Archive
Obama’s plan to reduce oil imports
Today, President Obama discussed his strategy to reduce US oil imports, with the goal of a 1/3 reduction in the next 10 years. This announcement complimented his State of the Union commitment to the goal of producing 80% of the country’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 by focusing on the oil and gas section of the US energy pie. According to a senior White House official, the President’s strategy will focus on increasing domestic energy production while reducing consumption and can be broken down into the following 4 parts:
Part 1 – Increase domestic oil production.
According to the US Department of the Interior, more than 2/3 of offshore oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico and more than 1/2 of onshore leases on federal land are neither actively producing oil or exploring potential development opportunities. This represents a large untapped domestic energy resource that the President will propose we focus on developing. Today, the President discussed the “massive supplies of energy waiting to be tapped” and how we can ensure that these leases do not remain idle.
In response, the oil industry has already made statements regarding the lengthiness of the mapping, testing and infrastructure development process that must occur before oil or gas can be produced. According to the Western Energy Alliance, “…obtaining a lease is just the first step in a lengthy process filled with bureaucratic hurdles…If this Administration was serious about domestic energy production from federal lands, it would ease some of the redundant red tape that is preventing companies from developing leases they currently hold.”
Part 2 – Implement New Natural Gas Industry Incentives
The most unclear part of Obama’s plan focuses on developing domestic natural gas resources by increasing industry incentives for developing resources in a safe and responsible manner.
According to senior White House Official, “we know that in the U.S. we have tremendous reserves of natural gas but we need to develop those resources responsibly in a manner that is not going to impact our groundwater supply.”
Part 3 – Develop biofuel resources
The third part of the President’s 4-part plan focuses on the potential role for biofuels in reducing US oil imports. In his speech today, the President set specific goals for building four new advanced biofuel facilities in the US in the next 2 years.
Part 4 – Reduce energy consumption with efficiency
The final part of the President’s plan focuses on reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency. The President proposed several energy efficiency targets, including vehicle efficiency standards and smart grid standards and goals. This part of the President’s plan will be built upon the research and development dollars that he proposed in his 2012 budget.
ARPA-E: Energy Innovation Summit (2/28-3/2, 2011)
Today is the first day of ARPA-E’s Energy Innovation Summit in Washington, DC. The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funds innovative research projects in the energy arena with the hope that their support will be a catalyst in the U.S. move toward a sustainable energy future. Their Energy Innovation Summit will run for three days (February 28-March 2), bringing together key players in the United States’s energy innovation community, including: venture capital firms, technology entrepreneurs, large and small clean energy companies, policymakers, and government officials from the DoE and ARPA-E. The goal of this summit it to help develop networks that “will bring about the next Industrial Revolution in clean energy technologies, in the way the U.S. has led previous revolutions in life sciences and information technology.”
- Showcase the next generation of clean energy technologies
- Introduce ARPA-E’s leadership, program areas, and initial breakthrough technology projects
- Connect technologists, entrepreneurs, and investors
- Provide insights that will enable entrepreneurs to commercialize breakthrough technologies
Climate Change Voices – Scientists vs. the Media
Climate change, and the role of humans in it, was at the heart of carbon cap-and-trade bills in 2009 and 2010. It is also a substantial argument in support of the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a harmful greenhouse gas. But, there seems to be a disconnect between the main voices discussing the validity of climate change – specifically, between scientists and the media. And this disconnect has muddied the energy policy debate into a full-blown wrestling-match between those who believe that we should act to reduce climate change’s negative effects, and those who disagree with either the science or the response to it.
The result of this battle – policy that appears to ignore science.
Last Friday, I wrote about a session that I attended at the AAAS annual meeting in Washington, DC. Titled “Science Without Borders and Media Unbound,” this session pulled together scientists and science journalists to discuss the (lack of) acceptance of human factor in climate change by the public. According to members of the panel, while the vast majority of scientists (~98%) agree that climate change is real and humans contribute significantly to it, only about half of the public agrees. What is the root of this disconnect?
