Conventional wisdom says that the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill faces a long uphill slog against unlikely odds. Many Senators, especially those in the “center,” think it’s unpopular. They think it will raise prices during a recession. They think it will unfairly hurt their states. They see little political upside and lots of possible downside.
Here’s the thing about Beltway CW, though: it always forecasts delay, difficulty, and failure. And it’s always right. Until it’s wrong. As Al Gore is fond of saying, politics, like climate, is nonlinear. An accretion of small changes can build beneath the surface of the news cycle and emerge unexpectedly as a rapid shift. The odds in Vegas may still be against the bill, but there are reasons for cautious optimism. Seven of them, actually.
——-
1. Key Republican support is already in place, as Sen. Lindsey Graham takes to The New York Times editorial page with John Kerry to offer full-throated support for passing clean energy legislation this year:
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
Graham has been making noises, but this is thunder. The Kerry bill will not be able to pass without at least a little Republican support giving cover to conservative Dems. Graham is offering that cover early in the legislative process.
He’s also made the price clear: more support for nuclear and offshore drilling. That’s odious, but less odious that it appears at first blush, and an affordable price relative to the benefits of passing a bill.
Snowe and Collins are likely yes votes. With Graham so far out ahead on this, McCain may be shamed into joining him (though he’s far from a sure thing). Together they could get a second hearing from other Senators like Isakson who love nuclear power. (Alexander’s probably a lost cause now that he’s in leadership.) Their combined influence, coupled with his longstanding relationship with Obama, could pull Lugar over. In Florida, Crist could see this as part of his legacy and influence LeMieux to get behind it. At some point you can imagine a snowball effect, though the odds of breaking five Republican yea votes are still fairly low.
2. Health care reform might just work out after all. The Finance Committee finally passed a bill, it was scored favorably by the CBO, and floor debate approaches. After what seems like an eternity, there’s finally some consensus and momentum. It’s possible to imagine a bill passing in the next couple months. When that train leaves the station it will (finally!) free up much-needed Senate staff attention for when the clean energy train pulls in. It will clear the deck for Finance to mark up the Kerry bill (if Baucus decides he wants to, God help us all).
If a good healthcare bill is signed into law, it will have an enormous boost on morale and generate further momentum.
3. The public wants this bill. Conservative Dems are behind the times. They haven’t been keeping up with the latest polling, which shows that clean energy reform is broadly popular, even in swing states. Recent focus groups show that the right’s “energy tax” attack isn’t working. It gets crushed by the message that America needs to take control of its future, cut dependence on unfriendly countries, and create new jobs. Americans want it to get done and they’re willing to pay for it. Clean energy in particular is wildly popular—a recent poll found that “77% of Americans feel the federal government should make solar power development a national priority, including the financial support needed.”
There’s a good story to tell even about the most carbon intensive states. They are protected in the bill by consumer rebates and allowance money for trade-exposed industries. Every state has enormous potential for efficiency, and according to a new report:
At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders. Every state with a renewable energy mandate can meet it with in-state renewable fuels.
Clean energy reform has potential benefits for every state and area of the country. It’s a winning political issue.
4. International pressure is becoming intense. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize can be seen, at least in part, as a reward for taking the U.S. in a new direction on climate change. Accepting the prize will put him in Oslo on Dec. 10, right next door to Copenhagen, just as international climate talks begin there. Hint, hint.
Once upon a time the lack of action in China and other rapidly developing countries could be used as an excuse for delay in Congress, but that too is quickly changing. China is moving. Japan is moving. Indonesia is moving. Even India is moving (see also). Developing countries have made it clear that they’re willing to be part of a global system of emission reductions. Global green campaigns like 350.org and TckTckTck are building cross-cultural consensus around a set of baseline metrics. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. to step up. That puts enormous pressure on Obama to deliver the goods, which he can’t do without Senate support.
5. The administration is engaged. The administration has been criticized by greens for neglecting clean energy in favor of health care, and it’s true that with the exception of his U.N. speech Obama has mostly focused his public remarks elsewhere. Still, the accusation isn’t entirely fair: there’s an extraordinary level of engagement on clean energy legislation at the cabinet level, probably more so than on health. Browner, Chu, and Jackson have been advocating for the bill and meeting individually with Senators for months.
