This week was Restaurant Week in DC. Fancy-pants restaurants all over this city set a fixed price on their lunch and dinner menus - $20.09 and $35.09, respectively. Seems like a lot, but at these places, that's a deal.
So after work on Thursday, my co-worker friends and I went to our second happy hour in a row (crazy, I know) and made reservations at a restaurant called Vidalia. Described by its website as "original American with a subtle Southern influence", a more apt description for me was "over-your-head foodie ingredients with a few farm animals thrown in as guideposts for the uninformed like me". But before I get into the food, I'll describe the decor.
Vidalia is subterranean. The front door immediately leads to plush carpeted stairs that wind down to the nether-regions of an office building. It's a good thing there isn't a Vidalia in Houghton or Minneapolis - they would need steam cleaning for their carpets daily during slushy winter months. But Houghton it is decidedly not. The greeter, excuse me, maitre d', graciously asked us if he could take our coats (he did) and asked if we had reservations. Well, he asked if we had reservations first, I guess it wouldn't make sense if he just took our coats, no prior questions necessary. As he, or rather the coat-taker person, took our coats (3 on 1 hanger - they're good like that) I noticed that below the podium glass, there were trays of knickknacks. The usual toothpicks, business cards, and other accoutrement were there, but the thing that got me was a small white tray of reading glasses. I know for sure Applebee's doesn't have this option. But I'm not sure why Vidalia has it, either. It's not like the menus had very tiny font - and you would think the patrons would either be of good sight, good taste, or equipped with bifocals of their own that they wouldn't need complementary reading glasses, but what do I know?
As we walked to our table (prime location, I might add), I noticed that most diners were 1. a lot older than us (think mid-30s at the youngest) and 2. a lot richer. Oh well, I had on my best-looking work clothes, so maybe I didn't stick out too much. I checked out the bathroom (too much beer at happy hour) right away and thought it splendid that the stall had its own sink. The thought that some may forgo this option for the other sinks crossed my mind as I undid the latch of the stall, but oh well, bacteria is good for you sometimes. The waiter had a very strong accent, and it was very loud, so I did a lot of smiling and nodding to his suave suggestions. Usually a good tactic.
The menus, as I alluded to earlier, were full of foreign sounding ingredients coupled with farm animal names (i.e. suckling pig galantine). I got the pig for the first course and the goat for the second. They were really good - except for the fact that I coudld've eaten all of the food served to me in about 2 minutes at home. I guess the adage - quality not quantity - is somewhat of a set-in-stone law at these places. You're supposed to taste the food, not inhale it. Well, I'm an inhaler. But I nursed my goat for all it was worth and it was really good.
The nicest thing that happened to me that night was that my co-workers took pity on me for being a poor intern and bought my dinner. I owe them so much - and they made sure to remind me of that! But I am really grateful to them for letting me see into the world I may someday (hopefully never) inhabit. I'll take good bar food over fancy-pants food any day.
21 February 2009
15 February 2009
CU Boulder
I got a call today from a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. He wanted to know if I had any questions and told me a bit about Boulder, the collegial atmosphere, and the environmental law program. He said I had great letters of recommendation (thanks Linda, Kathy, and Kurt) and that he hoped I would attend. Hmm, that adds yet another dimension to the decision I'm supposed to be making in early April. It might depend on how much $$ they give me, if any. I hope they give me some - he mentioned that they only call a few of the admitted students, which I take as a good sign - as that would make the decision somewhat easier. I'm visiting Lewis and Clark in Portland in mid-March for their admitted students weekend. They gave me some money to cover some of the expenses, which will help out a lot. We'll have to see how the visit goes. Still waiting to hear from: UCLA, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Oregon, and University of Texas. I wish they'd hurry.
14 February 2009
New York City
I've never been to New York City. So I've never been to Times Square, caught a Broadway show, or soaked up the culture in the rich enclaves throughout the city. So I've never had friends or family who moved there so I can visit them in their den of culture. So what?
In fifth grade, my parents and I made a choice that might have prevented that trip to NYC in my youth. After completing fourth grade at Ridgeview, a Bloomington public school, we decided it would be best to enroll in a private school. Not that the public schools were deficient in any way, I just wanted to be in a smaller school for my education. Understood at that crossroads was that our vacations, especially my cherished visits to Florida to visit my grandparents, would be scaled back. It was true that from then through high school, these grander vacations faded from my life. I spent awesome summers playing baseball tournaments in and around the cities, camping in Canada, and visiting state parks all around the state. I loved it and would have it no other way.
