Posts Tagged by energy policy
[The Vector] Nuclear Madness
| June 26, 2011 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Nuclear |
While many in the world are rejecting, stalling or abandoning nuclear power, what about the U.S.? Why should the U.S. consider abandoning nuclear? What are a number of experts saying about the nuclear industry in the U.S., and its future? That it is problematic, contentious and not well thought-out. The Obama Administration proposed $36 billion in Treasury-backed loan guarantees for new reactors, which is controversial in itself on many fronts.
I personally would say there are simply two main reasons to reject or Read More
Related posts:
Subsidies for Oil, Energy Policy, and Climate Change
| March 27, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I would like to reply to the three very thoughtful comments of 2GreenEnergy reader James Gover, who writes:
1) We can talk about the oil subsidies and toss numbers around, but I have yet to see defensible, detailed comparisons of the magnitude of subsidies to various energy sources. If someone in this group has defensible data, please send me a reference. I do not consider special interest groups that start with the answer to be credible.
Without a doubt, this is a problem – and for several reasons. First, as you suggest, anyone trying to ascertain that number has a reason for doing so which normally carries with it a financial or political interest in the matter and taints the legitimacy of the findings. And we need also to understand that there are over a dozen different kinds of subsidies, some extremely nebulous and debatable by their very nature. As you look down this list, you’ll see what I mean: Read More
Related posts:
New York Times: Let’s Pretend Renewable Energy Doesn’t Even Exist
| March 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Nuclear |
I just learned something quite valuable. To my astonishment, it’s possible for credible journalists to discuss the dangers of nuclear power and the relative safety of natural gas, going on at length about the world energy situation, without once mentioning solar, wind, and biomass. Until I read the above-linked article in the New York Times, I would have said that simply couldn’t happen in the year 2011.
Of course, one question is how safe natural gas actually is, given that its extraction relies on hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock in the Earth’s crust. As journalist Marie Baca notes in her response to the Times article: “What about the concerns that hydraulic fracturing can mobilize radioactive material in bedrock? Or the documented cases of methane migration? Or the San Bruno disaster, anyone? Any of these worth mentioning, maybe?”
But again, the most shocking thing about the piece is its blatent ignoring of the alternatives that truly are safe. Most of the rest of the world is moving quickly toward clean energy. Not only are we refusing to play a leadership (or even an effective followership) role here, some of us, apparently, would like to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Related posts:
The Ultimate Pragmatist in Energy Policy, Dr. Marie Corio
| February 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
I played on my college squash team in the 1970s, and every year we made the ride up to Cambridge, Mass. to play MIT. Though we routed them every year, the most pleasurable part of the day for me was meeting someone who was twice the math/science mind that I would ever be.
That whole experience just replayed itself, in my meeting with Dr. Marie Corio, CEO of boutique consultancy Applied Economic Research in Brooklyn, NY. Marie is arguably the world’s most senior analyst of coal-fired power plants and the assessment of their lifespan and viability, drawing on her expertise in economics, metallurgy, organic chemistry, and computer modeling. Marie kept me spellbound as I sat, quietly sipping my coffee, and learning everything I could about her exciting vocation. Read More
Related posts:
World History, Energy Policy, and Sustainability
| January 9, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Uncategorized |
I hope everyone will take five minutes and watch the incredible video linked here, in which the genius Hans Rosling summarizes 200 years of world history. When you get finished picking your chin up off the floor in utter amazement at how cool this analysis is, I’m sure you’ll have some of the same thoughts I did, as the piece touches on many subjects within the spheres of technology, geo-politics, sociology, and philosophy.
My first thought was sustainability. Note Rosling’s vision for the future: “Perhaps all the peoples of the world can become healthy and wealthy.” Perhaps so. But if any reason for optimism actually exists, we as a civilization need to move quickly to a way of dealing with the natural world that is non-exploitative. To the degree that we look at our challenges in energy, for example, and say, “Hell, we just need better pumps to suck this stuff out of the ground,” we’re pursuing a course that cannot possibly sustain itself — let alone provide for the health of current and future generations.
The concept that “the world is ours for the taking” simply does not apply to the 21st Century the way we assumed it did in the industrial revolution 150 years ago.
Related posts:
National Irresponsibility in Energy Policy — It's Contagious
| January 6, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
It’s a frustrating time for those of us who follow the international energy news and try to get the big picture on the slow migration to renewables. The biggest single problem, of course, is that we live on a planet with almost 200 sovereign countries each with autonomy to create of its own energy policy — or simply avoid the issue entirely, like we’ve done here in the US. And often, failure of a big country to act responsibly in this space is taken as an invitation for another country to behave irresponsibly as well.
Today we learned that Japan has postponed or even scrapped its national cap-and-trade plan, due to go into effect in 2013 because of intense lobbying by powerful business interests and because the measure has yet to make headway in other key countries.