What’s missing so far is the full force of Obama’s personal popularity and persuasiveness, the most powerful forces in American politics. Everyone agrees the outcome in the Senate will at least somewhat turn on the level of his involvement.
6. Greens are getting their act together at last. The formation of the Clean Energy Works coalition a month ago presaged a period of relatively happy media news for greens. Some of it was the Chamber of Commerce stepping on rakes, but some credit goes to a more consistent message and concerted efforts to highlight stereotype-busting greens like veterans and business execs. There are targeted ad campaigns, media stunts (from groups like the Avaaz Action Factory, Greenpeace, and MoveOn), and a growing grassroots youth movement (see: Energy Action Coalition‘s PowerShift 09) making noise. It’s getting loud enough that even Congress can hear.
7. The business community is divided, as recent defections from the Chamber of Commerce demonstrate. More and more CEOs realize that the demographic they most covet—young people—cares about climate change, expects companies to be environmentally prudent, and expresses that opinion in purchasing decisions. Being backwards on climate is bad branding and bad business.
Ten years ago, every hot-sh*t entrepreneur, engineer, and investor wanted to change the web. Today they want to change the grid. They understand that clean energy legislation will unlock enormous business opportunities. Big companies want to get their hands on those opportunities, which is why they’re actively lobbying for a bill.
When Chamber of Commerce president Thomas Donahue, a guy sitting comfortably at the center of an old boys network of long standing, finds himself offering defensive, incoherent pabulum on the subject of climate change and whining about big mean environmental groups ... something has changed.
——
Given the brittle system by which legislation is passed in the U.S., with all its chokepoints and 60-vote mega-majority minimums, failure is always a safe bet. Despite all the heated talk about what Obama must “demand,” the truth is that the fate of this bill (and everything that hinges on it) lies with a small handful of Senators, Republicans and conservative Democrats who aren’t accountable to him or his agenda. Their political concerns are more idiosyncratic.
Nonetheless, there is a clear path from here to passage. If everything goes right and the Senate is willing to step up to history, it could happen.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
givingjane Posted 8:05 am
12 Oct 2009
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 8:38 am
12 Oct 2009
Permalink
ce1908 Posted 11:39 am
12 Oct 2009
1. Gr1ham is not sincere. (Why do I even have to write those words?) Neither is McC1in. Neither is C1rker. Not V1inovich? Not any of them, except one (who pulls no other Repubs).
It is a propaganda bait-and-switch. Get leading Dems to say that massive nuke $$$ (reprocessing plants, pay for eternal waste disposal, get rid of public participation in nuke plant siting) and indiscriminate drill are acceptable.
Let capntrade fall of its own weight (10 Dems in senate have thumbs firmly pointed down)
and then promote compromise: at least, let’s go forward with massive nuke $$$ and drilling
this will be McCa1n’s next campaign platform. Oh, yes. The dream still lives
Furthermore, it fits with St. B1ngaman’s view: public will never accept a real cap, too expensive, just invest in technology now
In short, K1rry is being played. So are a lot of bloggers.
2. “much needed staff attention”
what a joke. staff has nothing to do with it
there are not 60 Dem senator votes. not close
roll this FACT around in your head. now, when the rolling stops, think about this:
if the Dem Prez says he wants something, and you are a Dem senator hell-bent on voting no -- what would you do?
look for a scapegoat
just like Lieberman/Warner. blame “process”
blame “the failure to negotiate it correctly”
blame “personalities”
blame “the girl”
it is a con. it worked before. it will work again
“finding a way to 60" is a joke. there are not 60 in this Congress at this time. there are no “way to 60" to find
the real game is to try to keep the Clean Air Act authorities (very dicey) and to keep a progressive message going forward into future congressional debates
3. reality does not directly correlate to positions on the Hill
4. international pressure is counter-productive. public hates the idea that we would do something because foreigners say so. public could not care less about the international community
rightwing regularly exploits this prejudice. will again
senators know this
5. hilarious. who told you?