My parents sacrificed a lot to put my sister and I through school, a sacrifice in which a very minor drawback was that we couldn't afford to take lavish vacations to Europe, the West Coast, or New York City. A very minor drawback compared to the experiences I had and the friends I made. A very minor drawback considering the education I got and where I am now. I'll go to New York City one day and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I'll go knowing that the sacrifices my parents made when I was growing up and who still make today will make that visit all the sweeter.
In fifth grade, my parents and I made a choice that might have prevented that trip to NYC in my youth. After completing fourth grade at Ridgeview, a Bloomington public school, we decided it would be best to enroll in a private school. Not that the public schools were deficient in any way, I just wanted to be in a smaller school for my education. Understood at that crossroads was that our vacations, especially my cherished visits to Florida to visit my grandparents, would be scaled back. It was true that from then through high school, these grander vacations faded from my life. I spent awesome summers playing baseball tournaments in and around the cities, camping in Canada, and visiting state parks all around the state. I loved it and would have it no other way.
My parents sacrificed a lot to put my sister and I through school, a sacrifice in which a very minor drawback was that we couldn't afford to take lavish vacations to Europe, the West Coast, or New York City. A very minor drawback compared to the experiences I had and the friends I made. A very minor drawback considering the education I got and where I am now. I'll go to New York City one day and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I'll go knowing that the sacrifices my parents made when I was growing up and who still make today will make that visit all the sweeter.
13 February 2009
The Road
I finished Cormac McCarthy's novel "The Road" yesterday. I couldn't put it down and read it in about 24 hours. I'm not going to go into a deep, thought-out essay about it, but I want to say a few things. It's one of those books that lingers after you finish reading the last page. It's about a man and his young son in a post-apocalyptic world, following a road to the coast and, they hope, salvation. It's a dark, ash covered world where fires melt the tar on the road, roving bands of cannibals terrorize the countryside, and nothing lives or grows. The only thing that keeps them alive is their deep bond, which fosters an indomitable will to persevere. Unlike other books of this nature, the point is not on what caused the world to die - there are no detailed recollections of the last days, weeks, or months of the many who perish - it is irrelevant. What matters is how the survivors react. Some turn to cannibalism and pure evil. The little boy is only the true "good guy" for even his father commits sins to survive. Unlike the other McCarthy book I've read, "Blood Meridian", there are signs of hopefulness throughout the novel, although they are outweighed by the bleak. Any other author would take this subject matter and make it unreal and melodramatic. McCarthy's gift, among others, is to strip the superfluous away and elevate the prose to truly Biblical stature. It was one of the best books I've read in a long time and I'll have to revisit it sometime to truly unlock more of its treasures.
I hear it's been made into a movie coming out this year. Viggo Mortensen, Robert Duvall, and Charlie Theron star in it - should be interesting. I'll reserve judgment.
Three day weekend!
10 February 2009
National Press Club & Senate Hearing
After an interesting biomass forum yesterday, today was another exciting chapter to my DC life. At 9 I went to the National Press Club, which is located near the White House on the 13th floor in a pretty ornate building. After pocketing a few napkins with the official emblem, I listened to a panel discussing wind energy in a forum hosted by the Farm Foundation. An energy researcher, a farmer/wind turbine owner, a county commissioner from Montana, and a higher up trade association member were the panelists. They were obviously supportive of the wind industry as well as the upcoming RES legislation which would mandate renewable energy, but with a healthy skepticism and pragmatism I found refreshing.
I did manage to get cornered before the meeting began by an energy economist from the Treasury Department. He was short, maybe 5'5", wore a $100 bill tie, and obviously took pleasure in being an asshole. Oh well, this city's full of them - renewable energy-bashing, $100 bill tie-wearing, 5'5" assholes! Until that guy, I'd never heard of the argument that renewable energy is blase because people used to use sailing ships and abandoned them in favor of steam-powered ships. Not the same argument. But oh well, he's in the minority.
After that forum, I headed out to the Dirksen Senate Building for a hearing on the federal renewable electricity standard (RES) called by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I came in a bit late since I was at the wind forum when it began, but I got to see about 45 minutes of it. The room was like you would expect a Senate hearing room to be. Dark wood trimmings, a semi-circular desk where the Senators sat, plush leather chairs for the audience, and a rectangular desk for the people testifying. Since I got in late, the only place for me to sit was at the press table. Everyone had their laptops out, chronicling the event for their publications. One perk to sitting with the press - small dishes of green M&Ms. Who knew?