Throughout the session, there were discussions and debates on how the media had chosen to cover the topic of climate change (with a climategate, scandal focus) versus the calm, pragmatic (and at times, jargon-filled) approach to discussing the validity of climate change due to human actions, and the potential serious effects. The problem of the media as a truth-seeker versus the media as a ratings- and revenue-seeker came up throughout the discussion. But, more broadly, there seemed to be agreement that there was a disconnect between the two main climate change voices – scientists and the media.
According to David Wogan, who attended the same session, the disconnect might be due to a communication breakdown.
One of the benefits of climate change, as it turns out, is that it highlights how science communication leaves much to be desired. As discussed by the panelists, there are a lot of reasons why talking about science is a hard thing.
Scientists, for the most part, just aren’t good at explaining what they’re doing and why anyone else should care.
The lack of communication skills shouldn’t be worn as a badge of honor, as I’ve observed too many times, or awkwardly acknowledged then avoided. No, the modern scientist needs better communication skills. And stat.
On Saturday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget that, if adopted by the Senate and the President, could effectively eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases due to a severe lack of funding. This budget was passed with a majority of 249-177 despite the strong public support of the EPA’s actions under the Clean Air Act. It was also passed in spite of the near-universal belief in our negative impact on global climate change.
How can we fix the disconnects in the energy and climate change debate and get these discussions back on track?
AAAS Annual Meeting – Day 1 Favorite Session
Today was the first “full” day of the annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This year, the meeting is being held in Washington, DC at the Washington Convention Center. It will run until Monday, hosting panel discussions and plenary speakers on a variety of science topics from sustainability to science and society aimed at giving scientists, engineers and journalists a chance to discuss not only the research topics that they explore, but the ways that they communicate their findings to the world.
Throughout the day, I attended portions of 6 sessions. My runaway favorite – “Science Without Borders and Media Unbounded: What comes next?” moderated by Bud Ward from Yale University’s Forum on Climate Change in the Media. The conference program provides the following summary for the discussion:
Climate science and “mainstream” journalism interests are undergoing what some call, in the case of journalism, an “epochal transformation.” The communications challenges facing climate science — manifested in part by widespread misunderstanding on the part of many in the public and their policy-makers — will play out against fundamental changes, shaking the very nature of journalism, communications, and science education communities, with blogs, list serves, and “tweets” increasingly complementing (or are they?) conventional journalism. Climate science and climate journalism in the end need each other if we’re to have a more informed and more engaged citizenry. Steps each sector takes during the coming months and years will help shape public and policy-makers’ understanding of the climate changes we all will face. In this session, one of the nation’s most respected students of modern journalism pairs with two journalism practitioners whose reporting frequently puts them in the public spotlight in responsibly informing the public about climate science and policy. The three share critical insights into navigating climate science communications in this “perfect storm” of an economic, geopolitical, scientific, and environmental issue. They serve up a feast for the climate science expert discussant to kick off an exchange with the audience.
Moderator: Bud Ward, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the MediaDiscussant: Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologySpeakers:1. Tom Rosensteil, Project for Excellence in Journalism2. Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
Reporting on Climate Change for a Wire Service3. Elizabeth Shogren, National Public Radio
Covering Climate Science and Climate Controversies for National Public Radio
- Communicating Diversity in Science: Implications for Climate Change Denial
- Rethinking Adaptation to a Changing Global Environment
- Powering the Planet: Generation of Clean Fuels from Sunlight and Water
- Mathematics and Our Energy Future
- Samantha B. Joye: Offshore Ocean Aspects of the Gulf Oil Well Blowout
- Deepwater Drilling: A Risk Worth Taking?
- If a Culture of Growth Is Unsustainable, What Should Change?
- Superconductivity: From 1911 to 2021
I won’t be able to attend all of these sessions (too many overlaps) – but, whatever ones I do make it to are sure to be interesting.
Inaugural UT Energy Forum
Check out my guest post today on Discover’s blog, The Intersection (blogging home to Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum). My post is about the Inaugural UT Energy Forum, hosted on UT’s campus earlier this month. I attended and spoke about the smart grid in a 7-minute TED-style talk.
