Energy Bill to Include Boost for Biomass?

  • Biomass is catch-all term for technology that turns things like wood chips into energy or heat. (Photo by Susan Mittleman)

Congress could wrap up a huge energy bill by this fall.
It could include a minimum renewable energy standard for
utilities. That’d mean more wind and solar-generated power.
Shawn Allee reports biomass could get a boost, too:

Transcript

Congress could wrap up a huge energy bill by this fall.
It could include a minimum renewable energy standard for
utilities. That’d mean more wind and solar-generated power.
Shawn Allee reports biomass could get a boost, too:

Biomass is catch-all term for technology that turns grass, wood chips, or even algae into energy or heat.

It’s usually ignored in political discussions, but Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders brought it up in a recent hearing.

He says he was inspired by a power plant he saw at Middlebury College.

“I went to a plant they have on campus which is using wood chips replacing oil they are saving $700,000 a year and creating local jobs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

Congress is considering what kind of plants and agricultural waste might qualify as “renewable biomass energy.”

Some energy analysts say some plants shouldn’t be included, since it could take too much energy collect and transport them.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

T. Boone Pickens Weighs in on Energy

  • Michigan Gonvenor Jennifer Granholm and T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman, BP Capital Management, shaire their alternative energy solutions at the Detroit Regional Chamber 2009 Mackinac Policy Conference (Photo courtesy of the Mackinac Policy Conference)

A Texas oil tycoon is trying to get America off of foreign oil. T. Boone Pickens has spent the last year and nearly 60-million dollars promoting his plan to use only US sources of energy. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A Texas oil tycoon is trying to get America off of foreign oil. T. Boone Pickens has spent the last year and nearly 60-million dollars promoting his plan to use only US sources of energy. Rebecca Williams reports:

T. Boone Pickens says he’s all for domestic oil drilling, solar, nuclear, coal – especially wind and natural gas. But anything, as long as it comes from the USA.

“I’m for anything that’s American. Anything that’s American. (applause) But we have to get off oil from the enemy.”

And he said he used to be an outspoken critic of ethanol. But not anymore.

“It is American. Is it a good fuel? It’s an ugly baby is what it is. But it’s our ugly baby.” (laughter)

He says Members of Congress tell him, whether it’s a good fuel or not, farm states want it.

He readily admits his plan would help him make some money. But he says he also wants the U.S. to get away from foreign imports for the sake of national security and the health of the economy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Coal: Dirty Past, Hazy Future (Part 2)

  • The coal industry hopes the federal government will help them find a way to catch and store the carbon coming from smokestacks.

The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:

Transcript

The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:

The last time the federal government put a price on coal pollution was in 1990.

Power plants had to start paying for sulphur dioxide that came out of smoke stacks and caused acid rain.

To clean up, many burned cleaner coal.

That was bad news for Illinois miner Chris Nielsen.

He happened to mine some of the dirtiest coal.

“A good portion of the economy around here was built on coal industry. And coal mining jobs not only paid a good wage, they had terrific benefits. And as the industry went soft, people lost the best jobs they ever had.”

Cleanup technology improved, but it took nearly two decades to make burning the highest-sulpher coal economical again.

Nielsen says today, coal executives worry they’ll lose profits if the government prices carbon dioxide.

And coal miners worry they’ll lose jobs again.

The industry wants new plants that do two things: first, they capture carbon dioxide while burning coal, and then bury, or sequester this carbon dioxide – so it stays out of the atmosphere.

Nielsen says there’s a plant like that in the works, it’s called FutureGen.

“We can burn the coal in a clean, environmentally friendly manner. The FutureGen project where they were going to sequester the carbon dioxide was a terrific opportunity to show that.”

Well, Nielsen’s jumping the gun.

FutureGen hasn’t proved anything; it’s not even built.

The coal industry and the government were supposed to design and fund FutureGen, then build it in Central Illinois.

The government and coal companies fought over how much the plant would cost but now, it’s likely to move forward.

Even with a sketchy history though, the industry’s got almost no choice but to be hopeful for FutureGen.

The industry wants carbon dioxide capture and sequestration to work – otherwise, it’s gonna pay big for carbon pollution.

Not everyone’s so confident in the technology.

“We can not depend on carbon capture and sequestration to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions because we don’t know whether it’s going to work.”

That’s Ron Burke, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

He says FutureGen is worth testing but it shouldn’t distract us from technology we know is low-carbon.

“There are ways to meet the greenhouse gas reductions targets that we need to meet without carbon capture and sequestration. We can do it, it’s primarily through in investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the near term.”

There’re energy researchers who aren’t so sure enough renewable energy like wind and solar will be available soon enough.

One is of them is Ernest Moniz at MIT.

“We have a ways to go for let’s say, solar, to scale up. Right now, it’s less than point 1% of our electricity.”