All in all, a pretty interesting day - only possible here in DC (and did I mention it was in the 60's too). My feet really hurt since I walked halfway across town in uncomfortable dress shoes, but it was a small price to pay. Here's to more interesting days in the future.
Senate RES draft (Bingaman)
House RES bill (Markey-Platts)
Senate hearing webcast
I did manage to get cornered before the meeting began by an energy economist from the Treasury Department. He was short, maybe 5'5", wore a $100 bill tie, and obviously took pleasure in being an asshole. Oh well, this city's full of them - renewable energy-bashing, $100 bill tie-wearing, 5'5" assholes! Until that guy, I'd never heard of the argument that renewable energy is blase because people used to use sailing ships and abandoned them in favor of steam-powered ships. Not the same argument. But oh well, he's in the minority.
After that forum, I headed out to the Dirksen Senate Building for a hearing on the federal renewable electricity standard (RES) called by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I came in a bit late since I was at the wind forum when it began, but I got to see about 45 minutes of it. The room was like you would expect a Senate hearing room to be. Dark wood trimmings, a semi-circular desk where the Senators sat, plush leather chairs for the audience, and a rectangular desk for the people testifying. Since I got in late, the only place for me to sit was at the press table. Everyone had their laptops out, chronicling the event for their publications. One perk to sitting with the press - small dishes of green M&Ms. Who knew?
All in all, a pretty interesting day - only possible here in DC (and did I mention it was in the 60's too). My feet really hurt since I walked halfway across town in uncomfortable dress shoes, but it was a small price to pay. Here's to more interesting days in the future.
Senate RES draft (Bingaman)
House RES bill (Markey-Platts)
Senate hearing webcast
09 February 2009
Biomass forum
I'm blogging live from the Pinchot Institute's forum entitled, "Ensuring Forest Sustainability in the Development of Wood Biofuels and Bioenergy: Implications for Federal and State Policies". It's a mouthful, but it's basically a meeting of foresters, academics, and industry people associated with bio energy who are coming together today to discuss the future market of biofuels, specifically forest-based biofuels, under current and upcoming renewable energy legislation.
As with any environmental legislation, interest groups are fighting tooth and nail to either "strengthen" or "weaken" the proposed legislation. Today, the most forceful pushback against an RPS, or renewable portfolio standard, has come from a representative of a large paper company. Many in that industry fear the eroding of their market resulting from the brand new biomass market that would be created by legislation. It is interesting how they frame it, however. Instead of stressing the economic effect of an RPS, they cite the detrimental effects on forest health resulting from the large scale harvesting of wood for biomass as a reason for at least creating an "exit strategy" in the event the legislation overestimated it's potential supply. Bioenergy advocates, those in the heat or electricity industry, argue for a wide definition of biomass to ensure a large and sustainable supply.
On the other side, environmental groups are afraid, echoing strangely the paper companies' argument, that a new biomass market would create such a demand that any benefit to growing renewable energy is negated by the effects of land use conversion, fossil fuel-based transportation requirements, and the ecological loss of healthy forests for single-species plantations. At the Union of Concerned Scientists, we work with many stakeholders - environmental groups, landowners, foresters, government agencies - to craft, or attempt to craft, legislation that meets somewhere in the middle. I'm quickly realizing that there may be no middle ground in this case - there are too many sides and too many arguments for this to be realistically achieved. I do believe there may be a chance to craft a least common denominator-agreement that makes the least number of people angry, but that will take patience and a pragmatic and open-minded approach by all at the table.
I'm also starting to realize, if I hadn't already, that this is not a problem endemic to the biomass sector, or even the environmental one. Effective policy on any level on any topic is never the "perfect" solution, it can only be the best "worst-case" solution.
As with any environmental legislation, interest groups are fighting tooth and nail to either "strengthen" or "weaken" the proposed legislation. Today, the most forceful pushback against an RPS, or renewable portfolio standard, has come from a representative of a large paper company. Many in that industry fear the eroding of their market resulting from the brand new biomass market that would be created by legislation. It is interesting how they frame it, however. Instead of stressing the economic effect of an RPS, they cite the detrimental effects on forest health resulting from the large scale harvesting of wood for biomass as a reason for at least creating an "exit strategy" in the event the legislation overestimated it's potential supply. Bioenergy advocates, those in the heat or electricity industry, argue for a wide definition of biomass to ensure a large and sustainable supply.
