Cap and Dividend

  • The CLEAR act was designed to avoid a carbon trading platform susceptible to market manipulation and price volatility. (Photo courtesy of FutureAtlas CC-2.0)

A new study looks at how big of a check you might get under a bi-partisan climate change bill. The CLEAR Act (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal) is better known around Washington as the cap-and-dividend plan. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new study looks at how big of a check you might get under a bi-partisan climate change bill. The CLEAR Act (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal) is better known around Washington as the cap-and-dividend plan. Lester Graham reports…

This plan would tax fossil fuels at the source, whether a tanker or foreign oil coming into port or coal coming out of a mine. 25-percent of that money would be used to invest in cleaner alternative energies. The other 75-percent… would be paid at a flat rate to each person in the nation in a monthly check to offset higher energy prices.

James Boyce at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst is one of the authors of the new report. He says for most people that monthly check will more than cover the higher costs of fossil fuels.

“So for the typical family, they’ll be paying more in higher prices on the one hand and they’ll be getting back a dividend check on the other hand.”

Boyce says since people in the highest income brackets tend to use a lot more energy, they’ll actually come up a little short on the deal.

This cap-and-dividend plan also has fewer loopholes to be exploited by special interests.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Billions Down the Yucca Hole

  • Without the Yucca mountain site, companies like Exelon have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks. (Photo courtesy of Lester Graham)

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning:

Transcript

The federal government had one place in mind to store the country’s most hazardous nuclear waste.

It was at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

President Barack Obama recently killed that project, even though the country had spent more than nine billion dollars on it.

Shawn Allee found that figure is just the beginning.

The Yucca Mountain project claimed more money than just the nine billion that’s on the books.

It also tied up cash from electric rate payers, power companies and taxpayers.

Let’s start with the first group – rate payers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to store the radioactive spent fuel left behind in nuclear reactors.

The U-S government charges power companies a fee to cover costs.

Power companies pass it on.

“Everybody in the state of Georgia that uses electricity and pays an electric bill is paying into this Yucca Mountain trust fund.”

This is Bobby Baker.

He’s serves on Georgia’s public service commission.

Baker says now that President Obama took Yucca Mountain off the table, the federal government should return the money.

Georgia’s share of fees and interest is more than one point two billion dollars.

“We were supposed to be shipping our spent nuclear fuel out to yucca mountain back in 1998 they were supposed to be receiving shipments at that time. The only thing that’s been done is the fact that Georgia ratepayers are continuing to pay into that trust fund and getting nothing from that trust fund other than a big hole in Nevada.”

So far, the federal government’s collected a total of 31 billion dollars in fees and interest for the nuclear waste fund.

The next group who paid extra for Yucca – power companies.

CHA-CHING

By law, the federal government’s supposed to take away radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants.

But without Yucca, it stays put.

John Rowe is CEO of Exelon, the country’s biggest nuclear power company.

Last hear he complained to the National Press Club.

“My mother used to say, somebody lies to you once that’s his fault … lies to you twice and you believe it, that’s your fault. I don’t know what she would have thought about somebody lying to you for fifty years.”

Rowe is especially mad because his company and others like it have to pay extra to safely store spent fuel in pools or in concrete casks.

They sue the federal government to recover costs.

The US Government Accountability Office figures the government will lose these lawsuits and owe power companies twelve point three billion dollars within a decade.

The last group that paid extra for Yucca – taxpayers.

CHA-CHING

Yucca Mountain was supposed to handle nuclear spent fuel from civilian power reactors, but it was also supposed to handle decades-worth of the military’s radioactive waste.

That includes waste from former weapons sites, like Hanford in Washington state.

Washington’s Senator Patty Murray brought it up in a recent hearing.

Here, she’s looking straight at Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

“Congress, independent studies, previous administrations pointed to, voted for and funded yucca Mountain as the best option as the nuclear repository.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government chipped in at least three point four billion dollars to cover military costs at Yucca Mountain.

But the tab’s bigger than that.

Murray says without Yucca, Hanford has to store its waste on-site. it’s not cheap.

“Billions of dollars have been spent at Hanford and sites across the country in an effort to treat and package nuclear waste that will be sent there.”

The Obama administration’s getting complaints from states and industry and taxpayer groups.

The Administration hasn’t responded publicly, but Energy Secretary Steven Chu mentioned the financial fallout from Yucca Mountain during a U-S Senate hearing.

