In their submission, the environment groups charge that oil extraction processes leach contaminants into both surface and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed. (Photo courtesy of Aude CC-2.0)
You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil:
Transcript
You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil.
Environmental groups say extracting tar sands oil causes a lot of water pollution. Matt Price is with Environmental Defence Canada:
“We keep on presenting the evidence to the government, and they just sort of keep on ignoring it which is why we filed this citizens’ complaint.”
They’ve filed the complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The say oil companies in Canada are not complying with Canadian environmental laws and that might be a violation of the NAFTA treaty. So, his group and others are taking the fight to Canada’s trading partners.
Senator Maria Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. (Photo courtesy of the NREL, Warren Gretz)
A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention:
Transcript
A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention.
Carbon emissions come from smokestacks, tailpipes and all kinds of manufacturing processes. It’s considered the biggest culprit in the greenhouse gas pollution contributing to climate change.
We’ve heard a lot about a possible cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions. The House of Representatives passed a cap and trade bill last summer, but it hasn’t gone far in the Senate. Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, an independent, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican have been working on a bill for months.
But a simple bill called The CLEAR Act introduced last December has been is gaining interest. Senator Maria Cantwell is a Democrat from Washington State. She co-sponsored the bill with Republican Susan Collins of Maine.
Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. That’s why they’re pushing the bill, called cap and dividend:
“We’re saying we think it’s very important to have a simple approach that the American people can understand. a 41-page bill is a lot about getting people to understand how this can work and helping us make a transition.”
Like cap and trade, the CLEAR Act would limit carbon emissions—it would put a cap on them. But it’s different from the complicated cap-and-trade plan that would target those who use energy and allow for many kinds of loopholes.
The Cantwell and Collins cap and dividend plan would concentrate on those who produce energy from fossil fuels. It would cap carbon at the tanker bringing in imported oil, the mine extracting coal, the oil and gas at the well head.
It would charge those energy producers for permits. Each year the number of permits would be reduced, so theoretically, the amount of carbon pollution would be gradually reduced.
Twenty-five percent of the money from the permits would go toward a clean energy fund. The other 75-percent would be paid at a flat rate to each person in the nation to offset higher energy prices.
So, fossil fuel energy would be more expensive, but families would get money to offset the higher costs.
Cantwell says no matter what we do, even if we do nothing, energy costs are going to rise. She says people want to know what to expect in their energy bills.
“What they want to know is how do you make that transition with the least impact to people and that’s what the Clear act is about; it’s about making a stable transition, and helping consumers along the way not get gouged by high energy prices.”
Many economists and environmentalists like the cap and dividend idea.
Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have said they’ll fold some elements of cap and dividend into their massive proposal.
Darren Samuelsohn is the Energy and Environment Reporter for GreenWire. He says the three Senators are taking a comprehensive look at carbon pollution in relation to the entire U.S. energy policy.
“They’ve been meeting as a group of three behind closed doors working to try and satisfy the needs for a price on carbon emissions, across multiple sectors of the economy–power plants, heavy manufacturing and transportation.”
And they’re using bits and pieces of the Cantwell-Collins proposal.
Senators Cantwell and Collins say they don’t want their bill
cannibalized by that large scale bill.
One reason Cantwell is concerned is that the Kerry, Lieberman Graham bill allows trading permits. She says trading hasn’t worked in the European system. And she’s concerned it will make the price of carbon vulnerable to speculators who could drive the prices up artificially.
Instead, she wants carbon prices decided at monthly federal auctions.
Cantwell says the time is right for a simple, predictable bill like the CLEAR Act.
“You don’t have to ahve a 2-thousand page bill and figure out how many allowances you have to give away in the back room to make somebody believe in this. This is a concept the American people can understand and one they can support.”
On Monday, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill is expected to be introduced. The vote will be very close, so they can’t afford to ignore what Senators Cantwell and Collins want.
Darren Samuelsohn says the bill will also include a national renewable electricity standard, requiring more power to come from sources other than fossil fuel such as coal. (Photo courtesy of NREL)
A long-awaited climate change bill in the Senate is to be released next week. A prominent Republican says the bi-partisan bill won’t pass. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A long-awaited climate change bill in the Senate is to be released next week. A prominent Republican says the bi-partisan bill won’t pass. Lester Graham reports.
Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, an independent and Lindsey Graham, a Republican have been working behind closed doors for six months to draft a climate and energy bill. They’re supposed to release it next Monday.
Darren Samuelsohn covers Washington for ClimateWire. He says no one knows everything the bill will include… but some points have been revealed.
Samuelsohn: Price on carbon emissions across multiple sectors of the economy: power plants, heavy manufacturing and transportation and then trying to ramp up a range of domestic energy supplies from nuclear to natural gas to oil.
Samuelsohn says the bill will also include a national renewable electricity standard, requiring more power come from sources other than fossil fuel such as coal.
Samuelsohn speculates this bill could pass in the Senate… but it will require some arm twisting and deal making by President Obama.
The Senate’s chief climate change denier, Republican James Inhofe told Fox News the bill won’t get half the votes it needs to pass.
John Wakeman of SUR Energy says government and utility incentives have lowered the costs of a solar installation for consumers.(Photo courtesy of Mark Brush)
Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:
Transcript
Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:
John Wakeman was laid off from his factory job eight years ago. So, for him it was, “well… Now what?” He’d always been interested in solar panels and wind turbines. So he decided to go into business helping homeowners put these things up. It’s been eight years, business was slow at first, but he says these days, business for solar panels is picking up.
“There are a lot of people that have always just dreamed of it. You know, they thought it was really cool, they looked into it in the ‘70s. In the 70’s it cost, you know, ten times as much for the same energy. The costs have really come down.”
But it’s still really expensive for a lot of people. Wakeman says a typical solar job costs around sixteen thousand dollars these days.
But now – you can get help from the government.
There’s a federal tax credit that will pay for 30% of the cost of new solar panels on your house. So you spend sixteen grand – you get $4,800 off your next tax bill. And on top of that, there are a bunch of state and utility operated programs that will help pay for the up-front costs.
In fact, more than half the states in the country are forcing utilities to make more renewable power.
So more utilities are paying people to install things like solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps.
In many places, it costs less to install these things than it ever has.
Wakeman says these incentives have been good for his business.
“I can actually build a business somewhat on that. I can hire some people and get them trained. You know we can go out and sell some systems.”
But some say these subsidies are not a good idea:
“The sunlight may be free, but solar energy is extremely expensive.”
Robert Bryce analyzes the energy business for the Manhattan Institute. It’s a conservative think tank. Bryce says solar power is enjoying big subsidies from the government right now, but it’s not translating into a lot of power going onto the grid:
“Solar energy received 97 times as much in subsidies per megawatt hour produced as natural gas fired electricity; even though the gas-fired electric sector produced 900 times as much electricity as solar. So how much subsidy are we going to have to give them to make them competitive. And I think the answer is going to be… It’s going to have to be a whole, whole lot.”
Bryce agrees – there are some big environmental costs to traditional fossil fuel sources. Costs that are not always paid for. But in the end – he says renewable energy sources like solar just can’t compete with traditional fossil fuels.
But others say the subsidies for renewable power are boosting an industry that is trying to get a start.
Rhone Resch is the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. He says the subsidies renewables are getting today just make the game fair:
“We’re starting to get the same kinds of support from the federal government that the fossil industry has enjoyed for the last 75 to 100 years. And when you do that, the cost of wind comes down, the cost of solar comes down, the cost of geothermal becomes more cost competitive.”
If you look at the numbers, traditional power sources have always gotten more money from the government. In 2007, the federal government gave out 6.7 billion dollars in subsidies to support electricity production. Most of it went to coal, natural gas, and nuclear.
Today, renewable energy sources, like solar, are getting a little more help. And supporters hope that help doesn’t disappear – like it has in the past – when the political winds change.
Shell says that even though it's no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it's in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.
Transcript
Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.
In the Western US, some energy companies are betting big on oil shale. That’s a process of basically heating up a shale rock into a liquid that’s eventually refined into oil. But the global recession and the threat of climate change might be giving those companies second thoughts. Add to that a increasingly limited water supply, and oil shale looks like a risky investment.
The process of creating oil shale is energy intensive and uses a lot of water. That’s a problem in the arid West. As the population grows, the value of water is increasing.