On the other side, environmental groups are afraid, echoing strangely the paper companies' argument, that a new biomass market would create such a demand that any benefit to growing renewable energy is negated by the effects of land use conversion, fossil fuel-based transportation requirements, and the ecological loss of healthy forests for single-species plantations. At the Union of Concerned Scientists, we work with many stakeholders - environmental groups, landowners, foresters, government agencies - to craft, or attempt to craft, legislation that meets somewhere in the middle. I'm quickly realizing that there may be no middle ground in this case - there are too many sides and too many arguments for this to be realistically achieved. I do believe there may be a chance to craft a least common denominator-agreement that makes the least number of people angry, but that will take patience and a pragmatic and open-minded approach by all at the table.
I'm also starting to realize, if I hadn't already, that this is not a problem endemic to the biomass sector, or even the environmental one. Effective policy on any level on any topic is never the "perfect" solution, it can only be the best "worst-case" solution.
03 February 2009
Law School Update
Still undecided, but I've gotten into:
Boston College
Lewis & Clark (with a 2/3 scholarship!)
University of Colorado
UC - Davis
I plant to visit Lewis & Clark and Boston soon, but still don't know which one to pick. But, as the engineer I am and, for better or worse will always be, I did make a decision matrix...
Boston College
Lewis & Clark (with a 2/3 scholarship!)
University of Colorado
UC - Davis
I plant to visit Lewis & Clark and Boston soon, but still don't know which one to pick. But, as the engineer I am and, for better or worse will always be, I did make a decision matrix...
Finally...
Work is finally getting exciting! Not that the first few week weren't - I got to learn a lot about how environmental policy is made and the numerous interest groups that comprise "environmentalists" and "cornucopians" - but I was doing a lot of listening and reading, not so much doing. That's starting to change. I drafted my first action alert today about the upcoming Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS,or RES or RFS, depending on the crowd and the exact specs). Action alerts are where a form of communication we send via e-mail to "activists" across the country. We have over 200,000 people on our e-mail list who, when they receive an action alert, will send a letter to their member of Congress, urging them to support or fight an upcoming piece of legislation. It's crafted to both teach the activist a little bit about the context of the legislation and to reach out to members of Congress in a different way than a phone call from someone at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
It's a form of lobbying, different from actually meeting with a Representative or a Senator - that's direct lobbying. Action alerts are a form of indirect lobbying. Since we are a non-profit who lobbies, we must adhere to certain hourly restrictions on both our indirect and direct lobbying efforts. I never knew lobbying was so nuanced!
The action alert I drafted, as I mention above, concerns the RPS. Minnesota and many other states have such standards in place on the state level. They mandate that a certain portion of electricity generated comes from renewable energy, such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. For instance, Minnesota has enacted a 25% by 2025 bill, while Xcel Energy (go Dad!) has enacted a 30% by 2020 (with 25% coming from wind). Other states have similar pieces of legislation, although few are as ambitious as Minnesota's. The bill to be introduced to the House tomorrow will require that nationally, we get 25% of our energy from renewable sources by 2025. This is excluding any provisions for energy efficiency (a separate bill) which has previously sapped the actual percentage required in previous legislation (ex. a 4% offset from energy efficiency turns a 15% renewable requirement into an 11% one, boo).
At this point, you may wonder, "What percentage of electricity is renewable right now?"
Good question - despite the fact that in 2007, for the first time ever, renewable energy made up the largest portion of new electricity added to the grid (EIA report), renewables make up only approximately 2.5% of our country's energy portfolio. And even with this encouraging sign that more sources of renewable energy are being created than ever before - we have yet to see the watershed moment of renewable energy. There will always be an artificial cap on the amount of renewable energy we will see in our current industry climate. Only with an RPS will companies be able to invest in the technologies requisite for widespread adoption and cost-effectiveness renewables will someday enjoy. Think about this - the average large-scale wind farm takes about 5-10 years, if not longer, from plan, design, and construct. This coincides with the average length of a CEO's tenure. You think they want to take this risk without reassurance of a future market? True, it would take about the same amount of time to get a coal-fired plant up and running (maybe longer if they get litigated) but at least there is a mature market for fossil fuels. They will take that bet and choose coal. Every time.