He said the administration’s convinced Yucca Mountain just won’t work …

So, no matter how much money people have paid so far, it makes no sense to send good money after bad.

He didn’t mention paying any money back.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Burying Radioactive Waste (Part 1)

  • Waiting for new waste solutions, power plants across the country are still stacking spent fuel in concrete casks like this one at the Yucca Mountain site. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country. For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan. Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now:

Transcript

Hazardous radioactive waste is building up at nuclear power plants across the country.

For decades, the U-S government’s only plan was to stick that waste out of sight and out of mind … far below Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Recently, President Barack Obama scrapped that plan.

Shawn Allee looks at where the President wants to go now.

The old nuclear waste plan was simple: take spent fuel leftover from nuclear reactors and bury it under Yucca Mountain.

That would have moved the problem away from nuclear power plants and people who live nearby.

The Obama Administration cut the program but only said, the program “has not proven effective.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu tried explaining that to the U-S Senate.

“I don’t believe one can say, scientists are willing to say Yucca Mountain is the ideal site, given what we know today and given what we believe can be developed in the next 50 years.”

So … Obama’s administration is switching gears, and government scientists have to adjust.

“I worked at Yucca Mountain for ten years.”

Mark Peters is a deputy director at Argonne National Laboratory west of Chicago.

“I ran the testing program, so I got intimate involvement in Yucca Mountain. The license application has pieces of me all through it.”

Peters says he’s disappointed Yucca Mountain was killed.

But he says that’s a personal opinion – he’s on board with the new policy.

In fact … he’s helping it along.

Obama created a blue-ribbon commissison.

Commissioners will come up with new solutions for nuclear waste within two years.

Peters will tell them about new technology.

“There are advanced reactor concepts that could in fact do more effective burning of the fuel, so the spent fuel’s not so toxic when the fuel comes out.”

Peters says these “fast breeder reactors” might not just produce less nuclear waste.

They might use the old stuff that was supposed to head to Yucca.

“You extract the usable content, make a new fuel and burn it in a reactor, so you actually get to the point where you’re recycling the uranium and plutonium and other elements people’ve heard about.”

But Obama’s blue – ribbon nuclear waste commission could find problems with fast-breeder technology.

In the 1970s, we ran a commercial prototype, but it didn’t work very long.

Peters says new versions might be decades away.

There’s another problem, too.

“One important point is that there’s still waste from that process. So we have to go back to ultimately, some kind of geologic repository for part of the system.”

In other words … we’d have less waste, but we’d still have to bury it … somewhere.

History suggests there’s gonna be a squabble over any location.

After all, Yucca Mountain wasn’t the government’s first stab at an underground nuclear waste site.

“It had an embarassing failure in Lyons, Kansas between 1970 and 1972.”

That’s Sam Walker, a historian at the U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He’s talking about the old Atomic Energy Commission, or AEC.

The AEC pushed hard to bury nuclear waste in a salt mine, even though scientists in Kansas had doubts.

“And then it turned out that the salt mine they had planned to place the waste in was not technically suitable either. So, what the AEC did was to lose its battle on both political and technical grounds.”

Walker says for 15 years, the government scouted for another location to dump hazardous nuclear waste.

“There was lots of vocal public opposition to even investigating sites.”

Eventually, the debate got too hot.

Congress settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, even though scientists debated whether it’d work.

Congress kept Yucca Mountain going because it promised to keep nuclear waste out of everyone’s back yards … except for Nevada’s.

Now with Yucca Mountain out of the picture, it could take years for Obama’s administration to settle on a way to handle nuclear waste.

In the mean time, power plants across the country are stacking spent fuel in pools of water or in concrete casks.

For decades the federal government said this local storage is both safe and temporary.

It still says it’s safe, but now, no one’s sure what temporary really means.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: The White House’s Science Guy

  • Holdren was previously the Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (Photo courtesy of the National Academy of Sciences)

President Obama’s Science and Technology advisor is John P. Holdren. He is the “science guy” in the White House. Lester Graham talked to him about science and climate change. Here’s an excerpt of that conversation:

Transcript

Graham: Different polls have shown the general public is becoming increasingly skeptical about whether climate change is real and whether burning fossil fuels is contributing to it, ignoring that the bulk of science says climate change is solid and if anything indicates that climate change is happening faster than first predicted. What can be done about that?