Energy and Environment Programs at the Heart of Republican Proposed of Budget Cuts
A lot is going on in Washington in the energy and environment sphere as budget woes have made programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DoE) targets for the next line of cuts. Later today, the White House will unveil its 2012 budget proposal, which is rumored to be ambitious and tough. One thing that is sure – the President’s budget will set the stage for a showdown between a divided House and Senate.
House Republicans appear to have targeted federal energy and environment programs as an area where they can significantly reduce government spending and bring down the trillion-dollar federal debt. They are proposing a more than 1/3 cut in the Department of Energy’s efficiency and renewables budget.
This appears to fly in the face of the Obama administration’s desire to encourage clean energy innovation through research and commercialization. The administration is proposing that $8 billion be designated for clean energy technology programs (including the same efficiency and renewable programs that Republicans are targeting for cuts). To save money, the President has proposed a 5-year spending freeze and cuts to more than 200 other federal programs.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Policy and Communications Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-New York) say that they are ready to work with Republicans to find a budget compromise. But, as Schumer was recently quoted in saying:
We’re willing to meet Republicans in the middle on spending, but they keep lurching to the right…This is what happens when you pick a number first and figure out the cuts later.
Wind Power Running Through the Texas Hill Country
On February 28, 2010 at 1pm, wind power hit a record high in Texas – supplying more than one-fifth of the Lone Star State’s electricity demand. Throughout the year, an estimated 9% of the state’s electricity needs were met by the wind farms that have popped up since the first statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard was passed in 1999. Quite an accomplishment. But, as Texas continues to increase its use of the wind for its power needs, it is faced with the problem of how to move electricity around its state along its aging infrastructure.
How will the state get the West Texas wind to their East Texas cities?
The state’s answer – a $5 billion transmission build-out within the Texas electric grid to add more than 2,300 miles of new lines.
Texas is the only state in the continental U.S. with its own electricity grid. The Texas grid, overseen by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) oversees the movement of ~85% of the state’s electricity needs every year. This grid was built over the past century, at first connecting the state’s cities to nearby power plants. Later, the Rural Electrification Act connected the Texas Hill Country (and other rural areas) to the grid. Since this time, the grid has largely been allowed to age – leaving an increasingly vulnerable grid behind.
But, faced with stranded wind turbines and increasing electricity demand, Texas has decided to invest in its grid infrastructure. Under the state’s Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) transmission line project, new high voltage transmission lines will be built to connect windy hillsides to bustling cities. And, to the dismay of landowners in the Texas hill country, some of these lines might run directly through their piece of the Texas countryside.
The Texas Hill Country is home to rolling hills, large ranches and families that have lived on the land for generations. Its cities include Johnson City (the boyhood home of President Johnson) and Fredericksburg (the heart of the Texas wine industry and art scene). And, after last Friday’s unanimous approval of a new CREZ transmission line, it will soon be home to new high-voltage transmission lines that will bring West Texas wind east along Interstate 10.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas has approved a new transmission line that will run along Interstate 10 from Junction to Kerrville. In Kerrville, the electricity that the lines carry will be transferred to existing transmission lines that run to the heart of the state’s eastern cities. This line will be constructed by the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), which is also responsible for managing the state’s water resources. It is expected to be energized by 2013.
Obama’s Energy & Climate Change Advisor Is Leaving the White House
Energy Climate Advisor, Carol Browner and President Obama
Energy and climate legislation in Washington? On the hill today, this question will leave you with crickets and dropping pens. And, in the latest blow to energy and climate since Republicans captured the majority in the House of Representatives, the White House Energy and Climate Change advisor is leaving her post.
The NY Times reported today that Carol Browner, the White House Advisor for Energy and Climate Change will be leaving her position soon. Browner will step down from her post without achieving her goal of ushering comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Does this mean that hope for federal action on this issue is gone until 2013?
Browner was chosen in 2009 to lead the newly minted White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton Administration, Browner came to the advisory position with many years of experience in DC. It was believed that this experience would help her usher in the charge in DC toward passing comprehensive federal energy and climate legislation.
But, Browner will be leaving Washington with a stalled bill in the Senate and little hope on the horizon that this legislation will pass the President’s desk. It appears that regulating greenhouse gases is a big task for a divided congress in the 112th session.
