, etc. â€" it’s something to which even state highway agencies must adjust by re-balancing investment portfolios.

Second, as the saying attributed to Churchill goes, “We have run out of money, time to start thinking.” The federal gas tax hasn’t budged since 1993, and in the interim inflation and additional needs have clobbered the spending power of this revenue. We are funding our federal program increasingly on the nation’s already overburdened credit card. States and local jurisdictions are filling in some of the gap, but the revenue picture for them is a threadbare patchwork quilt. With the last transportation bill, this revenue squeeze sadly made Congress and states more risk averse, not less, so policy changes tended to be regressive or nonexistent. We need more, not less, progressive innovation from our policymakers. We have no alternative but to start thinking.

And last, thanks to the fiscal crunches and ensuing scrutiny of public expenditures, we may be at a turning point for state transportation policy. The best evidence of this for me is a new evaluation of one of the largest state highway agencies, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), by the State Smart Transportation Initiative at the University of Wisconsin. This remarkable report, commissioned and then embraced by Caltrans’ parent agency, the California State Transit Agency (CalSTA), recommends that the agency reform itself from top-to-bottom. It must become, among other things, better at collaborating with and supporting metropolitan area planning and investment, and more balanced in terms of its focus on modes of transportation (i.e., less focused on sprawl-inducing, oil-guzzling highways).

That’s the kind of balance ISTEA promised for transportation, and in the wake of historic federal fuel-efficiency policymaking it is high time Caltrans and other state highway agencies get serious about fulfilling that promise so the nation can continue up the road to increased freedom from oil.

This article is cross-posted from the Stanford Energy Journal.

Read More
Powered By Blogger · Designed By Alternative Energy