Holdren: Well I think scientists have to get better at telling the story about what we know about climate change and what that knowledge is based on. In other words, what we know and how we know it. Willingness to get out there and slug it out in the arena of public debate and dispute is not universal in the scientific community, and we have to live with that, but scientists who’ve been willing to do that have done a service. It’s unfortunate that they occasionally get castigated for speaking their minds freely and candidly in public, but that’s part of being, in a sense, a public scientist—of working on scientific issues that have major ramifications for public policy and being willing to talk about it.

Graham: President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics. He wanted guidelines in four months from taking office. We recently reported it’s been more than a year now, and still, no guidelines. The Union of Concerned Scientists says the president should finish explicit written policies on things like protecting scientists who become whistle-blowers. When we did the story, we contacted your office, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and we didn’t get any comment. Would you care to comment about that now?

Holdren: Sure, when the president issued his memorandum on scientific integrity on march 9th of last year, he actually enunciated at that time a set of principles, and those principles are already a solid basis for ensuring scientific integrity. What has not been forthcoming yet from my office, and for that I take responsibility, is a set of more detailed recommendations about how to proceed in some of the difficult questions that come up. Like the need of an agency to be sure that it is relying on the best peer-reviewed science, and the desire of every scientist in the agency to be able to express his or her own opinion. There are real tensions there. That has proven to be a more difficult task than I or the president realized at the time he issued the deadline for completing those, and the result is we missed a deadline, but we will be coming out soon with those additional guidelines.

Graham: How soon?

Holdren: I would guess in the next couple of months.

Graham: On energy policy, environmentalists are disappointed the Obama administration is encouraging the idea of clean coal technology, and a new generation of nuclear power. I’m not saying you’re not spending more on solar and wind, but I’m asking why not take all those dollars from clean coal technology and nuclear, and put it all into these green renewable that the environmentalists like.

Holdren: I think we need a diversity of options for addressing the energy challenges we face. You never want to put all of your eggs in one, or only a few, baskets. Today in this country we get 50% of our electricity by burning coal, we’re going to continue to do that for some time to come. It is, therefore, appropriate and necessary that we improve the technologies with which we burn coal in order to substantially reduce the environmental harm that comes from that. We get 20% of our electricity in this country from nuclear energy, and it’s one of the ways that we can get electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. There is no free lunch; that doesn’t mean we should do nothing, we should be working to improve all of these technologies, and then use the mix that makes the best sense in terms of all of the relevant characteristics—the economic ones, the environmental ones, the social ones.

Graham: John P Holdren is President Obama’s science and technology adviser, and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Thanks for the time.

Holdren: Thanks very much.

Related Links

Biomass Power’s Footprint (Part 2)

  • The future site of Russell Biomass Power Plant is already used as storage space for chips that are sold to another biomass operation.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)

Biomass power is the new-fangled alternative energy source that uses a pretty old technology: basically, you just burn plants, usually wood, for electrical power.

Many states are looking into biomass power because they have plenty of wood and sometimes wind or solar farms meet resistance from neighbors.

For a while, Massachussetts looked like it would give biomass power a big boost.
Shawn Allee found the state could change its mind:

Transcript

Biomass power is the new-fangled alternative energy source that uses a pretty old technology: basically, you just burn plants, usually wood, for electrical power.

Many states are looking into biomass power because they have plenty of wood and sometimes wind or solar farms meet resistance from neighbors.

For a while, Massachussetts looked like it would give biomass power a big boost.
Shawn Allee found the state could change its mind.

A guy named John Bos gives me a tour of an old lumber mill.

It’s in Western Massachussetts, in a town called Russell.
The mill’s almost in ruins.

“So you can see this … it looks like movie set out of a bad , bad-guy movie.”

“Definitely. Watch your footing there .. ”

This factory used to turn wood into lumber, charcoal and paper.

Bos’ brother and other investors want to give the place a new life … but wood will still play a key role.

“We are walking into the site of what will be Russell Biomass.”

The Russell biomass plant would be a power station that burns wood to generate electricity.

It’d burn through half a million tons of wood each year.

And if you think that’s a lot of trees going up in smoke, Bos says the plant will use mostly waste wood.

“Our wood will come from discarded pallets, stump removal from development. Road side trimming. Every year there’s road-side trimming to keep utility lines clear. There’s a lot of waste wood out there.”

This is controversial talk in Western Massachussetts.