Royal Dutch Shell has the most invested in developing an oil shale technology that works. So earlier this year when the company announced it was pulling away from water rights, it sent shock waves through the industry.
“I read that decision as Shell’s acknowledgment that oil shale is a long way off and that this was a really controversial filing and that in a sense it’s not worth it.”
That’s Claire Bastable of the Western Energy Project. It’s an environmental group that keeps on eye on energy issues in the West. Shell had been pursuing water rights on the Yampa River, in the Northwest portion Colorado.
“Shell’s decision was a big deal. We’re talking about 15 billion gallons of water. … It would have basically taken the Yampa River, which is one of the the last free flowing rivers in the West and diverted a huge proportion of it to Shell for potential oil shale development.”
Bastable says the 15 billion gallons Shell was seeking is about three times the amount the city of Boulder, Colorado uses in a year.
But, Shell knows a lot of oil can be extracted from the oil shale. It’s estimated that there are 800 billion barrels of usable oil in the shale – in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
Dr. Jeremy Boak researches oil shale development at the Colorado School of Mines. He says Shell could be simply postponing extracting that oil. Boak believes oil shale has a future, but it’s still decades away.
“With all of the comments they’ve made about what the time scale for oil shale, Shell has been pretty comfortable that this is going to take time.”
Shell says that even though it’s no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it’s in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale.
The company wouldn’t provide someone to comment for this story, but in a statement the company said:
The “ultimate goal is to create a commercial oil shale recovery operation that is economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially sustainable.”
That statement adds timing depends on government regulation and the market. The company could be waiting to see what the government does about climate change and how that affects fossil fuel costs. Shell could also be waiting for oil prices go up before deciding whether oil shale worth the effort.
Eric Kuhn heads up water management for the Colorado River District. He monitors much of the state’s water West of the Continental Divide. Kuhn says there’s probably enough water for oil shale development right now, but it’s hard to say for how long.
“I don’t think they’re dropping the filing changes anything. I think those companies are dedicated to and still have a plan to develop the oil shale resource if they can find a technology that is economically productive or if they can produce the oil shale at a competitive price, I think they will do it.”
Environmentalists in the region hope they won’t. They say Shell’s decision not to pursue the water right now should be a signal to others… oil shale just might not be worth the effort.
Representatives from both sides of the aisle are beginning to find some common ground on energy policy.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Members of Congress from fossil fuel states want to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Lester Graham reports
– it’s one of the few bi-partisan efforts in Washington, but it’s not the only one:
Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)
Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:
Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.
Transcript
Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:
John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.
Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”
Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.
So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?
Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.
“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)
Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.
Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.
Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.
“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”
Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.
“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”
But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.
And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.
Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.
“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”
McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.
But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.
That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.
The new, efficient oxygen catalyst in action in Dan Nocera's laboratory at MIT
(Photo courtesy of MIT and NSF)
We hear a lot about the coming
hydrogen economy. Hydrogen has a lot of
promise because it’s a clean burning gas.
But, for the most part, you have to burn
dirtier fossil fuels to make hydrogen.
Scientists can produce hydrogen from water.
But the process is expensive. Julie Grant
reports on new science that has researchers
buzzing:
Transcript
We hear a lot about the coming
hydrogen economy. Hydrogen has a lot of
promise because it’s a clean burning gas.
But, for the most part, you have to burn
dirtier fossil fuels to make hydrogen.
Scientists can produce hydrogen from water.
But the process is expensive. Julie Grant
reports on new science that has researchers
buzzing:
MIT researcher Daniel Nocera has found a cheaper way to get hydrogen
from water molecules. Researchers already have been able to do this – but
only with a precious metal – platinum. It costs nearly $2000 an ounce.
Nocera’s team discovered a material based on cobalt that does the same job.
Cobalt costs more like $2 an ounce.
James McCusker is an expert on solar energy conversion at Michigan State
University. He says the discovery has researchers excited.
“A, it works. But B, it works in such a way that it’s very, very easy to put
together. And it’s made of very inexpensive materials. They’re really
potential game changers in this field.”
McCusker says there’s still a lot of work left before we’re ready for a
hydrogen economy.
The new research was published in the journal Science.
In their submission, the environment groups charge that oil extraction processes leach contaminants into both surface and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed. (Photo courtesy of Aude CC-2.0)
