Last week, an interdisciplinary group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors released their report on The Future of Coal, making recommendations about how the United States should use coal for energy.
The report, "The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World," evaluates the technologies and costs associated with generating electricity from coal, along with those associated with the capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced by coal-based power generation.
The Green Skeptic recognizes that electricity demand in the US and the world (hello, China!) will require a mix and increase in all generation options (cleantech, coal, and nuclear) well into the future, coupled with increased efficiency and conservation. And that means coal will continue to be a major factor in power generation. But to do so, we must figure out a way to manage the carbon dioxide emissions from this high-impact source.
The MIT study, which is addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, outlines the complex and interrelated technical, economic, environmental and political challenges associated with increased power generation from coal and options for managing its carbon dioxide emissions.
The report team, led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, states, according to the MIT website, "that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs."
Emma Marris interviewed the authors in news@nature.com: Future of Coal Interview
Download the full report: MIT - Future of Coal Report
19 March 2007
Global Climate Change: Investors Press Congress in Wake of Warmest Winter
NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported last Thursday that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was the highest since records began in 1880. January's record warmth was primarily responsible for putting the combined winter temperature over the top.
Sources at NOAA confirm that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. After this winter, the next-warmest was in 2004, and the third was in 1998.
The combined temperature for the December-February period was more than 1 degree Fahrenheit above the mean 20th century temperature.
Such warming trends are heating up the debate around mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts and increasing the anxiety among investors, as we've reported in The Green Skeptic before. Some don't want their investments to be blind-sided by regulations that may be on the horizon, while other investors see opportunities developing in clean-tech and alternative energy.
Today, dozens of institutional investors, including Merrill Lynch, The Capital Group, and the largest US pension fund, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) are calling on Congress to adopt strong legislation with tangible greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to Ceres, the coalition of investors and environmentalists.
The coalition asserts that setting mandatory emissions cuts will give investors confidence to invest more in low-carbon technologies, and other so called "clean tech" alternatives.
Cuts could also stimulate a cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases, which investors see as an opportunity just waiting to be developed.
Last January, 10 companies that would find themselves regulated under such legislation, including Duke Energy Corp. and General Electric Co., called on Congress and President Bush to set a national limit on emissions that could potentially lead to as much as a 30 percent reductions over the next 15 years.
Investments in the clean tech category are showing signs of strength. In February, the Cleantech Venture Network reported that North American and European venture capital investment in totaled a record US$3.6 billion for 2006. This was a 45 percent increase over 2005 (US$2.5 billion) and double the 2004 investment of US$1.7 billion.
Companies asking to be regulated, hungry investors smelling opportunity, and venture capitalists willing to sink serious money into the arena. Clearly it's time to adopt mandatory cuts and stimulate this investment climate.
Sources at NOAA confirm that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. After this winter, the next-warmest was in 2004, and the third was in 1998.
The combined temperature for the December-February period was more than 1 degree Fahrenheit above the mean 20th century temperature.
Such warming trends are heating up the debate around mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts and increasing the anxiety among investors, as we've reported in The Green Skeptic before. Some don't want their investments to be blind-sided by regulations that may be on the horizon, while other investors see opportunities developing in clean-tech and alternative energy.
Today, dozens of institutional investors, including Merrill Lynch, The Capital Group, and the largest US pension fund, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) are calling on Congress to adopt strong legislation with tangible greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to Ceres, the coalition of investors and environmentalists.
The coalition asserts that setting mandatory emissions cuts will give investors confidence to invest more in low-carbon technologies, and other so called "clean tech" alternatives.
Cuts could also stimulate a cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases, which investors see as an opportunity just waiting to be developed.
Last January, 10 companies that would find themselves regulated under such legislation, including Duke Energy Corp. and General Electric Co., called on Congress and President Bush to set a national limit on emissions that could potentially lead to as much as a 30 percent reductions over the next 15 years.
Investments in the clean tech category are showing signs of strength. In February, the Cleantech Venture Network reported that North American and European venture capital investment in totaled a record US$3.6 billion for 2006. This was a 45 percent increase over 2005 (US$2.5 billion) and double the 2004 investment of US$1.7 billion.
Companies asking to be regulated, hungry investors smelling opportunity, and venture capitalists willing to sink serious money into the arena. Clearly it's time to adopt mandatory cuts and stimulate this investment climate.
11 March 2007
Blogging: Green Skeptic Included in Green Gamma Search Engine
I received word last night that The Green Skeptic is now featured in Green Gamma Search Engine. Here is a bit about them from their web site:
You can check it out at: Green Gamma
Green Gamma is a search engine for green products and information. It is also a sustainable community for green minded people. Welcome!
If you search "Gamma" wave on Wikipedia here's what you'll see:
"A gamma wave is a pattern of brain waves, associated with perception and consciousness" and " Gamma waves are involved in higher mental activity."