6. the 10 Dem senators who will vote no are already despised by enviros, and despise enviros in turn
greatest enviro effort in history would make no difference; enviros just do not have the pull
7. somewhat correct. but wrong to think it is a gamechanger in the current environment
Summary: Repubs know that climate bill cannot pass because of Dem opposition, and so try to spin it as “possible” for various longterm propaganda advantages
a. drastic nukes and drastic drilling are mainstream
b. Ob1ma failure
c. liberal failure
D1ve Roberts is a cog in the Repub playbook
Permalink
givingjane Posted 1:05 pm
12 Oct 2009
You might be wrong, because Graham might have his sights on something bigger (and thus knows he needs to be viewed by independents as "reaching across the aisle"). Then again, you might be right too. Republicans love changing the goal post. They say they'll vote for the bill if it includes $80 billion in funding for nuclear squirrel meat processing plants. Dems reluctantly agree to the squirrel meat plants. Republicans decide that they don't want to vote for the bill they just agreed to vote for.
Wait...what the hell are squirrel meat processing plants?
Permalink
Lee Diamond Posted 3:19 pm
12 Oct 2009
I do have a question about how much support the Senators want to provide nuclear energy. Am I wrong in mentioning that there are studies that find nuclear energy is not competitive with renewables? That nuclear, even after so many years of use still requires significant subsidies?
I am troubled by the attraction some have to capital intensive and centralized power sources. I am not convinced that we need nuclear. However, I think it is important that we send President Obama to Copenhagen with a good Climate Bill in his pocket.
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 4:42 am
13 Oct 2009
1. a Ponzi scheme called cap and trade (we note that Kerry and Graham didn't call it that in their OpEd - gee, wonder why - because the public has woken up to the fact that this is a bad idea).
2. a call for more "renewable energy" in the form of burning trash, forests, and construction debris as "clean and green"
3. more nukes.
4. drill, baby drill: exploiting shale deposits for natural gas, when new methods of extracting gas from shale deposits has poisoned water supplies and destroyed ecosystems in Wyoming, and threatens wholesale destruction with extractions from the Marcellus Shale deposits in Pennsylvania and New York.
5. opening up more offshore drilling and more of Alaska.
6. greenhouse gas reduction targets that fail to even come close to targets demanded by science.
7. allowing over 700 million tons of carbon dioxide from biomass burning to go unaccounted for - totally blowing the cap.
Wake up, David, this isn't a climate bill, it's the second generation economic bailout bill for Wall Street and big energy. No wonder Duke Energy and friends are lining up behind it!
Not all the "environmental groups" are behind it - and those who are, are promoting a bill that will actually make climate change worse. Hard to see how that's consistent with their mission.
A network of grassroots environmental and social justice groups is telling the real story about the bill. Check out: http://www.ClimateSOS.org
EcoLaw/Massachusetts
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 6:36 am
13 Oct 2009
I agree that cap and trade is a farce that will do little other than enrich traders. But politicians are too cowardly to propose a carbon tax, which is what is really needed.
Any carbon bill needs some kind of provision to deal with goods made in China/India and then shipped here. If we can't have a carbon tax, then we at least need a carbon tariff.
Permalink
yoshidad Posted 10:27 am
14 Oct 2009
1. Nuclear does not make economic sense without massive government subsidies, and 2. When you take mining and processing into account, it actually makes climate change worse. See Amory Lovins with Amy Goodman here for the footnotes: http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 10:44 am
14 Oct 2009
I beg to differ on Lovins' assessment of nuclear power plant costs, but even if they were true, the deployment of IFRs (Integral Fast Reactors) would result in close to a hundred-fold increase in the efficiency of nuclear fuel use. That would lower mining costs and make waste management easier.
Recent assessments on nuclear power costs from MIT says it will cost about 8.5 cents per kWh. High but manageable. The recent Severance study was found to be so fraught with errors as to be borderline fraudulent.
If you want replace coal with wind and solar, you will need to add massive storage capability. That will be pretty costly as well.
Permalink
yoshidad Posted 3:20 pm
14 Oct 2009
In any case, I fail to understand how even more efficient reactors will make nuclear waste easier to manage. The waste -- perhaps a smaller amount -- will still be hot for millenia while the containers can only last for centuries.
I'll also bet that the 8.5 cents / kWh estimate doesn't include the cost of the risk mitigated by the Price-Anderson act essentially providing reinsurance for all nuclear plants built in the U.S.... Which wouldn't be built without such insurance.
And are the waste management costs included in that 8.5 cents/kWh? I doubt that too.
So shall we adopt nuclear, with all sorts of hidden costs, or something whose costs are know, but which permits customers to be independent of large power companies?... Hmmmm.... I wonder.