Which brings me to my second big project: studying engineering barriers to Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS). Since we rely on coal for almost half of our electricity in this country, and likely will for the foreseeable future, a serious discussion on the merits of CCS must be considered. Don't be fooled by Peabody Energy saying that clean coal is here now. It isn't. However, be careful not to be too persuaded by environmental groups that clean coal is not a viable option. Yes, coal has numerous environmental problems and is a major contributor to GHGs. But it is a fact that it will remain the cheapest energy option in this country for the next decade, if not longer. More money must be spent, both the government's and industry's, to investigate the technologies that will make CCS work, both environmentally and economically.
There are currently three forms of capture, each with various other subgroups: pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxyfuel. Capturing the carbon dioxide from the gas resulting from the combustion of coal is the most expensive and technologically vexing portion of the CCS cycle. Often, the processes involved in capturing the climate change-causing gases significantly decrease the efficiency of the power plants (which are already only operating at ~40%, at best) thus increasing the amount of coal needed to produce the same amount of energy, all for an increased cost. You can see why companies are reluctant to adopt CCS technology at the present. The transportation of CO2 is not quite as difficult technologically, but it could still be expensive. The optimal scenario would have a viable place to pump the gas close to the plant, but only certain sites are suited, via their geologic properties, to sequester carbon dioxide. Transportation costs increase linearly with distance from the plant to the storage site. Current options for transporting are via pipeline and truck. Storing the carbon, by pumping it underground, into aquifers, old oil wells, and other geologically stable formations has yet to be tested on a large scale. There are several pilot operations currently studying this, but they can only store about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year - the average power plant produces 4 million tons a year, and there are a lot of them around the US! Once in the ground, experts are unsure about what will happen. The UN IPCC believes that 99% of the stored gas will remain underground for the next 100, even 1000 years, but much uncertainty remains. A slow leak from the storage chamber would negate the global warming benefit of storage in the first place. A rapid leak could kill you. Carbon dioxide could acidify groundwater, which could dissolve part of the cap rock or concrete well covers. Finally, the sheer scale of the operation and the monitoring of the site could prove very difficult to implement. That being said, we have to do something!
Trying to label coal as the enemy is the wrong course to chart. It seems as though people in the environmental community are so used to railing against the status quo they run the risk of dooming the ship they are trying, ultimately, to save. Of course renewable forms of energy are preferable over coal and we shouldn't quit fighting for their adoption and maturation because it will eventually change how we get our energy. But the key word is "eventually". We've got to work with the options at our disposal to develop viable CCS technologies because even if we forget about coal and focus only on renewable energy, any savings brought about by that will be overshadowed by an India and a China using antiquated coal-fired technology (they will account for 3X more coal usage than the U.S. in the coming decades). Invest in CCS and ensure that any technological advances that come out of it are shared with the rest of the world. Because this is not a national fight, it's a global one. Invest in CCS, but not at the expense of renewable energy. Companies will be slow to innovate if all of the research money flows to coal. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, that renewables are forever doomed, if sufficient money is not given towards their development alongside CCS.
These are just my thoughts, not connected necessarily to UCS, and I applaud you if you got this far down my blog. Here are some links to articles about carbon capture and sequestration technologies, if you are so inclined.
MIT: The Future of Coal
IPCC (read the summary for policymakers)
National Energy Technology Lab (a section of the Dept. of Energy)
Union of Concerned Scientists
It's a form of lobbying, different from actually meeting with a Representative or a Senator - that's direct lobbying. Action alerts are a form of indirect lobbying. Since we are a non-profit who lobbies, we must adhere to certain hourly restrictions on both our indirect and direct lobbying efforts. I never knew lobbying was so nuanced!
The action alert I drafted, as I mention above, concerns the RPS. Minnesota and many other states have such standards in place on the state level. They mandate that a certain portion of electricity generated comes from renewable energy, such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. For instance, Minnesota has enacted a 25% by 2025 bill, while Xcel Energy (go Dad!) has enacted a 30% by 2020 (with 25% coming from wind). Other states have similar pieces of legislation, although few are as ambitious as Minnesota's. The bill to be introduced to the House tomorrow will require that nationally, we get 25% of our energy from renewable sources by 2025. This is excluding any provisions for energy efficiency (a separate bill) which has previously sapped the actual percentage required in previous legislation (ex. a 4% offset from energy efficiency turns a 15% renewable requirement into an 11% one, boo).