There you have the genesis of Green Gamma. Green thinking is perceptive and involves a higher mental activity.
This isn't pompous thinking, it's simply a statement that if you are in Gamma mode, then you are not thinking of self and are conscious of the world around you. That's a good thing!
You can check it out at: Green Gamma
10 March 2007
Social Entrepreneurs: New Updates to Squidoo Changemakers Lens!
I've updated the listings in my Squidoo Changmakers lens for social entrepreneurs, including the new, fabulous Amazon Plexo! Now you can vote for your favorite books on social entrepreneurs, microfinance and more...
Take a look and let me know if there's something I should add: Changemakers on Squidoo
Take a look and let me know if there's something I should add: Changemakers on Squidoo
08 March 2007
Blogging: Environmental Sites Show Incremental Growth, says Compete.com
Andy Kazeniac from Compete.com informed me that they have completed their analysis of environmental websites and blog over the 13 months. Their finding? Although environmental awareness in mainstream media has been increasing over the past year it isn't necessarily translating into exponential growth for our sites.
In January, Compete revealed that "traffic to a few major environmental sites has doubled in the past five years, but the climb was not a steady one," accroding to Andy. "After that post, we received requests to look beyond the 'old school' sites, and that’s exactly what we did."
With the help of The Earth Blog, they compiled a list of 125 relevant environmental sites, including yours truly, and tracked their traffic as a whole over the past thirteen months. What we found was more of the same unsteady growth.
"A 15% growth in aggregate unique visitors over last January is certainly a marked improvement," Andy writes. "But with UV totals for this January just over 3 million for 125 sites, these aren’t Earth-saving numbers."
As one would expect, the release and now the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth generated a spike on the topic of global warming. That said, cautions Kazeniac, "with an increase of less than 400,000 unique visitors, all the fanfare doesn’t seem to be producing a proportional move to action."
One hopeful note, Kazeniac says, is that the "sites appear to be getting stickier: this January saw a 25% growth in sessions and a 59% growth in page views as compared to the same time last year."
Read Andy's post on Compete
In January, Compete revealed that "traffic to a few major environmental sites has doubled in the past five years, but the climb was not a steady one," accroding to Andy. "After that post, we received requests to look beyond the 'old school' sites, and that’s exactly what we did."
With the help of The Earth Blog, they compiled a list of 125 relevant environmental sites, including yours truly, and tracked their traffic as a whole over the past thirteen months. What we found was more of the same unsteady growth.
"A 15% growth in aggregate unique visitors over last January is certainly a marked improvement," Andy writes. "But with UV totals for this January just over 3 million for 125 sites, these aren’t Earth-saving numbers."
As one would expect, the release and now the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth generated a spike on the topic of global warming. That said, cautions Kazeniac, "with an increase of less than 400,000 unique visitors, all the fanfare doesn’t seem to be producing a proportional move to action."
One hopeful note, Kazeniac says, is that the "sites appear to be getting stickier: this January saw a 25% growth in sessions and a 59% growth in page views as compared to the same time last year."
Read Andy's post on Compete
01 March 2007
Global Climate Change: Gore Energy Consumption Flak
Much has been made about the Drudge Report on Monday about Al Gore's energy consumption.
From the report: "Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
"In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average."
Brian Doherty, in Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog, writes
"Is this sort of hypocrisy too cheap to meter, um, to take note of? Mmmaybe....Since [sic] Gore's whole deal is that civilization-saving absolutely and vitally requires an action on everyone's part that he seems to refuse to do himself, it leads one to wonder about how this whole global warming thing is going to play out with the public and with the government. (Unless Gore's house is powered completely or partially off a conventional coal-burning grid, which doesn't seem to be true based on Drudge's piece.)"
Jim Henley comes to Gore's defense (and the defense of Libertarian, free market principles) in Unqualified Offerings,
"Al Gore uses a lot of electricity. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. Libertarians who take anthropogenic global warming seriously - count me among them - generally favor markets in emissions over hard regulatory targets for individual homes and businesses. That way people and companies can decide to conserve or offset or buy unused capacity as they see fit, minimizing emissions while maximizing utility.
"Curiously, the 'free market' think tank that gives us our first link declares that Gore's free choice to use his own money to offset his family's carbon output makes him a 'hypocrite,' since he thinks global warming is bad."
An editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal jumps on Gore, saying that he "is rich and fortunate enough to be able to afford the "carbon offset" for his energy indulgences. The middle-class parents who need a gas-guzzling SUV to haul the kids to soccer practice might not be so lucky. They might even settle for an unheated pool."
WSJ, which also features a good overview of carbon-offset options in its Personal Journal section today, has some nifty jibes, such as this one, which I will quote in full (because it'll cost you to read it online otherwise, even for us subscribers to the print edition):
God, that's brilliant writing. It's one of the things I love about the WSJ. (I wish I had the luxury of anonymity to be so pointed, barbed and tailored!) The truth is we free marketers love the concept of selling carbon credits and buying offsets. Why shouldn't the wealthy have the option to buy off their guilt? That's what surprises me about the WSJ editorial; the pot-shots at Gore are not the issue, it's not taking the concept to heart or the wallet.