As for the "massive storage capacity" ... Lovins debunks that in his answer to Stewart Brand published in Grist here: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-stewart-brands-nuclear-enthusiasm-falls-short-on-facts-and-logic.
He elaborates and supplies links to footnotes here: http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.pdf
He pretty thoroughly dismantles Brand's argument that it's nuclear or coal...or nothing. See for yourself.
According to the World Resources Institute in 1989, the U.S. subsidized petroleum to the tune of at least $300 billion annually (that was then, probably lots more now).
This figure included everything from tax breaks (the depletion allowance) to roads and bridges built with general revenues, not gas tax, and the military defense of overseas oilfields, pipelines and shipping routes (necessary since 70% of consumption is imports)... So we're used to subsidies, although the knowledge of them isn't widely held.
Given that this tidbit of energy knowledge is carefully concealed at least makes it plausible to believe the similar nuclear subsidies are carefully hidden too. Now if conservation, solar and wind were subsidized with a similar amount of cash, *then* I'd say let's see how nuclear compares.
Meanwhile, I'd prefer not to take the nukes.
Finally, (again from Lovins) peak uranium is in 2040, unless we build a lot of plants, then it's in 2015. After peak begins an inexorable decline in supply (see http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse for more).
I guess we could do as we have with petroleum, and try to import our way out of our needs for a critical energy-generating commodity, but frankly I'd prefer to avoid the resource wars.
Make mine conservation and renewables, please.
Permalink
lucas.ingamba@gmail.com Posted 12:50 pm
17 Oct 2009
(i) The main social benefit of IFR's are that uranium and transuranic products such as plutonium and actinoids are reused as fuel or "burned". This is due to the fact that IFR do not use heavy water (deuterium enriched water) as a neutron moderator, which is the mechanism by with a light water reactor, LWR, functions to break apart chains of uranium atoms. Freed neutrons, as we know, travel at different speeds depending on the substance from which they were released. Uranium neutrons are considered to be "fast neutrons", or neutrons with a large enough internal energy to travel at speeds of 14,000 km/s or more. If one were to not use a neutron moderator such as heavy water, one could not control the fission reaction. However, if one uses a liquid metal uranium-plutonium-thorine moderator in the reactor itself, then one can more encompass the reaction to all fuel input and all fission products. In essence, this means that one can fissate more and more radioactive atoms from a starting atomic fission. We are able to produce, therefore, 5% of the waste of a LWR from one IFR and generate the same amount of energy. Furthermore, instead of plutonium waste with a halflife of 10,000 years, we are left with elements such as radioactive iodine, which has a half life of only 200 years. Do you understand this? The waste products produced are not only much much less, but of a different type. We're not talking infinite danger, here, we're talking something that is less harmful than naturally occurring radioactive materials like ambient cesium-237. This could be integral (no pun intended) to the acceptance of nuclear energy.
(ii) Now, third generation plants that produce plutonium as waste (these are the LWR, light water reactors, that are currently in deployment across the country) can be coupled with fourth generation plants using exclusively a IFR system to turn plutonium waste into more fuel. What this means is that larger amounts of energy can be produced from the same amount of fuel. A LWR uses 1% of naturally occurring uranium. A IFR uses close to 99.5%. This makes is enormously more economically efficient in the long run.
(iii) It also means that we could be using spent nuclear weapons or already produced plutonium in our nuclear reactors. This would meant that the uranium peak would not quite effect us as soon as you'd think. True, it will come eventually, but at least we're not producing CO2. Compared to the amount of fuel we have right now and the amount of fuel we can re-use, we wouldn't have to go searching for more uranium for hundreds of years. And by then, we might not even have to worry about running IFR's- perhaps hydrogen fusion reactors instead?
(iv) To clear up your issue before, most companies pay a flat rate of .1 cents/kwH to dispose of nuclear waste, so its not as big a cost as one would think. Mining and refining and enriching of uranium, operating the plant, and producing heavy water constitute the bulk of the cost. I do not know about the Pierce-Anderson Bill. However, consider the enormous subsidies and insurances given to ethanol, biofuel, and even fossil fuel development. Government gives an enormous subsidy to renewables: (a) wind farm subsidies http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/07/spin-this-booming-wind-industry-still-seeks-subsidies/ (b) solar farm subsidies (http://www.Lipa.org) and enormous ethanol subsidies http://zfacts.com/p/63.html. Government subsidizes many things; should insurance for nuclear really be that great of a factor against deployment? Come on. Yes, there's hidden costs about everything, so, what's your point?