Easy, Accurate, Clear – Calculating Solar Potential in your city
The economics of a solar power project can be tricky – especially when you don’t have access to the information you need. While it is pretty easy to generalize – “Arizona is sunny – Seattle, not so much” – trying to calculate how much electricity you’ll be able to generate from the panels on your rooftop can be frustrating. And this problem isn’t just felt at home – as cities and counties take a harder look at their parking lots and garages as potential generation stations, knowing how much sun they have to work with becomes critical.
Last week, the American Institute of Physics published a paper on a new way to calculate, compile and graphically show the amount of solar energy potential in a specific region (for example, county or city). The new methodology presented in this paper provides an easy way for you, or members of your city council, to determine the amount of energy that the sun beams down (called solar irradiance) in your area. You can even sort this information by time of day or year, to see how those panels are going to perform at 4pm in January versus 11am in July.
Developed by former graduate student David M. Wogan (of The Daily Wogan) and his advisors, Dr. Michael E. Webber and Dr. Alexandre K. da Silva at The University of Texas at Austin, the aim of this project was to make solar data more meaningful to people who wish to use this renewable resource. In their paper, they discuss how the methodology works (lots of data + computer program + pretty graphs) and apply it to Texas as a case study. Pretty cool.
If you would like to read the paper, you can access it for free here at The Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy.
[Image was found using Creative Commons, using the search term “sunshine.”]
Court Upholds EPA’s Ability to Regulate Texas Emissions
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Ag. Commissioner Todd Staples announce lawsuits against the EPA late last year
The Lone Star State has been fighting the Obama administration’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act since it was first announced back in 2009 – making it clear that they did not approve of federal oversight on this particular issue. Yesterday, in a blow for Texas Governor Rick Perry, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had the right to issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas.
During this appeal, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (a Republican) argued that the EPA does not have the right to take over a state’s own greenhouse gas regulation programs. According to Abbott, the EPA should give Texas time to establish its own permitting structure, before stepping in with federal oversight. Even more fundamentally, Abbott does not believe that the EPA has a right to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately for Abbott, it looks like the U.S. Court of Appeals does not agree.
Environmentalists are grumbling at Texas’ series of appeals aimed at blocking the EPA’s regulatory capabilities. In response to the most recent ruling, EENews reported the following reaction from the Environmental Defense Fund:
“The state government in Texas has now filed three cases in the federal courts to block EPA’s greenhouse gas pollution reduction policies, and it has been rejected three times,” said Steve Cochran, vice president of climate and air at the Environmental Defense Fund. “If Texas put half the effort into carrying out greenhouse gas pollution control measures that it put into fighting them, EPA would not need to be involved.”
In a way, I agree.
And Texas might too – there are rumblings that the state might try to implement the EPA’s rules itself, in order to avoid federal oversight of the state’s activities. According to Terry Clawson at Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ):
[TCEQ] has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring, or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.
The TCEQ is disappointed in this decision, but confident we will ultimately prevail in our insistence that the EPA must follow its own rules and federal law…Environmental regulations must have some environmental benefit, and not just expand the power of the federal government.
Bottom line – Unless this issue is sorted out during the current legislative session (Texas’s legislature only meets once every two years), it appears that the EPA will soon be issuing new permits in the Lone Star State.
What does this mean for Texas?
Yesterday’s ruling means that, unless Congress takes action to prevent the EPA from issuing rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions, state’s will find themselves subject to a series of new regulations (issued Jan. 2). In Texas, this translates to (approx.) 167 facilities receiving greenhouse gas permits that could, over time, limit their ability to emit these gases during their operations. Included in these facilities are power plants and petroleum refineries, a backbone in the Texas economy.
Combined with earlier rulings in cases of Texas v the EPA, Washington appears to have the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and stationary pollution sources (like power plants and refineries). As a first step in this process, these facilities would have to certify that they are using the best available technology for limiting emissions if they wish to maintain their operating permit.
(The NY Time Greenwire provided background on this topic last week in a very nice article on January 5, 2011.)
Global Energy Matters 