As a member of both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee it is my view that the time is long overdue for Congress to go beyond deal making and "politics as usual" in addressing the crisis of global warming. The droughts, floods and severe weather disturbances our planet is already experiencing will only get worse, potentially impacting billions of people, if we do not take bold and decisive action in the very near future.
While the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough in creating the policies that the scientific community says must be developed if we are to avert a planetary catastrophe. It is also lacking in paving the way for the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies. Here are some of my concerns with the Lieberman-Warner bill:
- First, virtually all of the scientific evidence tells us that, at the least, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 if we stand a chance to reverse global warming. Lieberman-Warner, under the very best projections, provides a 66 percent reduction.
- Second, this legislation allows major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases for free until 2036. In fact, old-fashioned dirty coal burning plants could still be built during this period. That's wrong. The "right to pollute" should not be given away for up to 24 years. Further, in calculating emission reductions, the bill relies much too heavily on "offsets," a process which is difficult to verify and which could significantly undermine the actual emissions caps.
- Third, this bill provides a massive amount of corporate welfare to industries which have been major emitters of greenhouse gasses while requiring minimal performance standards and accountability. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, the auction and allocation processes of the bill could generate up to $3.6 trillion dollars over a 38 year period. While a large fund exists in the bill for "low carbon technology," there is no guaranteed allocation for such important technologies as wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydrogen or for energy efficiency. But, there is a guaranteed allotment of $324 billion for the coal industry through an "Advanced Coal and Sequestration program" and $232 billion for the auto industry for "Advanced Technology Vehicles."
The time is late, and if Congress is serious about preventing irreversible damage to our planet because of global warming we need to get moving in a bold and focused manner. And we can do it.
In 1941, President Roosevelt began the process of rearming America to defeat Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. Within a few short years, tanks, bombs, planes and guns were rolling off assembly lines at such a scale that, within a few short years, our military had the resources to overwhelm our enemies. We did it.
In 1961, President Kennedy called upon our nation to undertake the seemingly impossible mission of sending a man to the moon. NASA was greatly expanded, the best scientists and engineers were assembled, billions were appropriated and, in 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon. We did it.
As a result of global warming, the challenge we face is no less daunting and no less consequential. Quite the contrary! Now, we are fighting for the future of the planet and the well-being of billions of people. And, once again, if we summon up the political courage I have absolutely no doubt that the United States can lead the world in resolving this crisis. We can do it.
In that context let me take a moment to suggest some of the ways that we can strengthen the Lieberman-Warner bill to aggressively reverse global warming. Most importantly, significant resources in this bill must be explicitly allocated for Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy, the areas where we can get the greatest and quickest bang for our buck.
In terms of energy efficiency, my home city of Burlington, Vermont, despite strong economic growth, consumes no more electricity today than it did 16 years ago because of a successful effort to make to make our homes, offices, schools and all kinds of buildings more energy efficient. In California, which has a growing economy, electric consumption per person has remained steady over the last 20 years because of the state’s commitment to energy efficiency.
Numerous studies tell us that by retrofitting older buildings and by establishing strong efficiency standards for new construction we can cut fuel and electric consumption by at least 40 percent. Those savings will increase with such new technologies as LED light bulbs, which we expect will consume one-tenth of the electricity of an incandescent bulb, while lasting 20 years.
In terms of saving energy in transportation it is beyond comprehension that we are driving cars today which get the same 25 miles per gallon as cars in this country got 20 years ago. If Europe and Japan can average over 44 miles per gallon, we can do at least as well. Simply raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon will save more oil than we import from Saudi Arabia. We should also be rebuilding and expanding our decaying rail and subway systems and making sure that energy efficient buses are available in rural America so that travelers have an alternative to the automobile.
In terms of sustainable energy, wind power is the fastest growing source of new energy in the world and in the United States – but we have barely begun to tap its potential. In Denmark, for example, 20 percent of their electricity is produced by wind. We should be supporting wind energy not only through the creation of large wind farms in the appropriate areas, but through the production of small, inexpensive wind turbines which can be used in homes and farms throughout rural America. These small turbines can produce up to half the electricity that an average home consumes and are now reasonably priced. Without tax credits or rebates, a 1.8 kilowatt turbine is now being sold for $12,000 including installation - with a payback of 5-6 years. That's pretty cheap electricity.