At this point, you may wonder, "What percentage of electricity is renewable right now?"
Good question - despite the fact that in 2007, for the first time ever, renewable energy made up the largest portion of new electricity added to the grid (EIA report), renewables make up only approximately 2.5% of our country's energy portfolio. And even with this encouraging sign that more sources of renewable energy are being created than ever before - we have yet to see the watershed moment of renewable energy. There will always be an artificial cap on the amount of renewable energy we will see in our current industry climate. Only with an RPS will companies be able to invest in the technologies requisite for widespread adoption and cost-effectiveness renewables will someday enjoy. Think about this - the average large-scale wind farm takes about 5-10 years, if not longer, from plan, design, and construct. This coincides with the average length of a CEO's tenure. You think they want to take this risk without reassurance of a future market? True, it would take about the same amount of time to get a coal-fired plant up and running (maybe longer if they get litigated) but at least there is a mature market for fossil fuels. They will take that bet and choose coal. Every time.
Which brings me to my second big project: studying engineering barriers to Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS). Since we rely on coal for almost half of our electricity in this country, and likely will for the foreseeable future, a serious discussion on the merits of CCS must be considered. Don't be fooled by Peabody Energy saying that clean coal is here now. It isn't. However, be careful not to be too persuaded by environmental groups that clean coal is not a viable option. Yes, coal has numerous environmental problems and is a major contributor to GHGs. But it is a fact that it will remain the cheapest energy option in this country for the next decade, if not longer. More money must be spent, both the government's and industry's, to investigate the technologies that will make CCS work, both environmentally and economically.
There are currently three forms of capture, each with various other subgroups: pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxyfuel. Capturing the carbon dioxide from the gas resulting from the combustion of coal is the most expensive and technologically vexing portion of the CCS cycle. Often, the processes involved in capturing the climate change-causing gases significantly decrease the efficiency of the power plants (which are already only operating at ~40%, at best) thus increasing the amount of coal needed to produce the same amount of energy, all for an increased cost. You can see why companies are reluctant to adopt CCS technology at the present. The transportation of CO2 is not quite as difficult technologically, but it could still be expensive. The optimal scenario would have a viable place to pump the gas close to the plant, but only certain sites are suited, via their geologic properties, to sequester carbon dioxide. Transportation costs increase linearly with distance from the plant to the storage site. Current options for transporting are via pipeline and truck. Storing the carbon, by pumping it underground, into aquifers, old oil wells, and other geologically stable formations has yet to be tested on a large scale. There are several pilot operations currently studying this, but they can only store about 1 million tons of carbon dioxide a year - the average power plant produces 4 million tons a year, and there are a lot of them around the US! Once in the ground, experts are unsure about what will happen. The UN IPCC believes that 99% of the stored gas will remain underground for the next 100, even 1000 years, but much uncertainty remains. A slow leak from the storage chamber would negate the global warming benefit of storage in the first place. A rapid leak could kill you. Carbon dioxide could acidify groundwater, which could dissolve part of the cap rock or concrete well covers. Finally, the sheer scale of the operation and the monitoring of the site could prove very difficult to implement. That being said, we have to do something!
Trying to label coal as the enemy is the wrong course to chart. It seems as though people in the environmental community are so used to railing against the status quo they run the risk of dooming the ship they are trying, ultimately, to save. Of course renewable forms of energy are preferable over coal and we shouldn't quit fighting for their adoption and maturation because it will eventually change how we get our energy. But the key word is "eventually". We've got to work with the options at our disposal to develop viable CCS technologies because even if we forget about coal and focus only on renewable energy, any savings brought about by that will be overshadowed by an India and a China using antiquated coal-fired technology (they will account for 3X more coal usage than the U.S. in the coming decades). Invest in CCS and ensure that any technological advances that come out of it are shared with the rest of the world. Because this is not a national fight, it's a global one. Invest in CCS, but not at the expense of renewable energy. Companies will be slow to innovate if all of the research money flows to coal. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, that renewables are forever doomed, if sufficient money is not given towards their development alongside CCS.
These are just my thoughts, not connected necessarily to UCS, and I applaud you if you got this far down my blog. Here are some links to articles about carbon capture and sequestration technologies, if you are so inclined.
MIT: The Future of Coal
IPCC (read the summary for policymakers)
National Energy Technology Lab (a section of the Dept. of Energy)
Union of Concerned Scientists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)