Posts Tagged by EPA
Discussing the EPA at the American Chemical Society Conference
| March 27, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
As one would expect, the banter here at the American Chemical Society conference is largely academic; in the convention center from which I’m writing this post there are more super-smart and extremely specialized people per square foot than I’ve encountered in a long while. But occasionally, I’ll have a conversation with someone that leads in a more humanistic, more philosophic direction.
A 3o-ish gentleman from the EPA just came by the booth, offering us at Doty Windfuels an application for a “Green Chemistry” award. “This concept (using off-peak renewable energy to synthesize carbon-neutral liquid fuels) sounds like a really strong concept; I strongly suggest you apply,” he said. We talked about the overall technological and economic issues at play in synthetic fuels for a few minutes, but I wanted to get his take on something before I let him go. “You must be thrilled with some of the rhetoric coming out of the presidential candidates vis-a-vis the EPA,” I smiled.
“It’s disappointing. We have leaders encouraging voters to abandon science and all the empirical evidence of the environmental dangers that face us. I have a 3-year-old son, and I’m frustrated that we’re irreparably damaging the world in which he’ll grow up, and that we could have a president that would be actively leading the charge.”
“Mine are 16 and 18,” I responded,” and I totally share your feelings. Recently, I began a conversation with a simple apology. I’m trying as hard as the next guy, but I’m sorry that I didn’t get on board sooner, and that I couldn’t do more to turn this around.”
Having said all this, the game’s not over. “It’s half-time for America,” to quote Chrysler’s famous Superbowl ad. As upsetting as all this is, I try to keep in mind that this is a marathon, and that such races require stamina.
Infographic: The Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy
| February 5, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Whenever I speak on renewable energy, I’m careful to leave my audience with a sense of the “tough realities.” We all want simple answers to our questions, but in the case of clean energy, none exist.
There are dozens of different flavors of solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal, each improving in terms of cost and efficiency, but at different rates. There are economic issues, as none of these flavors can compete with the dirtiest form of coal, if we don’t take into account the “externalities” like lung disease and environmental damage. And Lord knows there are political issues, where we have serious candidates for president of the U.S. who, if elected, boldly pledge to dismantle our Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. If this occurs, it would effectively end the efforts of the largest economy on Earth to migrate away from fossil fuels and nuclear. Read More
Old-time Republicans Made Real Commitments to the Environment
| November 5, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Those of us who can’t wrap our wits around the Republican party’s indifference (some might substitute “antagonism”) to the environment need to remember that the GOP didn’t always take this stance. This post on Mother Nature Network documents 10 Republicans in the days of yore who made real commitments to environmental regulation and preservation.
How did we get here from there? What motivates Lindsay Graham and the other senate Republicans in their quest to dismantle the EPA and reverse half a century of progress in this space? I sure hope someone can help me understand that. Hey! Does the fact that the oil industry maintains the largest lobby in the known universe have anything to do with this? Hmmmm.
Eviscerating Our Environmental Regulations Removes Incentive for Clean Energy
| July 20, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Frequent commenter John Sullivan asks:
How can you cite “eviscerating environmental regulations” as a factor in our lack of competitiveness, when China has a horrible record and is arguably using their “green” investments as a shield for now?
It’s probably true that the reason for China’s investment in renewables has little or nothing to do with environmentalism. But I’m not sure I see the relevance to what we’re trying to in the West. There is no doubt in my mind that environmental regulations in a market economy spur innovation in cleantech, and that their removal provides additional incentive to pursue the status quo. (In the meanwhile, such regulations protect our health and safety, and there’s something to be said for that as well.)
I sat next to an extremely senior Australian scientist/businessman during lunch at the energy storage show last week. My jaw almost fell into my arugula salad when he told me about the firm but simple carbon tax his country is deploying. It’s not 1500 pages of pork-barrel back-room deals; it doesn’t have cap and trade, loopholes, wormholes, or buttonholes. It’s extremely plain and direct, phasing in over a few years, giving everyone plenty of time to understand its impacts and make whatever adjustments to their businesses they see fit.
Australia has a well-deserved reputation for being straightforward in its approach, and this strikes me as the perfect example. Here, they perceived that they faced a serious problem with a social ill (like cigarette smoking), and simply put a tax on it. Instantly, they created incentive for innovation in clean energy; in fact, they’re using the revenue to provide further incentives for the development of green solutions.
Miraculously, it didn’t take years of political posturing and grandstanding; they just did it. Try to imagine that in the US.
EPA Needs Help in Creating Meaningful Ratings for Electric Vehicles
| December 2, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I go on occasional rants about the lunacy of the EPA’s rating electric cars (pure EVs that use no gas, e.g., the Nissan LEAF) on their gas mileage. Apparently, John Voelcker of GreenCarReports.com agrees:
Idiocy…. So it’s come down to this, has it? The U.S. car-buying public is apparently so stupid that the Environmental Protection Agency has to rate the efficiency of an all-electric car that burns no gasoline in … miles per gallon.
I feel your pain, John. But the truth is that U.S. car-buyers actually are not that stupid. Realize that we’re still being instructed on how to buckle our seatbelts on airplanes (which work the same way as those in every car that’s been built for sale in the US for the last 50 years). The take-away: bureaucracies ADD content over time; they don’t remove anything — regardless of how completely useless and irrelevant it may have become. I predict MPG ratings will be applied to vehicles 200 years from now that run on solar nutrinos or gamma rays from neighboring galaxies.