Contrast this with apologists, such as David Roberts, who publishes some defensive "Talking points on the Gore pseudo-scandal" in Grist.
But what the detractors and apologists alike seem to be missing is that Gore needs to be leading by example. Buying offsets and contributing to "green electricity" purchases by Nashville Electric Service is not enough for Mr. Global Warming. He needs to walk the talk and do more than offset his carbon.
Having never been to the Gore's Belle Meade home, I don't know whether wind or solar is a better option, but it seems to me that one or both should be installed at his estate. And what about geothermal? Is that an option outside of Nashville?
(WSJ also reports today about entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who have installed converters on exercise equipment to capture the energy units generated. Mr. Gore may want to talk to those fellows. It could have a dual benefit: he can generate energy for his PowerBook, while shedding some of the pounds he's put on eating on the road.)
Not sure what Gore can do about the private jet. I understand that flying in coach or even business class may not be an option for a former veep. But let's see him calculate his miles and buy some credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange!
Perhaps Mr. Gore needs to do a full carbon output analysis and disclose that publicly along with a plan for how he will relieve his carbon footprint. Lead by example, Mr. Gore.
From the report: "Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
"In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average."
Brian Doherty, in Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog, writes
"Is this sort of hypocrisy too cheap to meter, um, to take note of? Mmmaybe....Since [sic] Gore's whole deal is that civilization-saving absolutely and vitally requires an action on everyone's part that he seems to refuse to do himself, it leads one to wonder about how this whole global warming thing is going to play out with the public and with the government. (Unless Gore's house is powered completely or partially off a conventional coal-burning grid, which doesn't seem to be true based on Drudge's piece.)"
Jim Henley comes to Gore's defense (and the defense of Libertarian, free market principles) in Unqualified Offerings,
"Al Gore uses a lot of electricity. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. Libertarians who take anthropogenic global warming seriously - count me among them - generally favor markets in emissions over hard regulatory targets for individual homes and businesses. That way people and companies can decide to conserve or offset or buy unused capacity as they see fit, minimizing emissions while maximizing utility.
"Curiously, the 'free market' think tank that gives us our first link declares that Gore's free choice to use his own money to offset his family's carbon output makes him a 'hypocrite,' since he thinks global warming is bad."
An editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal jumps on Gore, saying that he "is rich and fortunate enough to be able to afford the "carbon offset" for his energy indulgences. The middle-class parents who need a gas-guzzling SUV to haul the kids to soccer practice might not be so lucky. They might even settle for an unheated pool."
WSJ, which also features a good overview of carbon-offset options in its Personal Journal section today, has some nifty jibes, such as this one, which I will quote in full (because it'll cost you to read it online otherwise, even for us subscribers to the print edition):
We don't begrudge Mr. Gore his Tennessee spread or his pool, but his energetic energy use does underscore the complicated nature of modern economic life and the real costs of "doing something" about global warming. The pleasures of affluence take energy, whether they be relaxing in a hot tub after a long day of predicting the end of the Greenland ice sheet, or flying in a private jet to talk political strategy with Leo DiCaprio. You never know where you're going to leave your next carbon footprint.
God, that's brilliant writing. It's one of the things I love about the WSJ. (I wish I had the luxury of anonymity to be so pointed, barbed and tailored!) The truth is we free marketers love the concept of selling carbon credits and buying offsets. Why shouldn't the wealthy have the option to buy off their guilt? That's what surprises me about the WSJ editorial; the pot-shots at Gore are not the issue, it's not taking the concept to heart or the wallet.
Contrast this with apologists, such as David Roberts, who publishes some defensive "Talking points on the Gore pseudo-scandal" in Grist.
*It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.
*The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?
*The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
*Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.
But what the detractors and apologists alike seem to be missing is that Gore needs to be leading by example. Buying offsets and contributing to "green electricity" purchases by Nashville Electric Service is not enough for Mr. Global Warming. He needs to walk the talk and do more than offset his carbon.
Having never been to the Gore's Belle Meade home, I don't know whether wind or solar is a better option, but it seems to me that one or both should be installed at his estate. And what about geothermal? Is that an option outside of Nashville?
(WSJ also reports today about entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who have installed converters on exercise equipment to capture the energy units generated. Mr. Gore may want to talk to those fellows. It could have a dual benefit: he can generate energy for his PowerBook, while shedding some of the pounds he's put on eating on the road.)
Not sure what Gore can do about the private jet. I understand that flying in coach or even business class may not be an option for a former veep. But let's see him calculate his miles and buy some credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange!
Perhaps Mr. Gore needs to do a full carbon output analysis and disclose that publicly along with a plan for how he will relieve his carbon footprint. Lead by example, Mr. Gore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)