The possibilities for solar energy are virtually unlimited. In Germany, a quarter of a million homes are now producing electricity through roof-top photovoltaic units and the price per kilowatt is rapidly declining. In California, the state is providing strong incentives so that one million homes will have solar units in the next ten years.
But the potential of solar energy goes far beyond roof-top photovoltaic units. Right now, in Nevada, a solar plant is generating 56 megawatts of electricity. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy; "Solar energy represents a huge domestic energy resource for the United States, particularly in the Southwest where the deserts have some of the best solar resource levels in the world. For example, an area approximately 12% the size of Nevada (15% of federal lands in Nevada) has the potential to supply all of the electric needs of the United States."
More significantly, Pacific Gas and Electric, the largest electric utility in the country, has recently signed a contract with Solel, an Israeli company, to build a 535 megawatt plant in the Mohave dessert. This plant, which should be operating in about 4 years will have an output equivalent to a small nuclear power plant and will produce electricity for about 400,000 homes.
Most importantly, the price of the electricity generated by this plant is competitive with other fuels today and will likely be much cheaper than other fuels in the future. News reports indicate that the 25 year purchase agreement signed by Pacific Gas and Electric with Solel calls for electricity to be initially generated at about 10 cents a kilowatt with very minimal increases over the next 25 years. My guess is that electricity at, say, 15 cents a kilowatt in the year 2035 will be a very, very good deal.
The potential for solar plants in the southwest is very strong. While there will be no magical silver bullet in the production of new, non-polluting energy sources, experts tell us that we can build dozens of plants there and that this one non-CO2 emitting source could provide some 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States.
Geothermal energy is the heat from deep inside the earth. It is free, renewable, and can be used for electricity generation and direct heating. While geothermal is available at some depth everywhere, it is most accessible in western states where hydrothermal resources are at shallow depths. Currently the U.S. has approximately 2,900 megawatts of installed capacity, which is just 5% of the renewable electricity generation in the U.S. The installed geothermal capacity is already expected to double in the near term with projects that are under development, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
A recent report for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that geothermal could provide 100,000 megawatts of new carbon-free electricity at less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, comparable to costs for "clean coal." Drilling technology from the petroleum industry is the key to unlocking this huge potential. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) tap energy from hot impermeable rocks that are between 2 and 6 miles below the earths crust.
An investment of one billion dollars, less than the price of one coal-fired power plant, could make this resource commercially viable within 15 years. The potential payoff is huge. It is estimated that electricity from geothermal sources could provide 10 percent of the U.S. base-load energy needs in 2050.
In terms of the future of our planet the bad news is that scientists tell us that they have under-estimated the speed and destructive aspects of global warming. There is less time than we previously thought before irreversible damage is done. The good news, however, is that we now know what we have to do to solve the problem. We know how to make our homes and transportation systems more energy efficient and we are making huge progress in driving down the costs of non-polluting sustainable energy technologies. What is lacking now is the political will to stand up to powerful special interests, and move our energy system in a very different direction.
I look forward to working with grass-roots America to make that happen.
This statement was originally delivered on the floor of the Senate on Nov. 13, 2007.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Threaded
ce1907 Posted 9:36 am
14 Nov 2007
So the call to Heroism will not be answered in the same way.
Will not.
So what is left is politics. As usual. The usual kind.
Two separate issues. Big problem? Cost?
Please, Senator, forget about the cost. John Q Public always pays, one way or another. Cut a deal.
Permalink
theBike45 Posted 10:24 am
14 Nov 2007
The desire for carbon free power and the lowered cost of solar thermal and the renaiissance of nuclea is all that's needed, along with the electrification of the automobile, which is
occurring at GM and Byd via practical plug-ins that can do virtually everything a battery-only electric can. Reducing carbon has become a very simple problem. Unfortunately there are still those pushing horribly obsolete technologies like wind and photovoltaic and non-dispatchable wave
that are getting in the way. Economics and eventualy some sanity (sorely missing) and logical thinking will do the trick. There are simply too many fools out there who think you need a dozen different technologies that need to be promoted. I will strongly opose any govt funds being wasted on non-dispatchable power and call for such technologies to be forbidden from govt subsidy.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 10:50 am
14 Nov 2007
You are a rare voice of passion and reason. You demonstrate a rare understanding of the dangers and potential solutions to global warming. I'm with you in opposition to the Lieberman-Warner bill. We can do better.