Where is all this taking us? Are we to blame the Australia’s flood “of biblical proportions” (waters 30 feet above normal) on global climate change? I honestly don’t know. But as usual, I urge any of the new GOP administration in Washington who may be climate change deniers simply to adopt any of the other five or six good reasons to accelerate the pace at which we move away from fossil fuels.
Related posts:
[The Vector] Nanotechnology – A Disappointment? (Part Two)
| December 17, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Energy Storage |
(continued from an earlier article)
Down in the Quantum World
Nano particles are less than 100 nanomicrons in width, meaning that a human hair is approximately 80,000nm wide. Down at the molecular level, materials behave differently to the way they behave in larger volumes. Because so little is known about material behaviour at nano level at the International Forum on Chemical Safety at Dakar in 2008, 71 governments and 12 international organizations recommended the application of the Precautionary Principle to it. The principle states that anyone proposing a new initiative in a risky area must prove their initiative is safe before they carry it out.
Yet, according to the Friends of the Earth report, regulatory systems in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan and other countries treat all particles the same; that is, they do not recognise that nanoparticles of familiar substances may have novel properties and novel risks. Carbon nanotubes for use in electronics, energy applications and vehicle parts may be associated with the cancer mesothelioma, for example. Although many nanomaterials now in commercial use pose greater toxicity risks than the same materials in larger particle form, if a substance has been approved in bulk form, it remains legal to sell it in nano form. Read More
Related posts:
Nanotechnology – A Sandwich Without the Beef? (Part One)
| December 13, 2010 | Posted by Aedan-Kernan under Energy Storage |
The ability of nanotechnologies to deliver cost-effective renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions has come under attack in a recently released report by the environmental campaigning organisation Friends of the Earth.
The nano technology industry has over-promised and under-delivered, according to the report. The performance of nano-based renewables has been considerably less than predicted. Efficiency of solar energy conversion by nano solar panels is still about 10% behind that achieved by silicon panels, while the energy and environmental costs of the nanotechnology industry are far higher than expected.
Related posts:
Free-Market Capitalism and Energy Policy: What's the Proper Role of Government?
| November 20, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
The proper role of government in our lives is the biggest single issue confronting politically involved Americans today. Want to rile up an audience about healthcare, for instance? Just tell them either:
a) The government with its bloated bureaucracies, inefficiencies, and corrupt catering to special interests is taking over healthcare and doling it out, at your expense, to people who haven’t earned it, or
b) Healthcare should continue to be run by profit-motivated corporations whose goal is to minimize costs by denying medical coverage (especially to those who need it most) — and government has no business interfering in this cruel and inhuman process.
The same polar arguments could be made for financial regulation, labor and unemployment, economic stimulus, and almost every other major area of debate we face as a society.
I bring this up because Read More
Related posts:
Mainstream Media: Energy Policy Needs More Prominence
| September 5, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
I got a high-quality rowing machine (Concept2) on Craig’s list yesterday, and have committed to daily use. It’s really the perfect tool for strength building and cardio simultaneously. But the reason I bring this up is that it will essentially force me to watch a bit of television, enabling me to keep up better with the coverage that the mainstream media affords various subjects of national and international importance.
Cooling down after my workout just now, I ask myself what I learned from 20 minutes or so in front of the Chris Matthews Show. Essentially, it’s that Obama has not done a good job in explaining himself and the actions he’s taken. While he was waiting for the stimulus package to take effect, he spent the majority of his political capital pushing through healthcare reform – a bill of dubious priority. The majority of Americans are angry with government, and the last think they want to see is more of it – in healthcare – or anyplace else. With the mid-term elections now only two months away, the Democrats are floundering to regain the trust of the electorate.
What does this mean in terms of renewable energy in the US? To me, it means this: don’t hold your breath. There are so many obvious actions related to energy policy that you or I would do if we were in charge, not one of which is anywhere close to happening. Anyone of conscience acting independent of corruptive influence would start, I think, with these three:
1) Create a level playing field, removing the imbalance of subsidies that favors fossil fuels by a factor of 12:1, and accounting for externalities
2) Develop some version of federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS), probably looking at the country by region, and targeting specific adoption of solar, wind, geothermal, hydrokinetics, etc. accordingly
3) Be fair and honest in the allocation of stimulus money and other grants to businesses that actually can make a difference, vs. corporate behemoths that make huge campaign contributions
But let’s be realistic. The world of “what is right” and the world of political reality are galaxies apart. What can I infer from the fact that 20 minutes of analysis came and went in front of me – without a mention of the word “energy” even once? I think it’s pretty clear. If you’re looking for reform here, we have a lot of work in front of us if we’re going to elevate this issue to the position of prominence it needs to be.