Critics of biomass power don’t trust the idea that local supplies of “waste wood” will hold out since investors are planning five biomass power plants.

Chris Matera is one critic.
Matera shows me what he fears could happen if projects like Russell Biomass come through.

He takes me to forest that surrounds a long, thin reservoir.

The forest filters rainwater and keeps the reservoir clean and clear.
The reservoir happens to supply water to the Boston metro area.
Anyway, Matera shows me there’s logging here.

“We’re looking at big stumps and rutted out muddy areas on a steep slope that actually dr ain into the watershed eventually. It’s not gonna help the water quality. This is a place you’re not even allowed to cross-country ski to protect the watershed. A lot of places you’re not even allowed to hike.”

These trees were NOT cut for biomass power, but Matera fears new biomass plants will use up cheap waste wood …
Then, they’d resort to logging like this to keep producing electricity.
And the water quality in reservoirs, streams and rivers would suffer.

There’s been plenty of heat between biomass proponents and their critics.

One sticking point is whether Massachussetts should subsidize biomass power in the same way it does other renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

The state hired an outside consulting group called Manomet to help it decide.

“We’ve been asked by the state of Massachusetts to answer some basic fundamental questions about woody biomass energy.”

John Hagan is Manomet’s president.
Hagan’s supposed to answer whether there’s enough waste wood or any kind of wood to supply biomass plants planned for Massachussetts.

He says his group’s not entirely finished, but …

“I think if four, fifty megawatt plants went in, they’d almost certainly have to pull wood from beyond the boundaries of the State of Massachusetts.”

Hagan says this doesn’t necessarily mean forests in the state will suffer … his group’s not finished with its report, after all.

But he thinks it’s good Massaschussetts is questioning whether biomass deserves extra financial help.

Hagan says states are subsidizing biomass without thinking through all the effects … not just on local jobs … but also forests, and local air and water pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Governors Push for Renewable Energy

  • According to the governors' report more uniform standards would increase demand for wind, whose manufacturing base in the Midwest is growing. (Photo courtesy of US DOE)

Governors across the nation want more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass. Lester Graham reports… they’re calling on Congress to make it happen.

Transcript

Governors across the nation want more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass. Lester Graham reports… they’re calling on Congress to make it happen.

The Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition is 29 governors –Republicans and Democrats who want Congress to establish a renewable energy standard. They’d like to see 10-percent of all electricity come from renewables by 2012. By 2025, they want 25-percent. And they want a new interstate electric transmission system built to get wind power from isolated areas to the cities that need the power.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver chairs the coalition.

“If Congress fails to pass a strong national goal on renewable energy and transmission upgrades, the continued uncertainty will cause the nation to potentially surrender wind manufacturing to other countries.”

And Governor Culver says with that wind manufacturing would go the potential jobs the U.S. needs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

From Health Care to Climate

  • Congressional leaders are beginning to start thinking about a climate bill again.

Health care legislation has finally started
moving forward in Congress. Shawn Allee reports
the US Senate can now devote some attention to
its unfinished work on climate change:

Transcript

Health care legislation has finally started moving forward in Congress.

Shawn Allee reports the US Senate can now devote some attention to its unfinished work on climate change:

The climate-change bill got a cold reception last year, but Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman say they’re making headway lately.

Margaret Kriz Hobson tracks climate legislation for the National Journal.
She says the Senate got stuck negotiating a complex carbon trading scheme.
That would have required most industries to trade carbon pollution credits.

Kriz Hobson says the three senators are now focusing mostly on power companies.

“A lot more people are letting them in the door because the proposal that they’re bringing forward would include some benefits for nuclear power, oil drilling in the United States and for more modern technologies for capture and sequestration.”

That last technology would basically bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

That could save money and jobs in states that burn or mine coal.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Guns in National Parks

  • Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

The new policy means a reversal for the nation’s 392 National Park sites. Firearms have been prohibited in the parks.

But now….

Whatever law you were under in that state outside of the park now applies in the national park unit.

That’s National Park Service spokesman David Barna. He says that means that parks everywhere except Illinois and Washington DC will allow firearms.

But different states have different laws about the specifics – for example, whether you can conceal your weapon or not.

Barna says that could get complicated.

Appalachian Trail passes over 14 states. Yellowstone National Park is in 3 states. And the burden is going to be on the public to know those various laws.

Barna says the Park Service will help gun owners out with website updates and postings in park facilities.