You may already be aware of the recent study by German academicians that peak oil occured in 2006 and oil production will fall by 50% by 2030. This is similar to the warnings of ASPO and other geologists. The GAO has written:“The prospect of a peak in oil production presents
problems of global proportion whose consequences
will depend critically on our preparedness. The
consequences would be most dire if a peak
occurred soon, without warning, and were
followed by a sharp decline in oil production
because alternative energy sources, particularly
for transportation, are not yet available in
large quantities. Such a peak would require
sharp reductions in oil consumption, and the
competition for increasingly scarce energy
would drive up prices, possibly to unprecedented
levels, causing severe economic damage.
Once peak oil breaks into public consciousness (and it is starting to in Britain with a few BBC reports) then the entire debate on global warming will have to be reconsidered. My question is, have you yet joined the Congressional Peak Oil Causus.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 12:37 pm
14 Nov 2007
Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .
Permalink
jhenn Posted 2:21 pm
14 Nov 2007
Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpDwMusgGE
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:49 pm
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:18 am
15 Nov 2007
At the moment, I am having difficulty identifying examples of the leadership we vitally need now.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Pathos Posted 2:11 pm
15 Nov 2007
If I lived in Vermont, you would have my vote from now on. Keep up the good work! :)
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:15 pm
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:41 pm
15 Nov 2007
Your work reminds me of what Al Gore is doing. Thanks for your intellectual honesty and courageous action.
Would you agree the first time humanity fails to solve the problems on Earth that WE create could be the last time we fail? At least to this point in time, it looks to me as if humankind has an unblemished record of achievements.
Of course, past prosperity is no guarantee of favorable outcomes in the future; however, I am placing my abiding faith and complete confidence in humankind to assure a good enough future for our children and coming generations.
As many are likely aware, quite a large number of people, inside and outside of science, have suggested that the human predicament looming before humanity in the 21st century reminds them of the first and last voyage of the Titanic.
If, indeed, humankind finds itself in command of a ship, the "Century XXI Human Predicament," and also has good scientific evidence that this ship could soon strike an iceberg, one already dimly visible on the far horizon, would you agree that reasonable and sensible people immediately open discussions regarding a change in the ship's course?
Or is humanity and life as we know it better served by accelerating the ship's speed, reinforcing the ship by making it larger and its hull thicker, by relying on future techno-fixes and, consequently, choosing to stay the current course............steady as it goes?
As ever,
Steve
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:16 am
16 Nov 2007
Beware geothermal's water consumption and groundwater contamination though.
Instead we need distributed wind, solar, wave, and waste stream biogas renewable generation and storage over an internet enabled grid...feeding hybrid plugin vehicles.
And geothermal heat exchange for building heating/cooling could eliminate up to 36% of GHG. That's the geothermal energy to tap into.
And how about a Prairie National Park for huge wind farm leasing at a price favorable to the interests of utility consumers, rather than speculators in a new "free" market in wind power. Lots of bison herding (licenses to farmers in exchange for land in conservation)could go along with this to replace uneconomic beef grazing bankrupting great plains farms.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/2/9/1 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ericr Posted 12:34 am
16 Nov 2007
That does not mean that Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. And it certainly does not mean that Denmark has "offset" 20% of its consumption of other fuels for electricity generation.
In fact, if one looks at Denmark's fuel use for electricity, there does not appear to be any effect from building all those wind turbines.
Denmark's wind turbines depend on heavy use of international connectors, so that the intermittent and variable wind production can offset Sweden's hydro (with no carbon reduction) or be absorbed by Germany's much larger grid (with no effective reduction of other sources).
A recent analysis shows a strong correlation between Denmark's wind production and its export of electricity.
Thus, Denmark is in fact getting very little of its electricity from wind, despite saturating the countryside with turbines. That is probably why they have not added any new wind capacity since 2004.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:55 am
16 Nov 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/debt.png (Focus on the WW2 part)
and this
http://solarpowerrocks.com/fun/suckfiles/image006.gif
And lastly consider this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm
_
Also to some extent consider that IMHO, biofuels, hydrogen, coal sequestration, nuclear, and even to some extent concept vehicles, are all just "political-will-diversions".