Coal generates nearly half our electricity.

Moniz says it won’t be easy to replace, but it might be possible to improve it.

He says its likely carbon dioxide capture and sequestration can work technically.

But he says we need to build FutureGen to answer whether it works efficiently and economically.

“Well, if we are going to establish a new technology, like sequestration, and be able to have it not only demonstrated but then deployed and implemented, that means we would need to start, preferably yesterday, but at worst, today.”

For Moniz, FutureGen could be clean coal’s first major test – not just of whether it works – but whether it’s too expensive.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Obama: Tar Sands Oil Will Work

President Obama indicates a willingness to continue to import Canada’s dirtiest source of oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists don’t like it:

Transcript

President Obama indicates a willingness to continue to import Canada’s dirtiest source of oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists don’t like it:

The United States gets about 20% of its imported oil from Canada. Half of that comes from tar sands in Alberta.

It takes two-tons of the asphalt-like substance to produce one barrel of oil.

Refineries in several states are expanding facilities to process the dirtier oil.

Henry Henderson is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

He says takes a lot more energy to extract, transport and refine tar sands oil. That means a lot more greenhouse gases.

“At least three times what conventional oil involves. That brings with it a significant threat and impact on our national security in terms of changing global climate in a way that is a threat to us.”

Despite the environmentalists’ concerns, President Obama says the U.S. will work with Canada to use the tar sands oil reserves.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Bush and Greenhouse Gas

  • President Bush giving the State of the Union address (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

President George Bush is proposing the next
step for the country to deal with greenhouse emissions
contributing to climate change. Lester Graham reports
the President’s proposal is not popular with everyone:

Transcript

President George Bush is proposing the next
step for the country to deal with greenhouse emissions
contributing to climate change. Lester Graham reports
the President’s proposal is not popular with everyone:

President Bush says he’s following his plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions that he first outlined in 2002.

“I put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our
greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002 I announced our first step: to reduce America’s
greenhouse gas intensity by 18% through 2012.”

That’s not an 18% reduction in greenhouse gases, but rather a slowing in growth of the
gases. President Bush says it’s time to look at the next step.

“Today I’m announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025.”

The President says some of the steps to get to that point are already in place: a
phased in new mileage standard for vehicles; increased use of renewable fuels such as
cellulosic ethanol, wind, and solar; nuclear, and clean coal power generation; and more
efficient appliances.

Some environmentalists say this move is a non-starter. Eileen Claussen is the
President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

“You could say ‘More of the same.’ Or, you could say that it’s worse because actually his
proposal is to let emissions grow for another 17 years.”

Claussen says greenhouse gas restrictions need to be put in place much sooner.

While the environmentalists think the President’s proposal is weak and offers few
specifics, conservatives think the President is reversing his course and headed for
economic trouble.

The conservative think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute says this move will
destroy President Bush’s legacy.

Marlo Lewis is a Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He says
capping CO2 won’t do enough to stop or even slow global warming and it will end up
being disastrous for the economy.

“It’s all cost for no benefit.”

Lewis expects a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse emissions will be put in place if
the President continues down this path. Lewis says if that happens, quote, “climate change alarmists” will never let it stop.

“Until basically you’re trying to run your economy on wind turbines and solar panels
which simply would not work.”

He says if the environmentalists want a future without fossil fuels and their accompanying
greenhouse gases, the country will need to dam up rivers for hydro-power and build a
bunch of new nuclear power plants.

With only nine months left in President Bush’s final term in office, the President’s
proposals might not mean that much. Eileen Claussen with the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change believes other politicians are well ahead of the President on the issue.

“The good news is that I’m not sure that his strategy here is really relevant. We have a
Congress that is working hard to come up with a bill that would cap emissions. We
have governors in 23 states who are working on cap-and-trade programs to limit their
emissions. We’ve got three presidential candidates – all three – who support capping
emissions.”

President Bush announced his plan to deal with greenhouse gases in preparation for
the G-8 summit of industrialized nations this summer. The President says, there, they plan to come up with
a plan that will call for rapidly developing nations such as China and India to make the
same kind of restrictions as the U.S. so that the United States is not at an economic
disadvantage.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Chemical Companies Could Be Safer

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A House committee last year passed a plan to require industries to replace dangerous chemicals
with less toxic alternatives whenever feasible. The US Public Interest Research Group is among
the environmental organizations urging this year’s Congress to revive the measure.


Spokesman Bruce Speight argues the companies, and consumers, would not face sticker shock
when adopting greener chemicals and processes:


“No, in fact, over the long term they could actually save the facilities money and, you know, of course in the event of something happening, the cost to these facilities is great.”