Having said that, there are SO many good alternatives for the EPA to adopt. So here’s a plea to you helpful folks in Washington: Want to add honest value and inform the EV car-buying public about the costs of operating their car — or the relative effect that driving it has on the environment? Come on, admit it — that’s a true lightbulb of an idea! If you want some tips on exactly how this should be done, please call or write anytime.
EPA Produces MPG-e Ratings for Plug-in Hybrids
| November 27, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
It looks like the debate on fuel economy for plug-in hybrids rages on unabated. General Motors just announced that its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid car will carry a better efficiency rating that the Toyota Prius (long been recognized as the industry leader in the category). The fact that this is like comparing apples with trombones doesn’t seem to be of any major concern to GM, the EPA, or anyone else. Read More
[The Vector] Politics Over Reason Yet Again?
| November 23, 2010 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Renewables - Politics |
This is a follow up to a Vector story that appeared August 24th, 2010, called “Opposing Ethanol”. In that story, we discussed that an effort in the form of an energy bill was poised to allow an increase of ethanol mix. The mix was 10%, but the bill was seeking to raise this to 15%.
Many from various sectors and industries were very opposed to this. Why? Ethanol can be damaging and corrosive to engines, and is known to damage engines as well as exhaust systems; and increasing emissions from engines defeat emission control devices. I will add that in my opinion, corn-based ethanol has many problems (discussed in the August 24th post.)
Despite reasonable science, and despite heaving lobbying against raising the cap of ethanol allowed to be mixed into gasoline, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) passed the bill on October 13th. It seems ironic that an agency that is supposed to protect the environment and our safety would allow this. The EPA says that from its testing, cars built in 2007 and forward “shouldn’t” be damaged from the new blend called E-15. (Cars owned that were built in 2007 and later accounts for 18% of our nation’s cars, according to David Sedgwick at Translogic). The EPA will apparently test older cars later to see what they find.
In the meantime, gas station owners are furious. They are afraid of being sued if a car is damaged, even if EPA labels are put Read More
Leaders Grandstanding On New Greenhouse-gas Regulations
| September 16, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Gosh, it irks me to have our leaders take advantage on our ignorance – but I guess that what they do for a living.
Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, said recently that the agency will “issue guidance soon that states and polluters may use to implement the agency’s new greenhouse-gas regulations,” and that complying with the rules “is practical and is manageable.” Of course, it’s not at all clear what that means in terms of pragmatic consequences. But that didn’t deter our elected leaders from seizing opportunity to grandstand on either side of the aisle. Knowing that most people have no clue of the basic economics of new energy, and simply love a partisan fight, they were on camera more or less instantly.
Lawmakers led by Senator Jay Rockefeller want to postpone EPA action, saying the rules will hurt businesses and consumers grappling with a sluggish economy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to schedule a vote on Rockefeller’s bill “before we leave here.” Rockefeller is “aggressively pursuing” a two-year delay of the greenhouse-gas regulations for industrial sources such as power plants because “the unelected EPA” shouldn’t get ahead of Congress.
Is anyone asking about creating a level playing field for clean energy? About the real effect in job creation? Maybe, but they’re incredibly hard to find.
EPA’s Recent Announcement – A Clue to Where the US Is Going in Renewables?
| September 15, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
My colleague Steve Estes writes about the EPA’s recent announcement:
This is why the market is starting to get active again…. The EPA will proceed regardless, hopefully causing all of the folks against this to accept the alternative (which is better) of the politicians being allowed to pass some comprehensive legislation… Read More
The EPA Asks: How Much Pollution Do Electric Vehicles Create?
| April 6, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
In his blog, my friend Paul Scott has written a marvelous post on calculating the pollution caused by charging electric vehicles with energy from fossil-fuels. He makes several astute comments and suggestions regarding how the EPA should, in fact, make this determination fairly.
He asks such questions as:
How do you compute the amount of pollution generated from coal and natural gas? Do you take the national average for a kilowatt hour of energy? I’ve read it’s just over one pound of CO2 per kWh. Or do you allow for regional variation? California is among the best in terms of per capita efficiency and a low CO2 grid, and we’ll be the first state to mass adopt EVs. Oregon and Washington have an even cleaner grid and will match CA in per capita EV ownership. Seems only fair to allow for our cleaner grid in the calculations.
In my estimation, a far bigger factor here is that the vast majority of the energy used to charge EVs comes off-peak, where it would largely be wasted (dumped back to ground) anyway. Therefore, even EVs powered by the dirtiest of coal-fired power plants represent very little additional pollution. We could put an estimated 90 million EV on the road this afternoon without the need for a single additional power plant — coal, nuclear, or whatever. Thus this issue, I believe, is largely moot.
But don’t expect the EPA to grasp this point too quickly. These are the same people who are still trying to determine the MPG ratings for a plug-hybrid like the Chevy Volt. Apparently, the fact that this is number that has no possible definition (it could be 50, 500, 5,000 or 50,000 depending on how the car is driven) does not deter them from spending many man-years studying and debating the issue. It makes just as much sense to argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
In any case, I applaud Paul for his incisive and fair-minded article, and I encourage readers to check it out here.