That serve to dillute the focus, and bleed dry any funds that would go towards realistic purposes.
Energy Efficiency for instance is getting less than a shoestring budget from the DOE.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:53 pm
16 Nov 2007
"We are going to need all the alternatives to beat climate change and gain energy independence."
Then they list nukes, fuel farming, clean coal, and so forth... and invariably leave out wind, wave, biogas, solar, conservation, a smart grid, plugin hybrids, light electric rail, bike trails,and conservation. How (in)convenient.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Paulkenyon Posted 3:26 am
24 Nov 2007
Please note that the 1.8 kW turbine sited is, even at the cheap price of $12,000 not "affordable" and will not serve as an investment in today's economy. Far from it.
I consult to the small wind industry and have a 1.8 kW turbine at my home in the Champlain Valley. I talk truth about small wind turbines to real people who live in real places in Vermont. A 1.8 kW turbine provides, perhaps, 1200 kW-hrs of energy per year in Vermont's champlain Valley, a not unrealistic average wind speed for where people tend to live. At 11.4 cents per kW-hr (Vermont price)that adds up to $136.80 a year for a grand "pay-back" of the $12,000.00 in about 88 years. Meanwhile, my neighbor who invested his $12,000.00 in bonds at 5% will have earned $73,333.33. But my turbine will not last 88 years unless I resort to extraordinary methods (termed regular maintenance)...which, you guessed it, cost money. See where this is going? Most people do not live where the wind blows fast enough to compete with a modest alternative investment made with the same money.
On top of that, at the end of the turbine life, often less than 10 years but reported to be between 15 and 25 years, the turbine is trash and the investment's value is zero, or nearly so: scrap value. At the end of that term my neighbor will still have his initial investment back.
We install small turbines not for the investment (as such), but for love. And that's good enough for a number of folks. Let's not disparage it. But let's also get real about small wind turbines (and let's get real about the giants, too, they will not produce enough power to make their visual and environmental impact worth the while, period.)
I advise folks interested in small wind for "the investment" to take the money they were going to put into the turbine...or PV array...and invest it in the stock market. The average return (if you can stomach the up and down ride...you could lose it but you were going to lose the 12 grand for sure buying a turbine) is around 9%. Take the income from that investment and put it into tightening up the house: new windows and doors and insulate, insulate, insulate. In a short time you will have lowered the amount of heat your home uses dramatically, directly impacted global warming, US hegemony, the pillage of foreign oil, AND, for these ill gotten gains (you'd have to feel guilty for doing so well for so little) you get a much more comfortable house. Now, what's so hard about this?
It will be useful to note that this year, again, Europe, despite it's huge penetration of giant wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, produce more CO2 than they ever have. Why is that? Something's not working about this renewables idea. Denmark, it is said, produces not 20% but 40% of it's power from wind yet Denmark produced just slghtly less CO2 this year than last and has advanced to become the 7th largest recipient of US exported coal. Because the wind over Denmark is so mismatched to their demand, 84% of their wind generated power is exported to their grid partners, mostly to Germany, Sweden and Norway, where it displaces not CO2 produced electricity, but hydro produced electricity, another clean source. It all adds up to a disappointing mess that Europeans are going to have to live with for a long, long time.
Indeed, people are getting rich over this boondoggle. Note Please that "swindle" has "wind" in the middle if it. Sorry to trash a darling but there it is.
Let's get real about addressing global warming. Forget the renewables with their outsized, environmentally destructive footprints and concentrate on conservation (we use too much of everything (except common sense) and we're too fat, let's admit it) and efficiency (which, today, can offer us far more "energy" than anyone has realized)and put some serious money (Iraq war amounts...a trillion dollars would be appropriate but we could settle on $200 Billion as evidence of a good faith start in this effort) into safe and secure advanced nuclear power. There are even rumors that we could use our (VT Yankee) stockpile of nuclear waste reprocessed...as they are in Europe. Fusion power, would, of course, be a marvelous outcome of this investment in our energy future. Let's get on with it. Seriously.
Best,
Paul Kenyon
Cumulus Engineering, LLC
Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.
Permalink
Paulkenyon Posted 3:42 am
24 Nov 2007
Best,
Paul
Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.
Permalink