When Speight says something happening he means an accident or terrorist attack at a site that
uses dangerous chemicals. Thousands of people could be hurt in such an incident. But the
chemical industry says many firms are already switching to less toxic substances, and don’t need
the federal government to push them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Report: Toxic Chemicals Inside Cars

A new study by an environmental group says there are high
concentrations of toxic chemicals called PBDE’s and phthalates inside many cars. The Ecology Center is calling for the chemicals to be phased out. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy
Samilton reports:

Transcript

A new study by an environmental group says there are high
concentrations of toxic chemicals called PBDEs and phthalates inside
many cars. The Ecology Center is calling for the chemicals to be phased
out. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:


PBDEs are used as flame retardants in auto parts, and phthalates make
plastic parts more flexible. The study found that the heat that builds up
inside a car in the sun causes the chemicals to be released, which
increases exposure to humans.


Jeff Gearhart of the Ecology Center says there are plenty of safer
alternatives and the auto industry should use them. He says there are not
many studies on the effect of the chemicals on humans, but animal
studies show that they hurt reproduction and brain development.


“We should take a precautionary approach and we think that’s the
type of approach that many people take in their own lives.”


A spokesperson for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says
flame retardant PBDEs make cars safer for people in the event of a fire,
and that PBDEs and phthalates are both safe.


For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

The Cost of Ending Ocean Shipping on the Great Lakes

For years, many environmentalists have wanted to stop ocean-going ship traffic on the Great Lakes. That’s because vessels traveling from the ocean to the Lakes sometimes carry invasive species. But opponents call the industry a vital part of the economy. A new study paid for by the Joyce Foundation questions how vital that industry really is. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

For years, many environmentalists have wanted to stop ocean-going ship
traffic on the Great Lakes. That’s because vessels traveling from the
ocean to the Lakes sometimes carry invasive species, but opponents call
the industry a vital part of the economy. A new study paid for by the
Joyce Foundation questions how vital that industry really is. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


The study tackled this question:


How much would it hurt the economy if we end ocean shipping on the
Great Lakes?


The report suggests transportation prices would rise about fifty-five
million dollars per year.


Co-author James Roach says ending ocean ship traffic will cost money,
but keeping it could cost more.


“One has to look at that in terms of, for example, the costs of invasives.
You know, and if that’s 3, 4, or 5 hundred million dollars a year, then
policy makers are gonna have to take that into consideration.”


Independent transportation experts who’ve read the study question some
of its methodology.


For example, it assumes prices for alternatives, such as rail, would
remain constant, but some experts say it’s possible those costs would rise,
making the transition away from ocean shipping more expensive.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.


“Host Tag: In the interest of full disclosure, the Joyce Foundation also
provides funding to the GLRC.”

Related Links

Methyl Bromide Use to Increase

Starting January first, the U.S. will let farms and certain
other businesses use more of the pesticide methyl bromide. But
environmentalists may go to court over the issue. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Starting January 1st, the U.S. will let farms and certain other businesses use more
of the pesticide
methyl bromide. But environmentalists may go to court on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Methyl bromide is used to sterilize soil before planting and to fight invasive
insects that come
into the U.S. on wooden pallets. But scientists say emissions of methyl bromide
harm the ozone
layer. In the 1980s, the U.S. agreed to phase out use of the compound, except for
critical cases
where there are no feasible alternatives.


Methyl bromide use is only a third of what it was in 1991. But the Bush
administration wants to
let that figure rise to 37 percent this coming year. David Doniger is with the
Natural Resources
Defense Council. He says he doubts whether more methyl bromide is needed.


“The problem is the critical use exemptions have mushroomed… way out of control.
So we’re
going backwards.”


The U.S. has agreed to reduce use of methyl bromide in 2006… but critics say that
promise may not be kept. The NRDC says it’s likely to challenge the 2005 plan in
court. An
Indiana company is one of the nation’s largest suppliers of methyl bromide.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Group Calls for U.S. Ban on Lindane Use

  • (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)

An environmental group is calling for the United States to ban a pesticide used to treat head lice. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is calling for the United States to ban a pesticide used
to treat head lice. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:


Lindane is most commonly used as a pesticide for corn, wheat, and other grains.
It’s also used as a medication to kill lice and scabies. But the Food and Drug
Administration warns that lindane should only be used when all other treatment
options are exhausted. That’s because the FDA has found that in very isolated
cases, lindane can cause seizures or even death.


Kristin Schafer is the Program Coordinator for the Pesticide Action Network. The
group is seeking a ban on lindane in the United States.


“This is the type of chemical that there’s no reason not to get it off the market.
It’s dangerous, it builds up in our bodies. It’s particularly dangerous to children
and there are alternatives for all uses.”


Schafer says 52 countries and the state of California have already banned lindane.
Canada plans to eliminate agricultural uses of lindane by the end of the year.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.

Related Links