Exelon CEO: Really, we want a cap on carbon 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   enviroperk Posted 7:30 pm
   06 May 2009

   You have to get past the video and into the second web site, http://www.us-cap.org/ , then click on the "full plan" link. The "smart cap" is so smart it takes 28 pages of general explanation. Believe me, it was an expensive 28 pages produced by a very good PR firm and a staff of word-smiths.Here is an example paragraph taken at random:Enable the smooth transition to a lowcarbon
   economy by mitigating the financial impacts
   of climate policy on consumers, businesses and the
   overall economy. A judicious combination of
   allocating allowances and targeting of auction
   revenues can reduce the direct cost impact of climate
   policy while accelerating the deployment of energy
   efficiency and other cost-reducing technologies. It is
   anticipated that the percentage value required by
   consumers and businesses will decrease over time.
   Translation: We know we utilities can pass on all the costs of the crap like clean-coal and carbon sequestering to rate payers as part of "fuel cost adjustments" on the rate payer's bill, no skin off of our Profit and  Loss statements, but the government is going to have a pay a ton  of "allowances" so that businesses and families can afford to pay us. The good news is, that by 2050, the government won't to give them as much.

   Permalink

2. 

   Tyler Durden Posted 8:09 pm
   06 May 2009

   An underlying fundamental problem here is that most utilities in the U.S. are private instead of public.  Changing to public utilities wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a major step in the right direction.  So long as utilities are structured as profit-first entities, reducing their emissions will always be a secondary priority for them.

   Permalink

   1. 

      enviroperk Posted 10:09 pm
      06 May 2009

      Tyler,I really want to agree with you here, but one example stops me in my tracks. Before that I give that example I would like to point out the differences in expectation of employees of not-for-profit in the sense of government, and a for-profit company. Mainly because (disclaimer: with no statistical information at all at my back) my experience has shown this expectation determines the effectiveness of an organization.In a for-profit company, an employee has to eventually produce something of value to the organization. Much like the parts of an organism -- biologically speaking. Unproductive parts of the organism/organization  will eventually be tossed out because the value produced doesn't exceed the energy cost to the organism/organization. Evolution, if you will.On the other hand, (disclaimer:  from my own personal work experience, no science here either) non-profit government organizations require that you just show up -- and preferably not disturb other parts of the organization/organism. Actually producing something useful, or of value, is not required and may actually irritate or disturb other parts of the organization/organism ( most especially if said new idea offends the contributors to the Good and Honorable Senator that is on the committee that determines your organization's funding!) and you may be then tossed out; or at least, be frustrated enough to move on.My example is the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden Colorado (well maybe it is a suburb of West Denver, but you can smell the pleasant aroma of the Coors Brewery in Golden on a good day).This wonderful idea was conceived in 1977, and it was a great idea. Sometime later it was renamed the NREL, or National Renewable Energy  Laboratory ( http://www.nrel.gov/) . They have the best scientists in the world. Really. They have had a budget in the hundreds of million dollars a year range since 1977. I think they will be at a billion dollars next year.Anyway, I cannot recall any real breakthroughs in renewable energy they have produced in 32 YEARS. I am sure there are a couple, but they have been completely eclipsed by the man-in-a-garage discoveries or the for-profit discoveries. (another disclaimer: I read Ayn Rand's "Altas Shrugged" ... a few years after "being involved" ... and the similarities to the "State Science Institute" in the book are amazing.  Yeah, I know what you are thinking )In theory, they should be producing break-throughs that change the world. I don't know all the reasons why they have failed, but if any not-for-profit concept should make it, this one should have.As a side note, I see they they are getting a big grant from the new administration. So what is this biggest grant in recent memory for? To build another building! Though I don't know the numbers, I know they have a whole lot of buildings now.That is right, not for pure research, but to build another building. That's a great example of energy conservation. Sad.

      Permalink

      1. 

         traggatmot Posted 10:22 am
         07 May 2009

         Enviroperk,To help you recall the consistent breakthroughs (or noteworthy progression) in the many different types of solar cell technology that NREL has been a part of, please check this graph:http://www.internet-public-library.org/carbon-reduction/advanced-solar-cell-developments-2007.jpg You'll notice their name is there quite often.  And recently they have been very active in three seperate technologies, especially where it seems the private sector has been missing, or perhaps lagging behind.  It's also good to remember First Solar, a current darling of the solar industry, developed their cells in tandem with NREL. Also, that 1 billion dollar research budget is spread across dozens of different reserach areas, not just solar.  I think the "man-in-the-garage" discoveries are very unlikely these days with solar technology.  Not for lack of skill, but for lack of the tens of thousands of dollars of equipment needed for enhanced vapor deposition or crystal curing of the necessary materials. Tom

         Permalink

3. 

   Sean Casten Posted 5:58 am
   07 May 2009

   Don't knock Rowe - but do understand where he's coming from.  Unlike most utilities, they're generally on the right side of the carbon issue.  That said, they have built their company largely by buying distressed nuclear assets and running them better to dispatch into deregualted markets.  In other words, they are a big beneficiary of a carbon policy that charges everyone equally without grandfathering.One can be cynical about that, I suppose - but there isn't much to be gained by knocking them.  Good carbon policy will require a coalition of strange bedfellows, and having Exelon in that coalition doesn't hurt.

   Permalink

   1. 

      enviroperk Posted 7:00 am
      07 May 2009

      Hi Sean,Exelon may be on the "right side" of the carbon problem. I guess if I could figure out what this "smart-cap" plan really means, I may reach the same conclusion you have.I have hope that it is better than the bio-fuel plan (read Ethanol) that is showing us that some cures are worse that the disease.

      Permalink

      1. 

         Sean Casten Posted 7:21 am
         07 May 2009

         Yes, it's vague.  My point is that if you want to find a utility that you could peel off from the fringe and support good policy, they're the one.  Ergo, let's engage them.  Whether or not they are there yet, they - somewhat uniquely - have an economically self-interested path to get there. 

         Permalink

4. 

   enviroperk Posted 11:05 am
   07 May 2009

   Tom re NREL.You make a good point. Especially, in the case of Mark Wanlass, whose long career at NREL working on multi-junction improvement (specifically inverted multi-junction) has resulted in tremendous improvement of cell efficiency. Though this particular technology lends itself best to space/military applications. High spectrum, very intense light provides best effiency.I believe this is the exception rather than the rule. The main contribution the NREL makes is through verification and testing of new technologies. Essentially verifying the claims of the producers. During the testing process they have on many occasions, suggested or implemented ideas for incremental improvements. Still far short of a company like Spectralab's (Boeing owned) leaps, however. Especially for the time and resources that have been allocated.     

   Permalink