Look, I really think that you should read and research before you say things that have little scientific backing such as "In any case, I fail to understand how even more efficient reactors will make nuclear waste easier to manage. The waste -- perhaps a smaller amount -- will still be hot for millenia while the containers can only last for centuries." Nuclear is a definite option for the future. So are other renewables; I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. But why denounce an already existing infrastructure with exciting new future prospects?
Permalink
yoshidad Posted 4:31 pm
22 Oct 2009
Here's a portion of the Wikipedia description that raises some red flags: "IFR opponents also presented a report[12] by the DOE's Office of Nuclear Safety regarding a former Argonne employee's allegations that Argonne had retaliated against him for raising concerns about safety, as well as about the quality of research done on the IFR program. The report received international attention, with a notable difference in the coverage it received from major scientific publications. The British journal Nature entitled its article "Report backs whistleblower", and also noted conflicts of interest on the part of a DOE panel that assessed IFR research.[13]. In contrast, the article that appeared in Science was entitled "Was Argonne Whistleblower Really Blowing Smoke?".[14] Remarkably, that article did not disclose that the Director of Argonne National Laboratories, Alan Schriesheim, was a member of the Board of Directors of Science's parent organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[15]"
Wikipedia concludes: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation."
Believe me, I'm all for retrofitting pigs with wings and lipstick, but your post is pretty optimistic about this particular kind of nuclear.
And Price-Anderson is a *gigantic* subsidy. No existing commercial insurance company or combination of such companies would insure nuclear plant construction without it (taxpayers are ultimately on the hook any problems). In other words, the entire insurance industry doesn't have enough assets to cover this particular bet! Now *that's* a subsidy!
If you are unfamiliar with the meaning of this, I suggest asking your favorite banker for a construction loan -- but tell him you can't get insurance for the project. He may be a friend, but he'll show you the door pretty quickly, and doubt your mental stability. No kidding.
Incidentally, Nuclear plants do pay for their own insurance, but the insurance companies are "reinsured" without cost by the government. This amounts to an "unfunded liability" on the Feds' books, not the more conspicuous tax break or direct subsidy wind gets. It's still a subsidy because nuclear plants' insurance is that much cheaper.
And you say renewables get subsidies...really? Besides the orders-of-magnitude larger Price Anderson subsidy, I did mention the World Resources Institute study saying that petroleum gets $300 billion in annual subsidies. Renewables (e.g. your link to the Wall St. Journal's reporting about wind subsidies) are pleading for $11.5 billion.
Add to that the environmental costs for coal, not mentioned in WRI's subsidy estimate (that's $62 billion more, says http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=askBI3llM0Lo), and you've got some subsidies that are *much* larger for conventional fuels.
Ignoring this disproportion between the competing systems is a current commonplace, known as "straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel."
For example, Bush starts a multi-trillion-dollar illegal war against an enemy whose only offense is weakness (Iraq), but Obama is condemned as a "fascist" for proposing universal healthcare. Which is the gnat, and which is the camel? I wonder! Not a persuasive argument, IMHO.
As for ethanol...well, agricultural subsidies are a way to kowtow to the senators from the great plains. 40% of U.S. agricultural income (not just ethanol, but *all* ag income) is subsidy. Michael Pollan quotes one farmer saying "It's like laundering money for Cargill and ADM."
Note, BTW, that we don't even have "solar" agriculture. The U.S. typically burns 10 calories of fuel to produce one calorie of food.
Unfortunately, wind and solar manufacturers are unable to compete in the lobbying wars with the likes of ADM (whose execs were ruthless enough to be convicted of price fixing -- see recent release "The Informant")
Anyway, you're welcome to believe IFRs will finally bring the promised electricity "too cheap to meter" (the promise of the first nuclear plant developers), but I'd rather stick renewables that uses free, unlimited fuel that requires no resource wars to get, or exotic storage for waste, even if such sources have to have a relatively tiny subsidy.
Ethanol doesn't appear on my personal list of qualifying renewables ("Great idea!" I heard one farmer say of ethanol, "Our plan is to burn up the last six inches of prairie topsoil in our gas tanks!"... ouch!)
Permalink