But he says they can’t put up notices every time a park trail crosses a state line.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Hawaii Picks Up Pricing Model

  • Hawaii has the highest energy prices in the nation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Some states have been looking at
new ways to get more renewable energy
on the grid. This year, California,
Vermont, and now Hawaii implemented
a German-style pricing model that pays
people for the green electricity they
generate. Ben Markus reports:

Transcript

Some states have been looking at
new ways to get more renewable energy
on the grid. This year, California,
Vermont, and now Hawaii implemented
a German-style pricing model that pays
people for the green electricity they
generate. Ben Markus reports:

Hawaii imports fossil fuels – namely oil – to meet 90% of its energy needs –
including electricity.

“We’ve been saying for decades that this is foolish, and yet we haven’t changed. Well, now we’re
changing.”

Ted Peck is the state’s Energy Administrator. He says recent approval of
the new pricing model will help spark that change.

It offers a premium price for renewables. That makes it easier for solar and
wind companies to secure financing because they know what they’ll be
paid.

Mark Duda is president of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. He says
it’s not as wide-open as the German model, but it will make a difference.

“Many of the key design elements went in the direction that the solar industry wanted, and so we’re
definitely pleased with that.”

The big sticking point is setting what will be paid for renewables. And some
are worried about how this will affect ratepayers.

Hawaii already has the highest energy prices in the nation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ben Markus.

Related Links

Germany Sets Energy Example

  • Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay homeowners more for creating green energy. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Many European countries are taking
climate change seriously. Since
1990, Germany has slashed their carbon
emissions nearly 23%, emerging
as a leader in green energy. Conrad
Wilson explains the country’s transformation
to an alternative energy leader:

Transcript

Many European countries are taking
climate change seriously. Since
1990, Germany has slashed their carbon
emissions nearly 23%, emerging
as a leader in green energy. Conrad
Wilson explains the country’s transformation
to an alternative energy leader:

Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay
homeowners more for creating green energy. Today that includes wind and
geothermal, but the big winner is solar.

Dr. Silke Karcher is a scientist at the German Ministry of Environment in Berlin.
She says the solar industry is growing, despite the lack of sun.

“One of the instruments, one of the legal instruments that we would really like to
export that has really been successful is the way that we’re supporting renewable
energies and electricity. We have a so-called ‘feed in tariff law,’ which mean that
wherever in Germany you produce renewable energy, you can feed it into the
grid and you get a specific price.”

And that policy has put Germany way ahead to the US. Even with all the rebates
and other recent incentives in the nation’s most pioneering green tech states, it
takes longer for homeowners in the US to pay off an investment in a solar array.

“What Germany does is that they say we’ll pay x amount of euros for every
kilowatt produced, period.”

That’s Jim Rarus, principal of InPower. It’s a Colorado-based solar installation
company. Rarus says rather than comparing renewable fuels to less expensive
fossil fuels, Germany accounts for the costs of pollution.

“They don’t compare certain technologies like solar, which obviously have a
higher cost basis, to other technologies like coal and natural gas, which have a
lower costs basis. So they’re paying a price that reflects the fact that it’s a little
more expensive to build a solar plant and allows the people that put it in to either
get their money back or to make a reasonable return.”

For homeowners investing in solar arrays in the US, the process can be
unpredictable and even frustrating. Johnny Weiss is executive director of Solar
Energy International. It’s a Colorado based nonprofit that trains people for
careers in the solar industry. He says the incentive system in the US is too
complex.

“Over here, it’s different and a more complicated system. We all have states that
are free to do their own incentive programs. We have incentives at the national
level. We have incentives at the local level. But the result is that it’s a bit
overwhelming for not just solar professionals, but the public as well. And it’s not a
consistent thing people can count on.”

Some communities in the US are trying out the European model. But the limited
government support in the US has driven competition as solar companies try to
make the energy source affordable. That’s something some fear isn’t happening
anymore in Germany.

Dr. Kurt Christian Scheel heads up the Department of Climate and Sustainable
Development for the German private industry association. Scheel worries that
government incentives have stifled innovation.

“I mean, let’s put it this way. Whoever produces solar panels in Germany has a
safe earning and no motivation in anyway to, and not enough competition to,
innovate and to make things better.”

But even if in the long-term some feel a feed-in tariff slows innovation and
growth, it’s proven that in a short period of time it can drive energy consumers to
become producers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links